Argument from personal revelation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-08-2017, 09:27 AM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(21-08-2017 07:13 PM)Cosmo Wrote:  I just wanted to touch on this quickly, simply because this seems to be the last hill that theists will die on, as they claim their religion is true.

"God told me," they say. "God revealed himself to me."

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?

I know this is simplistic to refute, but when a theist is pressed for evidence, this seems to be one of the 'evidences' they fall back on, once they realize they don't have any. So I just want to simply ask, why does God reveal himself to you and not me? If he wants everyone to come to 'knowledge of the truth,' why is he highly selective about whom he reveals that truth to? I read the Bible and prayed for years. Why does he stick his fingers in his ears for me and not you?

Sorry this just seems to be the next argument I've heard recently, after the argument from math, and the argument from morality. I figure they're all worth examining.

Regards.

If logic worked like then the Son Of Sam was really talking to a dog too.

Yea yea yea yea, people have always talked to their deities, Hindus do it, Muslims do it, Jews do it and the ancient Greeks and Egyptians also thought they talked to their invisible friends too.

It cant be that humans simply falsely want a super hero to be real, cant be that.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Brian37's post
24-08-2017, 12:07 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  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".
I'll bet it's He Lives

Partial lyrics (from memory, emphases mine):

I serve a risen saviour
He's in the world today
I know that he is living
whatever men may say.

.... (Chorus)

He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today
He walks with me and talks with me
along life's narrow way.
He lives! He lives! He lives within my heart!
You ask me how I know he lives?
He lives within my heart
.

This is a pretty good summary: no matter what "mere men" might contrive to say, Jesus lives, because I has good feels in my "heart".

This is the "proof" offered, sung about, rehashed and rehearsed by the faithful day in and out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
24-08-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 08:42 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  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".

I think your conclusion does not necessarily follow, there can be inconsistent descriptions about a thing, yet the inconsistency can be merely due to the ignorance of those who describe it. There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 08:27 AM)Astreja Wrote:  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 think I agree with most of what you are saying. Except I don't understand why you hold that the notion of "true self" must be static and it cannot be fluid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:15 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 08:27 AM)Astreja Wrote:  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 think I agree with most of what you are saying. Except I don't understand why you hold that the notion of "true self" must be static and it cannot be fluid.

Did you read what she wrote? Are you an idiot? Rhetorical questions I know Dodgy

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
24-08-2017, 12:26 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:09 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 08:42 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  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".

I think your conclusion does not necessarily follow, there can be inconsistent descriptions about a thing, yet the inconsistency can be merely due to the ignorance of those who describe it. There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.
Yes there is a point to be made that at various levels above the personal (denominational, interdenominational, interreligious) there are bedrock commonalities among various versions of god (I'm talking Christianity for purposes of this discussion). I think the oft-quoted point that there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations is rather overdetermined in this regard. In my experience, especially within Protestantism, outside of the most fundamentalist churches, you could obtain cooperation between a pretty wide variety of denominations at the community and state and national level.

That said, it's also true that each individual god-botherer has a private understanding and application of their beliefs that does vary from their denomination and from other individuals. Some Christians who post here appear to have rather ... unique and often fringe ideas that are questionable if not at times heretical. I realize that of course the Internet self-selects for the lunatic fringe in this regard, but still ... it's illustrative.

So ... I don't think you can make too much either of the unity with which Christianity supposedly speaks its beliefs, or of the individual subjective nature of how beliefs are understood and lived out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 12:36 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:09 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 08:42 AM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  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".

I think your conclusion does not necessarily follow, there can be inconsistent descriptions about a thing, yet the inconsistency can be merely due to the ignorance of those who describe it. There is a well known analogy called "Blind men and an elephant", which is used to illustrate this point.

It's about a group of blind people who learn about and conceptualize an elephant by touching it. Each man touches a specific part of the elephant and describes it based on that partial experience. They describe the elephant as something like a snake (trunk), rope (tail), spear (tusk) or tree (legs) depending on where they touched. All descriptions are in disagreement and all are wrong, but all of them are also partially right.

What if blind man #1 touched a wolf, #2 a lion, #3 a giraffe, or if they all are just making up shit and telling you fairy tales?
How do you find out who is right or wrong (if they arent making god up wholesale). What method do you use?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
24-08-2017, 12:49 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:36 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  What if blind man #1 touched a wolf, #2 a lion, #3 a giraffe, or if they all are just making up shit and telling you fairy tales?
How do you find out who is right or wrong (if they arent making god up wholesale). What method do you use?

In the realm of analogy, I have no way to know, I think. Those people will always remain in conflict, as they do not have any way to resolve their issue. In fact they constantly accuse each other of being liars and idiots.

I agree that someone who hasn't touched the elephant must dismiss those people who describe it, but once you touch it, you cannot simply dismiss it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 01:11 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 12:49 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 12:36 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  What if blind man #1 touched a wolf, #2 a lion, #3 a giraffe, or if they all are just making up shit and telling you fairy tales?
How do you find out who is right or wrong (if they arent making god up wholesale). What method do you use?

In the realm of analogy, I have no way to know, I think.
So, you cant know if any of the blind men touched anything at all. What would be a sensible position in terms of belief when they all tell you they have touched an elephant?

(24-08-2017 12:49 PM)nosferatu323 Wrote:  I agree that someone who hasn't touched the elephant must dismiss those people who describe it, but once you touch it, you cannot simply dismiss it.
Are you claiming you have touched an elephant? How do you know its an elephant? Because somsebody else told you that you are going to touch an elephant? Was it an elephant or a wolf? Maybe you are just making shit up for me. What should i do?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 08:48 PM
RE: Argument from personal revelation
(24-08-2017 01:08 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  What would be a sensible position in terms of belief when they all tell you they have touched an elephant?
As I said, I think it's reasonable to dismiss the claims. By dismiss I mean not making any judgements about their claim being true or false. To simply pass over it in silence.

Quote:Are you claiming you have touched an elephant?
No, I don't know what an elephant is, so I don't know whether I have touched it or not. But I have touched something that I don't know what it is.

Quote:How do you know its an elephant?
For those who make the claim, elephant is just a word to refer to something that doesn't fit in any of their known categories, hence the confusion and conflicting descriptions.

Quote:Was it an elephant or a wolf?
Those who have touched it, can potentially differentiate the two by touching them. Once they figure out the difference, they would use another word to refer to the other creature.

Quote:Maybe you are just making shit up for me. What should i do?
I think it's reasonable to pass over the claim in silence. I think any attempt to make judgments about it is nonsensical, since it's not clear what the claim is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: