Argument from personal revelation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(22-08-2017 07:52 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(21-08-2017 07:13 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  No... no he didn't. Understand what you're implying if you say that God talked to you and not me. Why would he do that? Does he care more about your salvation than mine?

John 20:29
Quote:Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

It sounds like the ones he talks to or appears to are not the ones favored. Tongue

Yeah yeah. It's the good ol' Christian meme that belief without evidence is a virtue. I mean, that particular line is like a direct "fuck you guys are stupid" from the mythmakers who put the bible together, and the irony is that these clowns swallow it hook, line and sinker.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
22-08-2017, 08:28 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
It definitely is the last hill they have, and for most it's one stubborn hill.

On another messageboard I "debated" with a guy (also a presuppositionalist who somehow denied he was one all while sounding straight up like he was reading from Eric Hovind's notes) who just flat out refused to concede that personal revelation was not any kind of proof. He just kept clinging to "it's proof to them and you can't prove it's not real to them", and any time I tried to use any kind of obvious example (invisible pink unicorns, etc.) he would just go around in a circle with the "That's a silly example because we know those things aren't real". If you've ever seen the YT channel State of Daniel he had a massive fail of trying to debunk the "flying spaghetti monster", where he proved he really didn't even understand the point of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
22-08-2017, 09:04 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(22-08-2017 08:28 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  It definitely is the last hill they have, and for most it's one stubborn hill.
My particular subgroup of fundies had a teaching that you shouldn't trust feelings as they can mislead you. So they had kind of caught on to this issue. However, it was a reaction against the charismatic movement, not a real critique of belief in subjectively asserted things.

So fundamentalists are perfectly capable of assuming a pseudo-bias toward pseudo-intellectualism (apologetics, creation "science") and an aversion to "emotionalism" while at the same time adhering to their basic belief-system pretty much based on personal preference and how it "feels" to them or how "intuitive" it seems regardless of the logical inconsistencies involved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
22-08-2017, 09:26 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(22-08-2017 09:04 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(22-08-2017 08:28 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  It definitely is the last hill they have, and for most it's one stubborn hill.
My particular subgroup of fundies had a teaching that you shouldn't trust feelings as they can mislead you. So they had kind of caught on to this issue. However, it was a reaction against the charismatic movement, not a real critique of belief in subjectively asserted things.

So fundamentalists are perfectly capable of assuming a pseudo-bias toward pseudo-intellectualism (apologetics, creation "science") and an aversion to "emotionalism" while at the same time adhering to their basic belief-system pretty much based on personal preference and how it "feels" to them or how "intuitive" it seems regardless of the logical inconsistencies involved.

Same here; I was taught "feelings" were bad.....when they told you to do something that against their teachings, but they would turn around and use the "feelings" argument against atheism and we would regularly sing a song that had a line that said something like "I know Jesus lives because he lives within my heart".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
22-08-2017, 09:45 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
By appealing to personal revelation anybody discussing with me removes themselves form the discussion. I am not interested in what they think they experienced, i am interested in what they can demonstrate to me. I am not them, i am not inside their brain, so either they have something that i can (externally to them) verify or i cant. In the latter case the discussion is closed. I am not going to waste my time and ponder with them in mental masturbation about things they never can show me to have happened at all anyway. I am not interested in their dreams, delusions or burning bushes.

I am interested in those things we, together, can establish as fact or fault.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
22-08-2017, 10:26 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
This is a really good discussion.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:57 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 01:04 AM by nosferatu323.)
RE: Argument from personal revelation
I think such personal experiences can inform us about ourselves and they might be the only way to explore the subject, the one who observes, and not the objects, that which is observed.

Some God concepts are greatly associated with the self, some recognizing God as the "true self". So I think relying on personal experiences to be informed about such notions of God can be sensible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 08:26 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(21-08-2017 07:53 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  The tricky thing with this argument is it can be hard to address without making it look like you're mocking the person, even if you try not to.

Now, there is a lot of good evidence out there to point to how shitty humans memories are, how we are prone to embellishing things, and how our memories are influenced by what others claimed to see. This is known psychology. Other "paranormal" things like near death experiences and demonic/angelic presences at night time are fairly well understood enough to have mundane explanations. There are also a crap-ton of cognitive biases that cause people to filter out things that don't fit into their view while keeping what does. Combine that with the psychological need many people have to "be right" about these sorts of things, and it's pretty easy to see how someone can get from a somewhat interesting story to a full-fledged miracle/interaction with Almighty God.

Of course, you can't prove that they didn't actually have the experience, and it's hard to say this without accusing them of being crazy.


What's even trickier is that people of other religions have "personal experiences" and "revelations" from their gods too. There are Hindus who experience Lord Shiva or Vishnu in their lives. I don't think it's called a "revelation" by the Hindus but it's basically the same crap.

I've pointed this out to Christians, but you know what they say?

"Hinduism is satanic, it's the devils religion!"

So then I'll point out that the Hindu religion predates the Bible and how could it be satanic when it existed before your god was invented and then they say,

"You're wrong! The Bible is the older than Hinduism!"

and when I point to facts and links proving it's older than the Bible they go into "fake news" mode, a la trump.

Oy. Facepalm

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
24-08-2017, 08:27 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:57 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Some God concepts are greatly associated with the self, some recognizing God as the "true self". So I think relying on personal experiences to be informed about such notions of God can be sensible.

Not necessarily. It all depends, IMO, on how stable and healthy the person's worldview is without a god on board. For instance, someone who has suffered betrayal could imagine either a loving god (to ease the hurt) or a vengeful one (to punish the betrayer). A person coming from a healthier situation may be inspired to transcend doubts and pursue a long-desired goal.

Perhaps the kind of god someone believes in could hint at where they are on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but calling this god a "true self" is premature because personalities
tend to be fluid rather than static.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Astreja's post
24-08-2017, 08:42 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:57 AM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  Some God concepts are greatly associated with the self, some recognizing God as the "true self". So I think relying on personal experiences to be informed about such notions of God can be sensible.

Except you have so many different versions of the supposedly same god that it renders it all meaningless; there can be no "one true god" if there are millions of different versions of god that are all "right".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: