I guess it depends on your definition of crazy. Are they not crazy just because they don’t air their views to the general public? I don’t see that Pry has said anything that most christians don’t agree with or think is possible, even the ones that don’t think everything in the bibile is to be taken literally.
1 Like
Of course. And it is relative - what is deemed crazy here might be run-of-the-mill over there. First of all, religion is considered to be a private thing here, and not something you normally will flaunt around with in public. Also, we tend to be quite a bit more introvert and moderate in our expression over here, so if you go out on the street and preach loudly, it’s a bit over the top, and you will be considered to have been smitten with a bit of “crazy”. The ordinary run-of-the-mill lutherans here just don’t do that. I work/have worked with people with doctorates and professorates in the sciences that are members of congregations of the more messianic and mission-happy pentecostal branches over here. Most of the time, the only way to figure out that they are religious is if they happen to reveal it during a deeper conversation. No I’ll-pray-for-yous(*) and god-blesses and god-willings.
(*) Although I have experienced an I’ll-pray-for-you here from a person that represented a political party promoting so-called christian and family values, it was in a context where religious belief/non-belief and the rationality of religious belief was being discussed. So it kind of naturally flowed from there.
lying for Jesus 
2 Likes
What would be sufficient objective evidence for a god or gods?
I am not sure anyone ‘choose’ to become an atheist. it could be some bit of information that comes, and it causes one to doubt. I think the behavior of believers do not help either. Also, Who would have thought that 'the Orange one" would have ever become a poster child for bible literalism…
Force fitting reality to conform to their bigotries, has been standard operating procedure for Christians for at least 1,500 years. As has engaging in obnoxious and overbearing attempts to monopolise the arena of discourse, and dictate the limits thereof - pretty much over the same time period.
Give these specimens a micron of rope, and they’ll take a whole fucking light year if you don’t watch them like a hawk. See: Christian Nationalism in what used to be the USA, before the Trumpanzees tossed it into the shitter to become the Wankpanzer Republic of Dogestan.
How are people dodging any question with ‘agnostic’?
" a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomona "
and " a person who claims neither faith nor [disbelief] in god".
The first one sounds really close to atheism, but actually might be more like deism. The second definition sounds like what I think of agnostic.
I don’t understand the question sorry?
Because you’re either (agnostic theist / gnostic theist) or (agnostic atheist / gnostic atheist) Just saying “oooohhh I’m agnostic” is just a cop out. It’s not a real answer. It’s a Christian term more than anything. Because even with the online definition, it’s still being applied towards Christianity which is why I outlined your text in black on what I mean.
No, Christians believe in god. They also believe he is knowable. They further claim that everyone already knows the existence of god, they just don’t want to admit it. Yes, this seriously is a Christian belief.
@nonselcei, do you understand the difference between a/gnostic and a/theist?
2 Likes
Its pretty simple actually. What would be some evidence that would make you say, Huh…maybe there is a god, or gods.
That is a tough one, as its easy to debunk or dismiss claims as they come. But more difficult to state what would make one believe.
I suppose it might seem like believing in fairies. I don’t believe in frae folk. I know a person who believes in fairies enough to go to a fairy festival, and has a fairy tattoo. She seemed very irritated at my skepticism. She didn’t press it very much, as i guess its an ‘optional’ belief or experience. She is wiccan, which is interesting, but I am not sure every wiccan believes in these.
I suppose I might believe in fairies if I had direct experience with them, and knew that it was not something else. But actually I might still be inclined to disbelieve, as the larger culture doesn’t endorse their existence. Its kind of funny how culture influences what one accepts as possible.
I don’t blame you at all for not just accepting god/s as existing. I am skeptical myself, but I have had some interesting experiences…but those don’t count because they can’t be demonstrated, and tested at will.
You want me to attempt to evidence a belief I don’t hold, because I’m unaware of any objective evidence for it? Seriously?
It’s nonsensical, firstly deity is a vague concept, that means difderent thing to different people, and secondly as tge idea in this generic concept seems unfalsifiable, so offers no data to examine.
Why? It is an objective fact that hallucinations are quite common, and that our senses are easily deceived, there is no objective evidence that fairies are even possible.
1 Like
Do you have any numbers on the rate of hallucinations people have? With or without any drugs, substances or mental techniques to produce one or more?
“Our senses are easily deceived.” Isn’t that the basis for your reality in combination with your personal, and cultural understanding of sensory input? Can equipment produce artifacts, give false values? effectively be ‘deceived’?
Fairies aren’t possible? That is different from asking what is the evidence for fairies. I am skeptical of their existence, but I think I asked my wiccan friend something like 'fairies…really?" I effectively was questioning their existence, and wanting to know what is the evidence for them. The response was not welcome, which means the evidence is not good.
Oh from memory it was surprisingly higher than I’d thought, rising sharply of course for people who suffer from conditions that exacerbate them. You can Google it, that’s what I did…
“According to research, the rate of hallucinations in the general population is estimated to be between 6-15%, with studies often citing a lifetime prevalence of around 9.6% for auditory hallucinations specifically.”
Second source:
“Studies that have focused on the presence of hallucinations in particular include the USA Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study, which reported a 13% lifetime prevalence of hallucinations in a general population sample, as assessed by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS)”
1 Like
Snap! And that’s wrap
I’m also convinced gods don’t exist.
2 Likes
This position can be problematic to argue in favour of, in that you then have the burden of presenting proof or evidence that gods do not exist. Proving a negative regarding such elusive matters as gods and religions is notoriously difficult. I think you will find it easier to argument in favour of an alternative position, namely that you haven’t seen good enough evidence to convince you that a god or gods exist. Yet. Thus you turn the burden of proof over to the believers, and can instead argue against their claims instead of defending yours.
2 Likes
Occasionally I run across an unbeliever who has HAD it with this and just says, screw it, I’m just going to say there’s no God. And that’s an understandable decision, provided you then don’t argue about it, just state it and move on.
But what bothers me about this is the persistent myth that this is the position of all, or at least of most, atheists. It is the position of a frustrated few.
It’s true that I will not live my life any differently if I positively assert there are no gods, vs. if I just say I’ve seen no convincing evidence that would allow me to form the belief in any asserted god. Or as I like to say, you can’t tell the difference between an absent god, an indifferent god, a capricious god, or a non-existent god anyway. But: the only defensible position is that there’s no convincing evidence, and/or, that it’s not a falsifiable claim that some particular god or really anything based in the supernatural exists. Since it’s not testable, it’s a non-starter for anyone with remotely defensible epistemological standards.
This keeps you clear of the fundagelical apologetics argument that saying there is no god is an arrogance that suggests you’ve been everywhere and everywhen and have ruled out god in that way. “The fool hath said in his heart, [there is] no God” is the operative verse they want to club you over the head with, usually before trotting out that tired old chestnut, Pascal’s Wager. No thanks!
1 Like
Consider the following:
A person can say “cars exist” or “cars don’t exist”. Both of those are assertions - statements of fact. Both have the burden of proof.
Proving the positive is easy - just present one car. Proving the negative, as GOML points out, is difficult - It amounts to searching everywhere and finding noting - clearly impossible (not the nothing part - the searching everywhere part!).
A person can say “I believe cars exist” or “i believe cars don’t exist.” That is about their state of mind. It’s fair to ask what makes them believe what they believe, but let’s face it - people believe stuff on the flimsiest of evidence - or no evidence at all. They have no burden of proof in either case. Nevertheless, it’s fair to ask about evidence.
A person can say they “don’t believe cars exist” - and that is a statement of what is NOT in their mind - an absence of belief. They could be asked why they don’t have this belief, but you’re asking about what doesn’t exist in their mind. This is a concept that is difficult for some people to understand because it requires those people to think about what is in someone else’s mind. Some people can’t do that. So as a shortcut, they revert back to “believe cars don’t exist” - which is different - a point made repeatedly on these pages. It is NOT fair to ask for evidence because that’s asking for evidence for something that is not there.
Now try this one: A person can say they “don’t believe that cars don’t exist.” That is not the same as saying they “believe cars exist”. That’s the same shortcut as above - and equally wrong. What that is really saying is there is a lack of belief about the non-existence of cars. That is even more difficult to understand and many people will not be able to do that. Again, it’s not fair to ask for evidence, because that’s asking for something that isn’t there.
Why did I make this post? To help me sort this all out. I hope others will also be helped.
2 Likes