tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post484768620867355581..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The Impact of Explanatory Function on Existence: Show #520Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48691208488681391872007-10-04T06:05:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:05:00.000-05:00Just to clarify #4: It establishes that there is a...Just to clarify #4: It establishes that there is a phenomona of mass delusion among otherwise sane people. Something Xians claim is impossible to believe. (Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and Ghosts would be further examples).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-8095401237972216952007-10-04T06:01:00.000-05:002007-10-04T06:01:00.000-05:00I forgot to mention that an even better example to...I forgot to mention that an even better example to use in conversations with live apologists is "Alien Abduction." While Santa has the benefit of being a known nonexistent item, AA is most often viewed by anyone you might encounter as the realm of nutters. But it has all of the evidence of Christianity and more:<BR/><BR/>1. Witnesses who seem otherwise credible. These aren't people locked in nut houses. They're working people, wives, mothers, husbands, etc. As the apologists say, "Why would they lie?" And, better than the Bible, all these people are living NOW. We don't have copies of translations of copies of translations to go by--we have firsthand eye witness testimony (the Bible says 2 witnesses is all it takes to prove your case).<BR/><BR/>2. Martyrs. They suffer for their claims. They are considered nut cases and ridiculed. Why would someone _want_ to be considered a crackpot when they could easily just hide their belief and avoid persecution. Sure this means it has to be a true claim?<BR/><BR/>3. Expert support & personal credibility. Harvard professor/psychiatrist John Mack (who even won a Pulitzer) began speaking to Alien Abductees, and subsequently went from studying a psychological phenomena to affirming there was no psychological explanation for the tales. Some of his biggest "mysteries" were (1) that so many people could present such similar stories independently, (2) that these people were so strongly "changed" by their encounters, and (3) that most of them had no other psychological problems Mack could find--they seemed quite sane by our standards. ALL of these are arguments Xians use to back their view that Xianity must be real. It's the "Lord, liar, lunatic" apologetic: They are persecuted if they lie--so no identifiable reason to lie. They were shown to not be insane. So their claims must be true.<BR/><BR/>4. Why would so many people believe it if it wasn't true? No, it's not a majority--but it's certainly enough that we've all seen the interviews. We are all familiar with the tales. And Mack certainly had a supply of subjects to choose from. Christians say, using LLL apologetic, that the people reporting miracles can't be lunatics--because how could so many people be lunatics? If that's valid--then Xians have no basis to reject the AA phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>5. People claiming AA also have physical evidence--pieces of metal removed from their bodies in what they claim are well documented surgical procedures. Photographs certainly abound--is there anyone who HASN'T seen at at least one photo of an alien space craft? Etc. This is MORE than Xianity can present.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the reality that the witnesses are LIVE (not old, revised testimonies from unverified/unknown authors), and that there is physical evidence to back their claims, shows that not only does the AA phenomena meet all the criteria Xians use to present that their belief is "true"--it goes _further_.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4036449700226619432007-10-03T20:04:00.000-05:002007-10-03T20:04:00.000-05:00Amberkatt: I agree, the analogy is an excellent on...Amberkatt: I agree, the analogy is an excellent one. Matt actually used it on the live program.<BR/><BR/>Lucas: No problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-58676821906519825542007-10-03T12:56:00.000-05:002007-10-03T12:56:00.000-05:00Thanks for the analogy with Santa. I was looking f...Thanks for the analogy with Santa. I was looking for a response to people that, when asked "why do you believe in god?", simply answered "why not?". I can now tell them, then why don't you believe in Santa? Why not? There's plenty of proof for his existence today, etc, etc.<BR/><BR/>-Lucas , The Atheist<BR/>http://theatheist.blog.com/Maddiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04328377211077149094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6138144193515673532007-10-02T17:32:00.000-05:002007-10-02T17:32:00.000-05:00I like Douglas Adams' analogy for this same situat...I like Douglas Adams' analogy for this same situation -- the puddle that observes that it dwells in a space that is <I>perfectly suited</I> for it -- why, it fits inside this space as if this space was made <I>just for it</I>! Therefore someone or something <I>created</I> this space just for it! Rather than, the puddle adapted itself to fit <I>into the space now enclosing it</I>. Like lifeforms adapt (evolve) to fit into the environments that contain them. Q.E.D.AmberKatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18288659650941053065noreply@blogger.com