No, I'm saying that just because you experienced doesn't make it objectively fact, especially on a subject that relies purely on your subjective view.
“Maybe, but since there’s not a God, the question is moot.”
No, that wouldn't be my reply. This doesn't mean that I'm right, it just means that you aren't speaking from a position of absolute authority either. Your perceptions don't create reality for the rest of us.
Sure you have.
Yes, I have. I still have the books. To others, Christianity was something that grew the more they studied it. To me the more I studied, the more it failed.
Just exactly that and nothing more noble, or even reputable.
I've noticed that it is almost always the "good Christian" who gets nasty and personal first around here. It's a good insight into the kind of people Christianity can produce, and another reason why I am no longer a Christian. You look down upon those who don't believe as you do (neither "noble" nor "reputable"), not even caring about the quality of the person.
You are Dawkins, just on the other side of the debate.
“No, I’m saying that just because you experienced doesn’t make it objectively fact”
Are you listening to yourself? Yes, that I experienced it most certainly does make it objectively fact. You may refuse to believe it, but that in no way affects the underlying reality.
“especially on a subject that relies purely on your subjective view.”
Can’t you hear yourself? A phenomenon experienced is not subjective, it is objective.
“This doesn’t mean that I’m right, it just means that you aren’t speaking from a position of absolute authority either. Your perceptions don’t create reality for the rest of us.”
*— You can’t tell me what to do! You’re not the boss of me! I’ll do what I want to do! —*
There speaks the authentic voice of adolescent rebellion.
I don’t claim to be speaking from a position of authority. I claim to be speaking the truth.
People are free to disbelieve, of course. It might even be reasonable to disbelieve me; however, it is utterly foolish to disbelieve all the people who have reported the same experience down the millennia. On other subjects, two or three eyewitness accounts make a proposition credible; on this one, tens of thousands, perhaps even millions, are dismissed out of hand.
“Yes, I have. I still have the books.”
Thousands and thousands of them, no doubt. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
“To others, Christianity was something that grew the more they studied it. To me the more I studied, the more it failed.”
The more you indulged in misguided study, the further into error you fell. “The devil is a better theologian than any of us, and is a devil still” A. W. Tozer
“I’ve noticed that it is almost always the “good Christian” who gets nasty and personal first around here.”
That you falsely call my remarks “nasty and personal” is so absurd that one struggles for a meaningful response. My remarks were not “nasty and personal,” and I’d put that before any jury of my peers. Do you really think that stooping to such tactics can lead to anything good?
“It’s a good insight into the kind of people Christianity can produce, and another reason why I am no longer a Christian.”
Perhaps if you were still a Christian, you wouldn’t be making groundless accusations.
Oh, well, it is as Thomas Sowell wrote: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“You look down upon those who don’t believe as you do (neither “noble” nor “reputable”), not even caring about the quality of the person.”
Oh, come on, you couldn’t possibly believe that. It is quite clear that “noble” and “reputable” refer to a specific behavior, and not to a person or his character. It’s just not credible that anyone could miss that.
It has nothing to do with my looking down on people for disagreeing with me, although you God-haters are ever eager to lodge that nonsensical charge against those who know or believe that God exists. It is simply a description of behavior.
On the other hand, your comment regarding Dawkins below shows us just who is really looking down upon whom.
“You are Dawkins, just on the other side of the debate.”
How interesting. Still, an explication of what you imply but leave unsaid requires more subtlety than the substance of the comment warrants.
You, whether you deny it here or not, must be a great admirer of Richard Dawkins. A comparison to him is no insult in your book, but you (incorrectly) assumed that I would take it as an insult. What are the implications of that?
That you look down on me, and probably all believers, which is demonstrated by your apparent belief that you are bright enough to lay intellectual traps that will fool me. (And you must believe that, or why would you have tried?) You thought that I would be insulted and angered by a comparison to Dawkins, because you think that people of faith really are like the ludicrous caricature you described in your note. (Hardly flattering, that.)
You expected that I would be angered by a comparison to someone who disagrees with me, because you assumed that I “look down on” people merely for disagreeing. (Less flattering still.) You hoped that I would be baited into unseemly behavior, which you could use as Sowell described to create the false impression that you had made strong points.
Actually, Dawkins is bright, and very good at what he does. You thought I would be insulted by comparison to a bright, articulate, moderately famous, and rich author, just because he is wrong on this subject. Now that’s what I call looking down on someone.
Yes, it is true that he is wrong—obstreperously, obdurately wrong—but that just means that the splash when he ultimately bows his head and admits that God exists will be all the bigger.
From here, the only thing that will be seen is you becoming increasingly angry and insulting, and I don’t see any reason that I should pay attention to that. If you’re ever disposed to conduct an intellectually honest debate, I’ll probably be here.