Atheists: Question

[Rainbow Mage]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

 

[Noaidi]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

I agree that all experiences are ultimately subjective, even fairly universal experiences. Pain, for example, will be experienced to differing degrees between individuals even if the stimulus was of the same intensity for everyone. But the fact that the vast majority of people experience pain to some degree reveals that it is a real and verifiable phenomenon.

Belief is different. There is no 'god-stimulus' that everyone feels, thus I can't experience your beliefs. I can therefore accept or reject your claims based on my own thoughts and beliefs - there is no standard by which we can all experience a deity.

To address your point, yes, your experience is proof to you, but not to others. I'm happy to accept that. The problem is when individual, subjective and as-yet universally unverifiable beliefs are pushed into the public domain of education. I think this is why many atheists are vocal about the need for some sort of proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

I don't think that way. IMO God is just as real as personal conviction says, and therefore differently real for different people.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't inherently absurd conceptions of God.

 

[chinu]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

How can anybody let you smarter than themselves.


_/\_
Chinu

 

[Willamena]

How can anybody let you [be] smarter than themselves.


_/\_
Chinu

That's it in a nutshell. Pride.

 

[Caladan]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

The Mythbusters have a wonderful proverb:

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

It is an effect what other cultures and civilizations have done to each other.
you might have your own interpretation of your own personal experience of what life is. but there will always come a person with more experience and leverage to override it.

What some people call gods, other call idols.

The very reason you started this thread is because your god/s idea is being threatened by the mere fact that other people not only question it and put it to the test, but completely disregard it for having what they consider a better and more coherence life experience.
If your gods cannot withstand other opinionated members. how much less would they survive in carrying rocks on their backs in order to build a pyramid.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no proof, either one way or the other.
Tis a judgment call. Atheists are just more cautious.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Caladan nice of you to try to determine my motives for making a thread, but no.

 

[Alex_G]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

Well i think one needs to be stringent in the definition of proof. Any individual can have any number of mind altering personal experiences, be it due to intoxicants like LSD, or just a particularly labile neurology. The individual in his heated moment or on reflection can be completely convinced of some meaning, but nevertheless i think its unhelpful to term that conviction proof. Its persuasive no doubt, but proof is by virtue of being powerful evidence, is able to extend between minds of people, and convince all of its value.

Of course a personal experience, which by definition is only experienced by the individual in question, cannot be known in the same way by anyone els. It has no realm beyond the mind of that one person, and thus it is insensible to talk about it in language that suggests it is. Fruitless to lump it together under the same title 'proof' as is given to much of the scientific method.

Does the experience hold actual truth value? To the individual yes, but to others, not really. Might it be hinting towards some objective truth that science may discover in the future? Of course it could, but it still, despite its correct conclusions, does not constitute proof in any meaningful way.

Alex

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Ah Alex, so you think science can give you objective truth, even though science and all it's terms are limited to our limited minds? We can't exceed the capacity of our brains.

 

[jmvizanko]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

My biggest reason for outright rejecting subjective experiences of god, is that people in every religion experience them, which means that either only one group or no groups are right, and the rest are deluding themselves unintentionally with the power of suggestion, the placebo effect, and confirmation bias.

 

[Alex_G]

Ah Alex, so you think science can give you objective truth, even though science and all it's terms are limited to our limited minds? We can't exceed the capacity of our brains.

No, i mean we could talk indefinitely about subjectivity vs objectivity, and clearly see that all things known or knowable depend in part on the capacities of ourselves. But science most definitely provides access to a more objective view of the universe, and really when we talk about proof, we are talking about this very feature. For example math’s opens up a door to understanding the universe, without which we would never have been able to reach what we know today.

It is sensible to me, to make a distinction between such ideas and practical uses of proof, as is seen in science, as compared with vague personal experiences. Where the fine line between proof and not proof might sometimes be difficult to determine, it still does not and should not stop one from seeing a meaningful difference in 2 extremes.

Alex

 

[Nooj]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

I don't think personal experiences are invalid proof. I think they are important evidence for theism. I'm just not convinced by them.

 

[outhouse]

there is the key word, by you, limited minds

yes we have them

minds are very imaginative

despite the same faith, people imagine a personal god that fits there needs only.

it is my opinion every god is nothing more then mans imagination, it is a fact the more ignorant one is the more part religion plays in ones life. The most brilliant minds, religion only plays a small part of there lives because reason and logic replace imagination.

for 200,000 man has imagined deitys, why do hebrews think there so special that god has only chose them??

now your whole thread really is in a poor light of understanding.

you are as much of a skeptic as i am, we are no different.

the only difference between you and me is I believe in one less god then you.

 

[Magic Man]

Personal experience shouldn't count for much as evidence of the objective existence of an entity. The problem is the same person (person A) who accepts their own personal experience as evidence that their god exists rejects many other people's personal experiences that their own god exists and that person A's god doesn't exist. When you have so many people with conflicting claims about the existence of an entity in objective reality, personal experience isn't worth anything. At that point, only rational inquiry and a search for objective evidence is the way to go.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

Have you ever hallucinated? I know I have.

Have you ever thought you saw something but been mistaken? I know I've done that, too.

I was listening to a P.Z. Myers lecture the other day where he put it a way I really liked: human beings have bad brains. They're fantastic and wonderful in a lot of ways, but they're really not ideal for a lot of the things we try to do with them. They can be tricked.

If we want to be sure of what's going on, then we try our best to take the problems of our brains out of the equation. This is something that science does very well - though the principle extends beyond just formal science.

Also, there's something that I've found a lot of people who have had personal experiences of "God" gloss over: inferring God is actually a two-stage process.

1. I experienced some set of stimuli/perceptions/sensations/etc.
2. The source of that set of stimuli/perceptions/sensations/etc. is God (or my supernatural entity of choice).

Part 1 falls on the person doing the experiencing. I have no way to peer inside your brain to see what you see, so it's hard for me to argue that you didn't see what you claim to have seen.

However, part 2 can be done by anyone. Given some set of stimuli/perceptions/etc. assumed from part 1, anyone can consider the logic and reasoning that starts from those perceptions and concludes God. That part is not dependent on personal experience.

Personal experiences are only "proof" in the tautological sense: I agree that you experienced what you experienced, whatever it is. But you don't experience "God", you experience some set of perceptions that you attribute to God. The person doing the experience doesn't have some special advantage in making a proper attribution of the experience. In fact, IMO, sometimes, they're actually at a disadvantage compared to a neutral outside party.

 

[Alceste]

My biggest reason for outright rejecting subjective experiences of god, is that people in every religion experience them, which means that either only one group or no groups are right, and the rest are deluding themselves unintentionally with the power of suggestion, the placebo effect, and confirmation bias.

You don't allow for the possibility they all might be right about the existence of some kind of higher power but wrong about everything else. Hypothetically speaking, that is possible, and accounts for the fact that people of all religions and none claim to have had persuasive personal religious experiences.

It is also possible that personally persuasive religious experience is an inherent characteristic of the human psyche, and that different religions exist because we experience it through the filter of our cultural background, in which case religious believers (whether right or wrong) are simply behaving according to their nature - their innate human-ness. It's been my observation that purely rational thinking is extremely rare in humans - especially those who consider themselves purely rational.

Anyway, I am an atheist and I don't reject people's claims of personal "proof" of god/s. I simply think their standards of proof may be lower than mine. That's not a criticism though. Not everybody would be comfortable with my level of perpetual skepticism, uncertainty and doubt.

 

[waitasec]

I know I have heard it time and again and I agree, personal experiences are not proof of god to anyone else. I know that and agree. My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them? Just because personal experience doesn't constitute proof for everyone it should be rejected altogether?

i think andys said best (from another thread)
the why is...

[/I]...you and I are both hurt when these people use their irrational beliefs to obstruct promising scientific research (e.g. stem cell research); or when they challenge establish facts and theories (e.g. evolution); or when they condemn initiatives that will alleviate human suffering (e.g. providing contraception to 3rd world countries); or when they deny basic human rights (women’s rights, gay rights); and so forth.

people can believe whatever they want, but when these beliefs effect/affect my life, it's an automatic invalidation of THEIR belief...

 

[LuisDantas]

Personal experience shouldn't count for much as evidence of the objective existence of an entity.

It doesn't. But I'm not sure the existence of God is an objective matter.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

My question is, why do Atheists think personal experiences are invalid proof to the one who experiences them?

I've never met a single atheist who would hold such a foolish position.