Irony, and God's Help.

[kallipolis]

In what sense can the atheist in your hypothetical "embrace his life's experiences" if he has not experienced God?

By not permitting deeply held prejudices to influence his experiences of his life.

Thus the agnostic person remains open to his life's influences, by accepting that he does not know for certain, one way, or another whether there is such a reality as an omnipotent creator.

The rational human person will always deny, his ego its perceived right to dictate its views of life, as revealed through the limitations imposed by the human senses.

Extra sensory perception does illustrate that human kind still does not understand how the human condition functions, in relation to what human life understands, beyond the limits of the senses.


No. The video objects to people ignoring natural explanations because it's an illegitimate approach to facts. It objects to what people call supernatural/paranormal 'explanations' because they're not actually explanations. They're placeholders for things which haven't been satisfactorily explained. As soon as we develop a valid explanation for something, ie. isolate why it's happening, it ceases to be supernatural/paranormal.

Your opinion is noted. Some theists are well able to rationalise, and readily embrace natural explanations, for apparent inexplicable phenomena. Some theists are working research scientists. How shocking.

 

[poolerboy]

By not permitting deeply held prejudices to influence his experiences of his life.

Perhaps I was unclear in my wording. What I meant to say was how can somebody embrace a life experience they have not had? The unstated assumption seems to be that one has had such an experience which then might lead to rationalizations for why such a person has not embraced it (e.g. you weren't paying attention, you need to listen more carefully, etc.). If this is not an assumption then please elaborate.

by accepting that he does not know for certain, one way, or another whether there is such a reality as an omnipotent creator

Yes and this is what you get with agnostic atheists; that they do not claim to know whether one (or more) exist or not, but do not hold to a belief in one either. Holding the door for possibilities does not mean you think them to be likely or equiprobable. It's possible for apparitions in grilled cheese sandwiches to be more than mere coincidental pareidolia, but rather the work from on high. The lack of attention by the majority of researchers on this should hint as to just how serious and worthy of their time they consider it.

Some theists are working research scientists. How shocking.

Never denied their existence nor that it is not possible to be both. There is, however, an inverse correlation between scientific understanding and supernatural belief. The fact that it asymptotes rather than going to zero could be because scientists are also human.

 

[kallipolis]

Perhaps I was unclear in my wording. What I meant to say was how can somebody embrace a life experience they have not had? The unstated assumption seems to be that one has had such an experience which then might lead to rationalizations for why such a person has not embraced it (e.g. you weren't paying attention, you need to listen more carefully, etc.). If this is not an assumption then please elaborate.

Our life's experiences are an ongoing process, and not an event. Thus it would be accurate to suggest that we cannot predict how we will respond/react to any given future experience.

What is pertinent is that our responses to our life's experiences should not be crippled by deeply held prejudices that blind us, or way lay us, from an acceptance that we will not always be able to rationalise everything that we will experience.


Yes and this is what you get with agnostic atheists; that they do not claim to know whether one (or more) exist or not, but do not hold to a belief in one either. Holding the door for possibilities does not mean you think them to be likely or equiprobable. It's possible for apparitions in grilled cheese sandwiches to be more than mere coincidental pareidolia, but rather the work from on high. The lack of attention by the majority of researchers on this should hint as to just how serious and worthy of their time they consider it.

The agnostic person does evidence the willingness of some committed atheists to accept that they cannot possibly predict how they will react to any given inexplicable phenomena that challenges rational deduction.

An agnostic colleague of mine often reminds me that his questions are always in the pending tray, when accepting that some rational explanations, for the inexplicable fail to address, the intuitive reasoning powers, that our gut feelings attempt to address.


Never denied their existence nor that it is not possible to be both.

Progress is not a difficult exercise.

 

[poolerboy]

Our life's experiences are an ongoing process, and not an event. Thus it would be accurate to suggest that we cannot predict how we will respond/react to any given future experience.

What is pertinent is that our responses to our life's experiences should not be crippled by deeply held prejudices that blind us, or way lay us, from an acceptance that we will not always be able to rationalise everything that we will experience.

You've not really addressed my question. You could disagree with my premise that life experiences are not an event but an ongoing process, but this does not really change much of argument even after accepting that. I haven't had merely a one-time experience of my mother's affection, but rather a lifetime of experience. The experience(s) is/are still there whether it was an event or an "ongoing process." My question remains even while correcting for your premise.

The agnostic person does evidence the willingness of some committed atheists to accept that they cannot possibly predict how they will react to any given inexplicable phenomena that challenges rational deduction.

A reactionary response in a moment of sheer distress like in your hypothetical could be similar to a reactionary response to scary fiction viewed in the theatre, the former being more powerful given that your life is in peril. They possibly didn't predict they'd react that way, though I don't see this as being a strong argument for anything. Moreover, the unexplained is just that: unexplained. Saying 'I can't explain X, therefore I can explain it' is a contradiction. This example was used in the video.

 

[kallipolis]

You've not really addressed my question. You could disagree with my premise that life experiences are not an event but an ongoing process, but this does not really change much of argument even after accepting that. I haven't had merely a one-time experience of my mother's affection, but rather a lifetime of experience. The experience(s) is/are still there whether it was an event or an "ongoing process." My question remains even while correcting for your premise.

A braver man than I, said that satisfying people, assumes that some people can be satisfied.


A reactionary response in a moment of sheer distress like in your hypothetical could be similar to a reactionary response to scary fiction viewed in the theatre, the former being more powerful given that your life is in peril. They possibly didn't predict they'd react that way, though I don't see this as being a strong argument for anything. Moreover, the unexplained is just that: unexplained. Saying 'I can't explain X, therefore I can explain it' is a contradiction. This example was used in the video.

Assumptions are always what you will have them be. Be, as they may, more an appeal to words, than in any sense, addressing the matter at hand.

Your antagonist must now wind his way into his bed, for a good morning's sleep.

 

[bankside]

They may well do. Tell us all, that they tell you, Then I'll play my hand.

I'm afraid you've just tipped your hand. You see this as a game.

You are employing rhetorical strategy instead of the faculty of curiosity.

Also, contrary to your portrayal, atheists are people who don't believe - they are not people unwilling to believe.

Agnostics are people who claim we can never know. How they can be certain of that is beyond me, and has never really been articulated, so I am deeply sceptical of their claim.

 

[poolerboy]

A braver man than I, said that satisfying people, assumes that some people can be satisfied.

Assumptions are always what you will have them be. Be, as they may, more an appeal to words, than in any sense, addressing the matter at hand.

I take it this is your way of saying that you're not going to answer my question.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm afraid you've just tipped your hand. You see this as a game.

Of course, I do. I said, so.

You are employing rhetorical strategy instead of the faculty of curiosity.

You would'nt do that, would you?

Also, contrary to your portrayal, atheists are people who don't believe - they are not people unwilling to believe.

Of course atheists believe. They believe all that their senses inform them.

Your teachers, such as Professor Dawkins are red hot evangelists, pursuing their religious convictions with great gusto. Or hadn't you noticed how zealous Dawkins and Hitchens can be, when preaching their gospel?

Agnostics are people who claim we can never know. How they can be certain of that is beyond me, and has never really been articulated, so I am deeply sceptical of their claim.

Let us be frank when I say, that your scepticism is more related, to an unwillingness to learn, anything that might confront your well established prejudices.

 

[kallipolis]

I take it this is your way of saying that you're not going to answer my question.

I have answered your question. But are you listening?