Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: It wasn't "misplaced" it was lost in a house fire, there is a difference.

They're going to try to tell you what experiences you can and cannot have possibly have, thedoc.

And they call Theists "arrogant."

Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

You can doubt thedoc if you wish...but that's arbitrary on your part. His experience was his -- and that it's not proof for you is no stroke against it. Not everything that actually happens is for you.

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

You can doubt thedoc if you wish...but that's arbitrary on your part. His experience was his -- and that it's not proof for you is no stroke against it. Not everything that actually happens is for you.

Right. And if he said he had video of the fairies at the bottom of his garden then we would be expected to take that seriously too. Nothing very 'circular' about that, dipshit.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Right. And if he said he had video of the fairies at the bottom of his garden then we would be expected to take that seriously too. Nothing very 'circular' about that, dipshit.

It's interesting to me how civil he manages to remain, relative to the abuse he endures. But crudity, arrogance and presumption aren't "wrong" in an Atheist world, because nothing is. So I'm at a loss to explain to you why telling him what he has or has not experienced is beyond what a reasonable person will presume to do.

You should at least go and check out his story, where that's possible; and if it's not, then you should at least given him the benefit of civility, if not assent. The fact remains that you just do not know what he has or has not experienced, and you haven't the faintest idea of how to interpret that experience.

Have your (un-)faith if you will; but you simply have no reason to imagine anyone else is obliged to share it, or that their experience cannot possibly ever exceed yours.

henry quirk wrote:

uwot wrote:Mr Can insists that Atheists could commit crimes to match Hitler and Stalin without reservation.

Well, of course they could (just like any theist you care to name)...sociopathy respects no (ir)religion.

Indeed.

henry quirk wrote:This is not remarkable.

The difference is that Mr Can insists that Theists couldn't.

henry quirk wrote:And still folks like yourself keep right on dicking around with him...back and forth, back and forth, back forth...same shit over and over and over...not a jot of progress.

You either weren't following from the beginning, or you haven't been paying attention. A lot of effort went into persuading Mr Can that very few atheists fit his model of Atheists. However, as he says here:

Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:33 pm Immanuel Can wrote:Actually, Henry, I think I would now distinguish three types of Atheist...

He couldn't make such a distinction a few weeks ago

henry quirk wrote:...what I don't think is that he's simply reacted to words on a page.

I disagree. There is nothing original in any of Mr Can's arguments. He is clearly familiar with various ontological and teleological arguments, all of which are demonstrably unsound. He hasn't thought them through, he has simply accepted them, because he likes god; much as you support "Mannie" because you like him. He also cites Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig; two lightweights who describe themselves as analytic philosophers, which sounds credible until you appreciate it means that they analyse concepts and texts, because there is no evidence for them to work with.

Immanuel Can wrote:And they call Theists "arrogant."

Who are "they", and can you cite a reference?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:when survivors of disasters like plane crashes etc. will say on camera that 'god was looking after me' when he clearly wasn't 'looking after' the other 500, 5000...men, women and children who didn't survive.

It does seem very self-absorbed -- as if the universe and god revolve around them.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:There was one where a survivor was holding up her bible that she had with her, that was only singed around the edges. God saved her bible but let all those people burn.

Yeh, what about all the bibles that DID burn. Why weren't those a news story?

Regardless of the outcome, it is supposedly "God's will"... because theists can't ever say "Oh dear, God dropped the ball on that one." They must spin reality to support their belief... and naturally they would become expert "spinners" because there is so much that doesn't line up or fit or make sense. It would be impressive to hear them say, "It doesn't seem to make any sense that God would do that." Or they could say to a non-theist "I can see why you distrust theism... after all the crazy and horrific atrocities that have been done in the name of it." But we typically don't hear such truthful acknowledgements because it's "party" over "truth". Preserving the party seems more important than all else... including sanity and honesty and honor. And it seems like a lot of theists just expect everyone to ignore all the discrepancies as they do.

Immanuel Can to vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Have your [(un-)] faith if you will; but you simply have no reason to imagine anyone else is obliged to share it, or that their experience cannot possibly ever exceed yours.

Do YOU have any reason to imagine or do otherwise, yourself, toward others, Mr. Can?

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: It wasn't "misplaced" it was lost in a house fire, there is a difference.

They're going to try to tell you what experiences you can and cannot have possibly have, thedoc.

And they call Theists "arrogant."

Yes, I know, the atheists have it all figured out, and I must have been mistaken in my interpretation of the experience? I accept that it's not for me to do, it's just for me to relate my experience and beliefs, and let the Holy spirit do the rest.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: It wasn't "misplaced" it was lost in a house fire, there is a difference.

They're going to try to tell you what experiences you can and cannot have possibly have, thedoc.

And they call Theists "arrogant."

Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

I didn't say God, I said the Holy Spirit, which indicated the existence of God. There is a difference, I'm sorry if the subtlety eludes you.

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

I didn't say God, I said the Holy Spirit, which indicated the existence of God. There is a difference, I'm sorry if the subtlety eludes you.

Just curious... how do you know it wasn't a disembodied spirit speaking, Doc? There seem to be lots of experiences of those... and some are very angelic. What distinguished for you that it was "the Holy Spirit"?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

You've assumed your conclusion, then declared it true. It's called "circular reasoning," and it constitutes proof of nothing.

You can doubt thedoc if you wish...but that's arbitrary on your part. His experience was his -- and that it's not proof for you is no stroke against it. Not everything that actually happens is for you.

Right. And if he said he had video of the fairies at the bottom of his garden then we would be expected to take that seriously too. Nothing very 'circular' about that, dipshit.

At one time I had photographic evidence of woods fairies dancing on a pool on my deck. But the photos were also lost in the house fire, but I don't expect you to believe me, you'll claim anything I say is a lie.

Lacewing wrote:

thedoc wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Well seriously, who's going to take any notice of someone who claims to have an audio recording of 'god'??? As a 'theist' you should know it's not possible, even if there is a 'god'.

I didn't say God, I said the Holy Spirit, which indicated the existence of God. There is a difference, I'm sorry if the subtlety eludes you.

Just curious... how do you know it wasn't a disembodied spirit speaking, Doc? There seem to be lots of experiences of those... and some are very angelic. What distinguished for you that it was "the Holy Spirit"?

Did you even read what I posted, I never said it was a disembodied voice. If you can't get it right, just ignore it.

Really the atheists on this forum (Henry excepted) are the most worthless bunch of looser's that I have ever met. You pick a fight over the least little things that don't really matter, except as something to fight about.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote: It wasn't "misplaced" it was lost in a house fire, there is a difference.

They're going to try to tell you what experiences you can and cannot have possibly have, thedoc.

And they call Theists "arrogant."

Yes, I know, the atheists have it all figured out, and I must have been mistaken in my interpretation of the experience? I accept that it's not for me to do, it's just for me to relate my experience and beliefs, and let the Holy spirit do the rest.

It is NOT arrogant to doubt a person's interpretation of a peak experience. One hundred people could have your kind of experience and there would be numerous interpretations. I have spoken to numerous people about my experiences and most doubt that it's real in some way. Fair enough. Numerous atheists have enjoyed such peak experiences and they remain atheists who enjoy mystical experiences. So one's interpretation is far from sacrosanct.

Meanwhile it is arrogant to:

1) expect others to believe your claims and not question your interpretations, even though everyone else has their interpretations of peak experiences questioned

2) to make claims like "atheists think they have it all figured out" (as though you do have it all figured out) .

Too many with fucking points to prove or preach or push on this forum these days.

Greta wrote: It is NOT arrogant to doubt a person's interpretation of a peak experience. One hundred people could have your kind of experience and there would be numerous interpretations. I have spoken to numerous people about my experiences and most doubt that it's real in some way. Fair enough. Numerous atheists have enjoyed such peak experiences and they remain atheists who enjoy mystical experiences. So one's interpretation is far from sacrosanct.

Many people have an experience and deny the source, I can't do anything about it, I can only relate my experience and interpretation of it.