Posted on 01/03/2002 11:19:13 AM PST by ArGee
I just said it did for this scenario. You've been told there is nothing wrong. No chemical imbalances; no mind-altering substances... but you've had a vision....
Sorry, I thought you were presenting something that could realistically happen. I do not answer fantasy suppositions. That's like asking me what I would think if a pink unicorn walked into my living room. I've had a "vision" which by definition is a hallucination. I would be treated for hallucinations, end of story.
I'm not taking your bait.
I appreciate your point. The difference is that we can measure whether or not someone is having a hallucination or experiencing an external phenomenon. Though a person may not be able to say whether an event was a hallucination or an external phenomenon, the important point is that metrics exist that CAN make this determination and therefore can falsify any assertion that it was one thing or another.
Nobody can know the validity of any assertion that isn't falsifiable. Having faith in something for which the validity of the underlying assumptions are themselves in question looks very strange and generally meets the definitions of a couple psych pathologies. The problem is that once you are inside such an ipso facto invalid reasoning path, it is hard to break out as that would require re-evaluating core assumptions and most people's epistemologies simply aren't up to the task.
Indeed, arguably the single biggest points of contention in these threads revolve around differing fundamental epistemologies. This is the REAL difference between both sides, but no one is addressing it. We are arguing conclusions derived from different premises. And since I brought it up, some epistemologies are clearly better (e.g. more general) than others.
I'm presenting something that I think could realistically happen.
But you've very nicely answered my questions, thank you. You would disbelieve the evidence of your own senses, rather than have them contradict your faith.
It also means that you lied when you answered ArGee's "Have you looked?" with "Yep. I knocked. Nobody answered." Since you've now demonstrated that you would not believe even your own experience, if it went against your assumptions, you cannot have knocked.
This also calls into doubt that you'd even believe reproducible, falsifiable evidence. After all, if you're unwilling to admit a scenario where the evidence of your senses was that God existed, it seems likely you'd give the same lack of credence to the possibility of falsifiable evidence, even if presented to you. If nothing else, you could be having a hallucination that such evidence has been falsified.
It is one thing to say, "I don't believe in God, because I don't see the evidence." It is another to say that, even if showed the evidence, you would dismiss it.
You were right that I baited you, but you took the bait. You have provided for me the evidential proof of what I had long thought had existed. A form of Atheism, that was not based on lack of belief, but based in faith that God cannot exist and therefore any evidence of Him is to be dismissed without consideration.
There's your problem. What you presented cannot reasonably happen.
The Title MORE correctly should be:
That's your religious faith. Not mine.
What part of "I have no faith" don't you understand?
And you know this from personal experience?
You have faith. You have faith that no god exists. It is a faith so strong that it would deny evidence to the contrary. You have faith that dismisses scenarios, where such evidence is verified, as fantasies.
You have a faith that is strong as anyone who has argued with you on this thread. (Certainly stronger than mine, because while I believe God exists, I have my doubts.) The only difference is that you dare not call it faith, because you are afraid to face the possibility that you could be wrong.
I understand, "I have no faith," perfectly. I don't know whether you are merely mistaken or are out-and-out lying when you say it, but it is, in your case, an incorrect statement.
I'm sorry, but I've repeated myself so many times in this thread that I will not do so again.
Read my posts.
You have yet to present any such evidence. I'ld be happy to consider it if only you would present it.
You have a faith that is strong as anyone who has argued with you on this thread. (Certainly stronger than mine, because while I believe God exists, I have my doubts.) The only difference is that you dare not call it faith, because you are afraid to face the possibility that you could be wrong.
Now you're just plain lying or being naive. Again, I have no faith. I require independently verifiabl evidence to support your claims of your alleged god if you expect me to believe your allegations.
I understand, "I have no faith," perfectly.
Obviously, you don't.
I don't know whether you are merely mistaken or are out-and-out lying when you say it, but it is, in your case, an incorrect statement.
You appear to be the one lying here. You claim to know what goes on in my mind. Please present some independently verifiable evidence to support this assertion of your knowledge of what goes on in my mind.
No you wouldn't. I created a scenario where evidence was presented and you dismissed it as not possible -- a fantasy. You didn't say, "Well, if that were the case." You said it was a "fantasy suppositions."
You appear to be the one lying here. You claim to know what goes on in my mind. Please present some independently verifiable evidence to support this assertion of your knowledge of what goes on in my mind.
I present this entire thread.
You presented no evidence, only a hypothetical situation which has not occurred. That makes it a fantasy supposition. That is naive or intellectually bankrupt, I'm not sure which.
Then the only conclusion which can be drawn is that I do not have any faith.
The fact that I draw a different conclusion contradicts this statement.
Or demonstrates the degree of logical thought you are caapable of.
Well, I can't speak for what JG meant, but Heaven isn't Christian's Club 54. It's open to everyone.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.