Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

Note that most of the atheists here are willing to accept that they could be wrong in their beliefs - why not you?

Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.

There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.
I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.

You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.

Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.

[Shaker]

I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs [...] You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians.

But not you. Why not?

I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right

1. Doesn't everybody hold beliefs that they think are probably right? "I believe X but I'm wrong to do so" is not often heard. (Note I don't mean "I believe X but I may be wrong about X", which is a different thing altogether).

2. You criticise atheists for thinking their stance is probably right yet by your own admission you do not even allow for the possibility of being wrong. Who stacks up better in the open-mindedness stakes here?

[ProfessorDavey]

Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.

So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else. Remember all sorts of people have the strongest of personal experiences that they ascribe to something, that doesn't mean they might not be mistaken in their assumption.

It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But not you. Why not?

I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience. I cannot occupy in good conscience, occupy the Atheist position.......therefore, where does that leave me, Shaker me lad?

[Shaker]

I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience. I cannot occupy in good conscience, occupy the Atheist position.......therefore, where does that leave me, Shaker me lad?

Prof. Diddy has just nailed it:

So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else [...] It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.

[ProfessorDavey]

I cannot any longer occupy the agnostic position in good conscience.

Which means that you know god exists - evidence please. Or are you confusing strong belief with knowledge - they aren't the same, you do understand that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof. Diddy has just nailed it:

Considering Bluehillside is on the list of people you think have nailed it that isn't much of a recommendation.

[Shaker]

Considering Bluehillside is on the list of people you think have nailed it that isn't much of a recommendation.

Actually it very much is a recommendation - bluey and the Prof are two of the best and clearest writers to grace R & E (Ranting & Earache).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you are not willing to accept the possibility that your personal experience was not actually god but something else. Remember all sorts of people have the strongest of personal experiences that they ascribe to something, that doesn't mean they might not be mistaken in their assumption.

It seems a tad arrogant not to accept that you might be mistaken in ascribing your personal experience necessarily to god actually existing.

You keep appealing to the experience of others but we are talking here about NOT experiencing......just like we are talking about not believing.

How does the religious experience of others help an atheist or an agnostic?

[Shaker]

You keep appealing to the experience of others but we are talking here about NOT experiencing......

You were very much talking about experiencing, weren't you? "I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which means that you know god exists - evidence please. Or are you confusing strong belief with knowledge - they aren't the same, you do understand that.

That depends on what you mean by knowledge. Do you mean knowledge is that which can be demonstrated?

[Gordon]

Because I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc.

So you say: is there the possibility that you are mistaken?

There is no experience in atheism but a non experience.

Rather clunky, even for you Vlad. I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline). However, you are suggesting here that I have had a non-experience of something that isn't definable on the same basis as sky-diving: a non-experience of nothing, if you will, which is ridiculous.

I'm sure you could find a Christian who would accept they could be wrong in their beliefs.

No doubt: but so what?

You also invoke the idea most atheists willing to accept they are wrong. I'm sure that is true of some Christians. I think the virtuous ''I could be wrong position'' though to be exaggerated since most atheists here think they are probably right and I recall frequent appeals to the idea that converts to religion cannot have been true atheists.

Acknowledging the possibility that one is wrong is reasonable rather than 'virtuous', and I'd imagine all of us work on the basis we're probably right regarding established situations: thus I don't think I'm possibly wrong every time I put diesel in the car rather than on my cornflakes of a morning.

The latter part of the quote immediately above is superb: here you give us a straw man that claims others commit a NTS - full marks on the fallacy front there.

Until you guys come up with something better than the performance that was and is new atheism I'm afraid what walks and quacks in front of me is indeed, a duck.

Well cook it man: it will make a change from your usual goose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You were very much talking about experiencing, weren't you? "I have had an experience best described in religious terms and attempts to explain it in terms of philosophical naturalism are illogical, contradictory, promissory etc."

Yes, and?

[Shaker]

And Gordon has just covered it (far better than I could have).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you say: is there the possibility that you are mistaken?

Rather clunky, even for you Vlad. I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline). However, you are suggesting here that I have had a non-experience of something that isn't definable on the same basis as sky-diving: a non-experience of nothing, if you will, which is ridiculous.

No doubt: but so what?

Acknowledging the possibility that one is wrong is reasonable rather than 'virtuous', and I'd imagine all of us work on the basis we're probably right regarding established situations: thus I don't think I'm possibly wrong every time I put diesel in the car rather than on my cornflakes of a morning.

The latter part of the quote immediately above is superb: here you give us a straw man that claims others commit a NTS - full marks on the fallacy front there.

Well cook it man: it will make a change from your usual goose.

The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.
If you state that 1+1=2 and definitely not 3 are you being unreasonable.
What you are doing Gordon is just imputing spot on accuracy for your own proper application of diesel and imputing unfailing incompetence in those who have religious experience.

Now that's what I call a fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a non-experience of lots of things, such as sky diving, but in saying this I can at least describe and demonstrate what sky-diving involves and that I do have the option to experience this (which I'll decline).
.

How do you know that experiencing God is different? Can you describe and demonstrate sky diving in toto or is there a difference between that and the experience?

[Gordon]

The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.

The possibility of being wrong is never unreasonable - it may be redundant in well established situations, such as that hot things tend to burn you if you touch them, but it is never unreasonable.

If you state that 1+1=2 and definitely not 3 are you being unreasonable.

Well this is axiomatic, but I'd say not unreasonable: in this case though I might be guilty of wasting my time.

What you are doing Gordon is just imputing spot on accuracy for your own proper application of diesel and imputing unfailing incompetence in those who have religious experience.

Nope: be careful all that straw you're using doesn't catch fire. I just asked you, as the possessor of a claimed religious experience, whether you think you might be wrong: which you've forgotten to advise on.

[ProfessorDavey]

How does the religious experience of others help an atheist or an agnostic?

It doesn't - but your religious experience presumably brings you to believe in the monotheist Christian god - so how do you square that with others who have religious experiences just a strong as yours (no doubt) that lead them to believe in the existence of entirely different gods and are therefore incompatible with your believe in a single Christian god.

Also unless someone who has had a religious experience is so lacking in humility that the cannot accept that they may be mistaken in their interpretation of that experience, then that person is still an agnostic, a believing agnostic, but an agnostic none the less.

[ProfessorDavey]

The question though is how far you are prepared to take the possibility of being wrong as reasonable.

It is the cornerstone of our whole way of progressing knowledge. Once we assume that we cannot be wrong then we cease to increase in knowledge.

The most phenomenal approach to enhancing knowledge, science, is based entirely on the possibility of being wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mandacious,

I understand atheism as being without god- ism. That is what it means isn't it.
I also understand that a claim that ONLY non belief in God is proper atheism is merely a bit of linguistic imperialism from those who hold that position. The beginnings of sectarianism if you like.

In terms of Leprechauns, in debating Leprechauns chiefly with your lord Hillside leprechauns were described variously as jolly little irish men physically found at the end of rainbows to something equal to God.

If those who wish to drag up Leprechauns eventually decide on what a Leprechaun is then clearly as a theist I could believe in a leprechaun which was exactly the same as God.

Any ridicule thence would properly be aimed at definition diddling.

Arguments of the leprechaun kind go like this.

A. Do you believe in Leprechauns?
T. Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows for which there should be material evidence but isn't so far so the idea is a bit ridiculous.
A. No, leprechauns are the same as God.
T. Well I believe in God
A. Har Har Har Har Leprechauns are small irish chaps found at the end of rainbows Har Har Har Har.

As I've corrected you many times on this, should I take it that your latest misrepresentation is wilful lying?

Wearily, the point of the leprechauns analogy is merely to illustrate that, when an argument for god applies equally for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument. 

That's it. No more, no less.

The characteristics, habits, thoughts, rules, instructions, dancing habits or anything else attached to those gods or to leprechauns are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT for this purpose.

See, I even put "UTTERLY IRRELEVANT" in Sassy-style capital letters so you can't just pretend again that it hasn't been explained to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is the cornerstone of our whole way of progressing knowledge. Once we assume that we cannot be wrong then we cease to increase in knowledge.

The most phenomenal approach to enhancing knowledge, science, is based entirely on the possibility of being wrong.

Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of  ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?

[BeRational]

Then you render the definition of knowledge as uncertain.
Are you saying knowledge is being wrong? I think you might be being a bit extremist in the style of  ''Know nothing, doubt everything'' that's just hyperbole isn't it?

Are you saying that you are infallible?

[Gordon]

How do you know that experiencing God is different? Can you describe and demonstrate sky diving in toto or is there a difference between that and the experience?

I'd imagine that the experience of sky-diving isn't separate from it's description or definition: plane, parachute and wild blue yonder come to mind, where the experience of doing it would be an addition to the definition/description.

So how about you provide a description of god that is equivalent to sky-diving (e.g. planes, parachutes etc) and then we can explore how to experience this god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't - but your religious experience presumably brings you to believe in the monotheist Christian god - so how do you square that with others who have religious experiences just a strong as yours (no doubt) that lead them to believe in the existence of entirely different gods and are therefore incompatible with your believe in a single Christian god.

That would obviously make someone wrong rather than jumping to the antitheist conclusion of all wrong, all experience invalid.

[BeRational]

That would obviously make someone wrong rather than jumping to the antitheist conclusion of all wrong, all experience invalid.

Are you infallible on any other matters, or just god?