frrostedman wrote:Well, all I can say is that I don't believe you. I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't accept that the two types of knowledge are on par.
Okay, first point is that you do
believe me, because there is no reasonable explanation beside me having gone to England. And I say reasonable, because the alternatives like having been born an hour ago, while possible, I would not say are reasonable, in that they should be taken seriously.
Also, I do
believe qmark. I believe he had the exact God experience he told me about. He's no liar. I just believe there is a reasonable psychological explanation for his experiences, and that is not the case for me believing I went to England.
It takes a far greater error to believe you went to England when you really didn't, than it does to think you were in communication with God when you really weren't. I know this firsthand from my own experiences, and you do too.
Believers readily admit it is quite possible, if not easy, to think you're in communication with God when you really aren't! It's a constant battle, they say, to seperate the two.
My second point would be that, in this instance, we are not talking about proof, we are talking about knowledge.
Lastly, it does not satisfy me that believers cannot prove God through debate, this is not the reason I am an unbeliever! It, in fact, has nothing to do with it whatsoever
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris