You can be a weak atheist and make claims of strong atheism at the same time, its not all or nothing.


When it comes to the Mayan Gods are you a believer, a weak atheist or a strong atheist? Im a strong.

How about some God i just make up right now, say an ant **** in another dimension is God of this universe? strong

How about a God that can hear the thoughts of every being on earth? unlikely but not a full strong.

How about a God? Weak

He makes an assertion about "any claim of a personal relationship with god" (god certainly qualifies as an "invisible being")

That's any claim. Not a claim that includes hearing voices. Not a claim that includes wishes being granted. Not a claim contingent on proof of god's existence. Not a claim contingent on evidence that meets furyshade's criteria under the assumptions of his Worldview. furyshade asserts that any claim of a personal relationship with god is on the level of the claims of a schizophrenic. Certainly NOT a vague assertion.

Now that he's established that any claim of a personal relationship with god is on the level of the claims of a schizophrenic, he adresses the point that belief in god can sometimes have benefits. Since he's already established that any personal relationship with god is on a par with schizophrenia he uses that to further ridicule the notion by pointing out that even schizophrenia can sometimes have benefits.

The slippery connotation now attaching the hearing of voices to having a relationship to god.


This is just an arrogant, slippery, sick post and there are no two ways about it.


And then people wonder why I don't want to go back and forth interminably analyzing this kind of crap.


PairTheBoard

PTB, seriously what is your problem. i apologized, admitted i conflated two different things and rephrased my point of view yet you are still harping on a post i recanted. and several other posters seem to have understood what i'm talking about so it isn't like i it was a totally cryptic and esoteric implication.

I wasn't referring to your and furyshades argument i was just point out you can be both.

And he already explained that it is only schizophrenic or delusional if you think God talks to you and you agreed.

well, we don't often hear of Joan of Arc as either.

In any case, we usually refer to a relationship without communication as stalking.

"I have a relationship with god".
"how do you communicate"
"well NOT by a voice !! cheeeeez, I'm not nuts."
"so you do communicate."
"I start with the premise that I can communicate in mysterious ways, since you don't start with that premise ( poor deprived you) in your shrunken worldview you can never understand. Next question. and get away from that frikkin curtain."

Seriously how do you have a personal relationship with God without some form of communication. I dont get it get whatever.

I apreciate these sentiments. My problem was with

Specifically, I felt compelled to correct luckyme's error as to what the post of contention was.

And in my last post I felt compelled to respond to batair, pointing out to him that there was no ambiguity about the post's meaning.

Sorry if that seemed like "harping" to you. But I would have been glad to drop it and thank you for your conciliation had luckyme and batair not entered the conversation and required my assistance.

PairTheBoard

His post was pretty clear, he was talking about people who think they hear God talking to them. Though splitting it up like you did was clever.

A really good exchange with a worthy theist will usually end with an appeal to special powers. Now, I don't have a problem admitting that others have powers I don't have, whether DS, Tiger, Michael Phelps, Dali Lama, all I ask is that they don't fall back on "Pigs CAN fly, they only do it when we're not looking" claims of it.

They don't have to show me the actual power, I'm open to some solid results the possession of it produces and I'll tentatively grant them the possibility at least, depending on what they deliver.

Theists don't deliver anything that can be even generously credited to them having special knowledge or power of any kind. So, the discussion ends with them merely claiming that I lack the ability to see their greatness or I'm too mean to want to be receptive to it. Pascallian "build it and he will come", "believe it and it'll happen to you too".

Here's Aaron W listing all the flaws even in the atheist that wants to believe ...
I love that "epistemological standard" hangup, commonly referred to as "the evidence for it is stronger in santa clauses case." Yep, get rid of that evil habit and the wonders of the universe are yours... or find something good to smoke on weekends.

Cliffnotes: We can't tell the difference between a schizophrenic person claiming to hear god and a person who hears god, and neither can the schizophrenic person know if he hears god or the person who hears god know if he is not a schizophrenic.

It is probably just a divine bug in the universe.

So when is PTB gonna pop the question to Aaron W?

It is entirely relevant. There are millions of children who have a personal relationship with Santa Claus, that relationship has absolutely no bearing on whether Santa Claus exists.

This is clearly a logical fallacy. Is that actually a statement you believe and standby? Maybe it is the source of some of the confusion.

When a guy I know told me that Iraqi's were going to build lasers out of house-hold objects and shoot down the US Air Force (and that President Bush was in on it), I believed the guy was deluded. That does not mean I also believed that what he said was impossible.

Maybe that example doesn't shed any light. However, contrary to the silly atmosphere of this thread, it is actually a true story.

You believed what he said was not true.

PairTheBoard

But the existence of Santa Claus has a bearing on whether the relationship amounts to a fantasy. That you can't see the difference in these logical points should give you pause.

PairTheBoard

huh? I believe Halle Berry communes with me every wednesday. She exists. therefore my relationship isn't a fantasy. thank you, thank you, thank y....

People in this thread should do more research on hearing voices.

I found a second article (I read another one a few months back) stating that hearing voices is not that uncommon or even a sign of mental illness in every instance.

There can be lots of reasons for it occurring.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5346930.stm

Wow, okay I think we are making progress again. I think you are wrong here, and missing the point, if this is indeed why you are claiming that professed weak atheists are actually strong atheists.

It is not at all that I "believed what he said was not true." Its that he, who is not in a position to know whether such a thing is true, claims to know for sure that this thing, which is pretty hard to believe and would to my skeptical mind require some pretty strong evidence to substantiate it, is true. The fact that I think he is delusional neither stems directly from, nor directly implies, that I believe he is wrong.

This comes back around to the reason why several posters are trying to illicit more details from you about what exactly you mean by communicating with god(s). (And I don't care if you don't want to talk about your personal views, that is fine with me). If you want to claim that you have a personal relationship with a god, to me, as I understand "personal relationships," that does not sound like something that you could possibly have -- so please explain to me what you mean; justify it. And if it turns out it is something that is indistinguishable from talking to an imaginary friend, and sometimes being rewarded with miracles that are indistinguishable from every day fortune or misfortune, then I will probably think you are delusional -- again, not because I claim to know for sure that you are wrong, but because it just doesn't make sense that you would claim to know what you know, without any compelling reason. Just like the crazy guy with the lasers.

And to followup on another aspect of it, I think the typical psychic such as you can find in the phone book in any city in this country is probably a con artist who quite possibly believes some or all of her own nonsense. But that does not imply that I think all the predictions they make or advice they give are wrong. (This is not a perfect analogy, but it is nevertheless reasonable). This just goes to show, in another context, that I may think someone is wrong, or lying, or delusional, but still be correct about some of what they claim.

"You might be right. But if you're right, it's a lucky guess."

Hearing voices has almost zero relevance to this thread. Further, the fact there are many reasons for it helps the opponents case not the theists for what little use it has itt.

I'm clarifying for furyshade who seems to be playing deliberately obtuse itt.

A personal relationship with God doesn't = hearing voices.

Nor does hearing voices necessarily = crazy.

When a guy I know told me that Iraqi's were going to build lasers out of house-hold objects and shoot down the US Air Force (and that President Bush was in on it), I believed the guy was deluded.



I don't buy this at all. Apply Bayes theorem here. The probability what he says is true is close to zero. The probabilty he has a way of knowing this information GIVEN THAT IT IS TRUE is a much greater proability. You believe the information is false which is why you say he is deluded.


I complained about the general assertion I often see made that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with god that includes prayer is just talking to an imaginary friend. If you think the atheist ought to solicit further details about the relationship before making such an assertion then you should swamp him with critical posts when he makes it. But you atheists don't like to criticize each other do you?


You believe there is no such thing as psychic powers. The atheist who claims anyone who prays to god must be talking to an imaginary friend believes there is no god who hears prayers.

PairTheBoard

exactly my point, thanks. Which is why hearing voices was only tangentially connected to this thread and dealing with it directly doesn't add anything to it. I hear voices a lot .. specimen one.

I understand your point of view now, I just think you are wrong.

Notice that you specifically state that you don't believe me (or think I'm deluded) about a particular incident that really happened. If we can't give each other the benefit of the doubt when it comes to personal beliefs, and assume we are telling the truth, it will be very difficult to carry on in a productive manor.

And I assume there are no such thing as psychic powers, because every reputable investigation of it finds only charlatans and fools, and anything that a so-called psychic claims to do with magical powers, a competent magician can do by trickery. If you look at this evidence and come to a different conclusion, let me know. Anyway, if someone wants to make the claim that they have psychic powers, I will not give them the benefit of the doubt on that subject, because this extraordinary claim requires some support. In that regard, I think it is a vary apt comparison to the religious situation. I can't rule out anything that resembles any given god, but I'm not going to assume it is real if you don't give me a reason to, and if you make the claim that you have a personal relationship with it (you, or anyone else), I would like to know specifically what that means before I can be expected to accept it as truth, when I am (on the other hand) reasonably sure that the ability to delude one's self certainly exists, and crazy people certainly exist, and people who are hallucinating for a variety of reasons do exist, and people who have invested a lot of their ego and self worth into promoting the idea that their religion is true and who think it is harmless and does good, anyway, etc., do exist. And so on.

This is all well and good but I would just like to personally endorse the freedom of ALL theists including PairTheBoard, Splendour, Usam Bin Laden and Henry Hays just as long as they meet 10 conditions:

1. they don't abuse that freedom in order to encourage their beliefs among the vulnerable, such as children.

2. they don't abuse that freedom by forming churches creating social pressures on others in the community based on their irrational beliefs.

3. they don't abuse that freedom by using it to discriminate against and belittle others who hold similar irrational views.

4. they don't abuse that freedom by using it to justify bigoted and archaic views such as those held by many theists regarding homosexuality.

5. they don't abuse that freedom by justifying wars based on their beliefs

6. they don't abuse that freedom by agreeing to be held accountable for their beliefs when they air them on the public stage.

Ok, guess I don't have the same stamina as GOD when it comes to forming absolute rules which repeat themselves and show little potential for enforcement.