Responding to this video.
----
Introducing myself:
I stopped believing in a general idea of "the Christian God" at age 41.
That was about 10 years ago.
For me personally, that transition was liberating and healthy.
But I understand some people feel and function better within a Christian narrative; compared to how they struggled without it.
After de-converting, I went through stages.
I was vaguely spiritual for a while.
At one point, I seriously consider Pandeism.
Over time, I became increasingly atheist-y.
I eventually became fully anti-theist (Gnostic Atheist). And I fully accept my burden of proof for that.
It may be interesting to note that most Lack-theists cringe at anti-theists. They're just as quick to say we're being ridiculous as Theists are.
But I'm ok with that.
I'm quite adept at defending my position.
However, I don't "identify" with it.
I've learned the value and wisdom of never allowing my sense of "self", nor my sense of worth
become entwined or dependent upon any of my perceptions.
So I'll always be fine with discoveries that lead to updating or even fundamentally changing perceptions.
My identity-anchors are my general personal values;
like being personally accountable (to others and to myself),
being courageous enough to take honest personal inventory,
and a dedication to always striving to connect with others on fair/equitable terms.
So if I notice myself ever inadvertently working against those things, then I just simply correct that behavior.
And if it had caused me to be unfair with anyone, then I admit it to them , apologize, offer to make amends, and dedicate myself to the better behaviors.
That is also all that anyone has to do with/for me, if they've been acting unfairly.
Clean slates are easy enough.
And unlike with Yahweh, no one has to be tortured or killed first.
HOWEVER,
I don't agree with your logic in this video.
Finding something/anything "improbable" doesn't carry a "burden of proof".
If someone says "It seems to me that your claim is 51% likely to be untrue", it's just a general impression.
They aren't meaning to literally humor the idea that arguments and evidence (for and against) are quantifiable.
If something seems to them to be "unlikely", they mean "this is just how it currently sits with me".
Now, if they say to a believer (of whatever) that the sum total of all existing arguments and evidence (for and against) clearly and objectively put that claimed-thing into an "improbable" scale position,
then they're claiming too much automatically.
No one can ever account for all possible arguments and evidence.
However,
they could reach a point where they can justify "closing the case".
So even if there is a Super-Being who wants that to remain "open until solved" to "His" satisfaction, ...
He would have only himself to blame for not making his case when the case was still under review.
It's also possible to REALIZE the entire issue is nonsensical, and that they'd be disrespecting their self to even worry about it further.
It's quite possible for someone to eventually realize there literally can't be a being "as described".
But most people never quite get that far.
So they may say something like "It's unlikely to be true".
They may even say something like "The existing arguments and evidence indicate that it's unlikely to be true".
They could justify that by clarifying "that I know of" or "that I have personally encountered".
In this case, they would not have a "burden of proof" because they're only saying how it sits on their scale.
And they're automatically right about THAT.
...EVEN IF the thing they doubt happens to be true.
It sits on their scale ... however it sits on their scale.
And it would be ridiculous for anyone to say "prove it".
Prove what?
Prove all their personally-amassed collection of arguments and evidence (for and against) puts at least 51% "unlikely" weight to their scale?
How?
It's not as-if anyone can list every single argument they've ever weighed,
nor present every single fact (and fact-claim) they've researched and weighed.
You could argue that they owe you some explanation ... some support for their perspective.
But if they've bothered to express such an opinion ....
you won't need to press them for more.
Clearly, they're ready to offer examples.
It just won't be their whole case.
Even if they kept meticulous notes over the years,
you'd have to:
* read them all (which could easily add up to thousands of hours),
* understand it all,
* understand it all 'similarly' to how they understood it all,
* verify (re-research) every bit of research they claimed to have done,
and then
* you'd still have to AGREE with the general sense of weight" they gave each and every thing.
No one is going to offer all of that.
No one should ask for all of that.
Even if they both did agree to such an exchange,
the results of the 2nd person's review will be different than the result of the 1st person's.
Why?
For the same reason that "No Two People Have Ever Read The Same Book".
And honestly,
that difference is determined by BIOLOGY;
which neither person can freely "choose" to spontaneously change.
You simply see something they do not.
Your brain works different than theirs.
No one can prove to you that they see what they see.
No one can make you see it either.
Thus, they cannot be rightly "burdened" to.
Only when someone (like myself) asserts a positive conclusion, like "there aren't any literal gods",
does the burden of proof truly apply.
But even then,
my readiness to accept that rightful burden
doesn't remedy (can't overcome) the fact that it can't be "proven" to you.
In this context,
"prove it" means "convince me".
And that is actually not the responsibility of the claimant.
The claimant of "there are no gods" is only responsible for making their case.
And only because they've entered the arena to make that challenge.
They're not responsible for convincing anyone.
Although, the Christian IS responsible for convincing any doubter they tell their "message" to.
After all, if you "fall short",
that should be your problem; not your listener's problem.
It's your failing;
not theirs.
You (the "messenger from God") have assumed (wrongly) that you are qualified to represent an infinite and perfect entity.
You have also assumed (wrongly) that a "perfect message" relayed through humans
remains "perfect".
EVEN IF a message started as that,
it would not still BE that once it left the very first messenger's lips.
It would then be further corrupted by every re-telling,
and
the process of translating from dead cultures and dead languages, from fragmented and inconsistent (non-original) source texts.
and
the process of preachers interpreting,
and
the process of listeners perceiving it all through their individual lenses.
Thus, the masses would be fully reasonable
to say "that sure doesn't sound like a perfect message from a perfect being ... to me".
It's absolutely not that; no matter how it started.
ONLY the direct transmission of a message FROM an unlimited and perfect being
INTO the mind of the receiver
could resolve that problem.
And, of course, if such a being WANTED someone to "know" or "believe" something,
they could make sure of it.
It would be reckless (with our future) for them to use the method of transmission your religion is claiming.
Thus, a being "as described" would not use such a method.
Thus, no such being did any such thing.
You are TESTIFYING of a limited and fallible "God",
with how you portray him;
-with everything you claim about him.
And yet,
you ascribe opposite ADJECTIVES; which serve no purpose
except to override your articulated testimony;
and thus gas light people into a confused and malleable state.
Most people aren't that stupid.
Most will realize at least some of that.
Anyone's lack of being impressed
is a fully reasonable result.
Once the "messenger" fails to impress, they may blame the unconvinced-person for being unconvinced.
But every facet of "the witness given" is faulty.
I'm not even going to take the time in this blog
to even get into how abusive your religion's message is.
[But yes; please do ask]
It's also literally impossible to demonstrate an "infinite" trait or power.
So that TOO is always the fault of the missionary.
The audience is not failing to be a good audience.
The preacher is failing to make their case.
"Always existed" cannot be demonstrated.
"Will always exist" cannot be demonstrated.
"Knows literally everything" cannot be demonstrated".
etc. etc..
Only finite traits and powers can be demonstrated;
which is worthless as a means of proving the existence of something/anything infinite.
It would be like showing one orange ... to prove you own infinite oranges.
And that really matters here, because if you can't demonstrate anything *infinite*, then you automatically can't demonstrate "God".
A finite being can be demonstrated.
It just has to materialize as detectable to our human senses.
An infinite being cannot be demonstrated.
You might be able to impress someone with arguments for the existence of an infinite being.
But perceptions of such an argument will always be entirely subjective.
Such arguments as being "certain" are not mathematically provable.
But even if you COULD really make your case for such a being, ...
that would still be a far cry from a valid argument for why everyone else should call it a "God".
Anyone sufficiently impressed
just has really really low standards.
Meanwhile, there is *nothing* immoral about disbelief in (or even utter disinterest in) infinite beings.
It's not indicative of any character failing.
It's irrelevant to morality.
It's irrelevant to character.
So it can't be rationally argued as a valid premise upon-which to decide who would be a worthy addition to any kingdom,
or worthy of the air they breathe,
or worthy to at least:
rest in peace.
NONE of us volunteered to be here.
No one asked for the chance to play a sick and twisted game of Hide And Seek with a violently insecure Loki-Wannabe.
No one has objectively good reason to even WONDER if (let alone: worry, or assume, investigate, wager, or conclude) that's the situation we're actually in.
We are all worthy of at least the dignity of being allowed to rest in peace; like any animal.
Any BEING who couldn't come to terms with that
would need counseling;
not worshippers.
And no being worthy of literal worship would want to be.
Comments
Post a Comment