doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I think that's a very rare position for anyone to take, "atheist" or not.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists: Question
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
Yet religions the world over claim otherwise.
McBell
Unbound
Thus the reason for all the choir sermons.
Problems arise, however, when people take choir sermons and present them to non choir members as absolute proof.
It should be rejected by said individual as proof that will convince those outside their choir.
*raises hand*
They're evidence, sure, but not proof.
If I thought that personal experiences of God were proof of God, I'd be a theist.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If it's proof for that person, you can't really argue with it. What constitutes proof for them, is up to them. If some guy thinks red skittles are proof of god, then you can't meaningfully argue that that isn't proof for him. Of course it isn't proof, or even evidence, but the OP was asking about proof for the experiencer - not actual proof.
There's no such thing as "proof for the experiencer" separate from "actual proof".
Proof is objective by definition. It's the demonstration that the thing in question is actually true.
People can have different standards for what convinces them, but that's something different from proof.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Well, I'm responding to the what the OP was actually asking. I'm simply taking into account his misuse of the word. I'm not one for quibbling over semantics as long as I understand what the person means.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
And it also has nothing to do with science.
ninerbuff
godless wonder
Because experiences can be subjective. For instance I go to a Vietnamese restaurant every Friday night with my wife and daughter for dinner. I've never had a bad experience there, but I've read some testimonies of other customers who said the service was horrible and they would never eat there again. So who do you believe?
McBell
Unbound
The one who has had experiences that match my own.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Well for all those who said the problem comes in when those who have the experiences try to push their beliefs on everyone else. Know well, as many of you do, that I am far from the type to legislate my beliefs on others.
ninerbuff
godless wonder
You would like the restaurant then.
McBell
Unbound
I am not saying that you are or not one of them.
I am merely pointing out the fact that there exist those who do.
The problem with personal experience is that it is unreliable and amounts to nothing more than anecdotal evidence. This is especially true when the individuals reporting their experiences already know what they want to believe and interpret their experience in manner which favours that belief.
A prime example of this was a bit of research done last year (I think). The experiment involved monitoring the part of the brain which are active when communicating with other people. They found that when people prayed to God the brain behaved in the same manner as it did when they spoke to another person. For some of the religious this was proof that they were actually talking to God. To everyone else it simply demonstrated that these people thought that they were talking to go, not that they actually were.
On the otherhand there may be a genuine phenomemon occuring but do to their rarity and distribution we cannot confirm them to be genuine, let alone study them.
I think it cuts to the core of the OP, though: my proof, if it is indeed a proof, is your proof as well, and vice versa.
If I think that an idea hasn't been proven, then I've got no problem telling someone else that.
"I'm convinced of X" is an individual personal matter. "X is proven for me" is not.
What has nothing to do with science?
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
When you say that something is "proven" instead of merely saying that you've been convinced that it's true, you speak to objective truth instead of your subjective appreciation. When you do this, you do attempt to push your beliefs on everyone else.
McBell
Unbound
Probably.
I like to try new foods and even old foods in new restaurants.
However, with my Crohn's Disease i have to be really careful of what I eat and when.
I'm not so sure of that.
Science can point to truth, even if it can't prove it with complete certainty.
However, science is ideal for disproving things.
Only those things which are testable. Untestable claims are normally a load of bollocks anyway so nothing to worry about there.