Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

1…34689…17

Comments

  • #152
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This assumes that a soul is a tangible thing. Not everyone is convinced of this.

    I don't see how that makes a difference. You claim that the human species is the only species to have a soul. Your stuck with the same problem.


  • #153
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    When atheists refuse to acknowledge the positive role religion plays in someone's life with bereavement being a typical example.

    You may have a point to some degree there, but it is entirely down to what conversation you are having. If you are having a conversation about the affects of religion for example, this point is entirely valid.

    If, however, your conversation is about how TRUE the claims are, such as that of there being a non-human intelligence which created the universe, then how good it makes people feel to believe it has literally zero relevance to how true the claim is.

    Which is why, in a lot of cases, we "refuse to acknowledge" the argument as you say above and it is entirely valid to do so.


  • #154
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You may have a point to some degree there, but it is entirely down to what conversation you are having. If you are having a conversation about the affects of religion for example, this point is entirely valid.

    If, however, your conversation is about how TRUE the claims are, such as that of there being a non-human intelligence which created the universe, then how good it makes people feel to believe it has literally zero relevance to how true the claim is.

    Which is why, in a lot of cases, we "refuse to acknowledge" the argument as you say above and it is entirely valid to do so.

    You're right, that is what I was referring to.

    In regards to the second part, I would resist getting into that argument. It's a bit dickish isn't it?


  • #155
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Dickish? I am not sure what that means.

    I would also love to “avoid” getting into that argument. In fact I would love to “avoid” getting into any argument about religion any time ever and just leave the religious alone.

    I am frankly not let. I am interested in Politics, Education, Science, Ethics, Morality, Law, Sexuality, Society and more. In EVERY single one of those realms of discourse I have god and religion shoved in my face. Apparently belief in gods does not make you happy, at least until everyone else believes it too.

    Since the base premise that it is all based on IS the existence or otherwise of this entity, it is hard to not end up having that argument regardless of how much I "want" to or how "dickish" it is.


  • #156
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Equally applicable to atheists surely? If one doesn't want to entertain the possibility of God being a reality that is.

    It certain does, and that brings me to the most annoying/frustrating atheist argument of all time in my humble opinion (drum roll)

    "I know God/gods/a creator does not exist"

    There is so many flaws with the logic of such an assertion it is hard to know where to begin. The first question anyone should ask is how have you determined this. The answers you get back end up using the same flawed logic theists tend to use, or confusing the default position of not knowing something so we don't know with not knowing something so we claim it doesn't exist.

    To me the only valid argument for the intellectual position of atheism (ie I've thought about it and decided to be an atheist, rather than I lived 40,000 years ago and no one had invented gods yet) is the rejection of human religious assertions on the belief that it is far more plausible that they were invented (for a number of reasons best explained by evolution) and therefore are very unlikely to be actual reflections of reality, or if they are this is some what of a fluke.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Handsome Bob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,905 ✭✭✭✭Handsome Bob


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Dickish? I am not sure what that means.

    I would also love to “avoid” getting into that argument. In fact I would love to “avoid” getting into any argument about religion any time ever and just leave the religious alone.

    I am frankly not let. I am interested in Politics, Education, Science, Ethics, Morality, Law, Sexuality, Society and more. In EVERY single one of those realms of discourse I have god and religion shoved in my face. Apparently belief in gods does not make you happy, at least until everyone else believes it too.

    Since the base premise that it is all based on IS the existence or otherwise of this entity, it is hard to not end up having that argument regardless of how much I "want" to or how "dickish" it is.

    I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".


  • #158
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

    What you're essentially saying is that telling someone that you're an atheist is dickish because it is the position that somebody else's emotional support mechanism isn't true, as is the position of being a member of any faith except the one the person you're talking to is a member of for that matter.


  • #159
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

    Well as I said, this is not an approach that has any interest to me. If someone wants to stay at home and think there is a god and feel really good about that, or supported by it, then more power to them.

    If someone comes out into society and starts telling me something BASED on this god, then I really do not care what I am undermining, or how much they require believing in a god to stay supported or emotionally stable. Not a jot.

    In that scenario what they are telling me is either true, or it is not. It can not be both. So if they have no evidence to support the existence of the deity they are basing their position on, then I am likely to point that out.


  • #160
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Well as I said, this is not an approach that has any interest to me. If someone wants to stay at home and think there is a god and feel really good about that, or supported by it, then more power to them.

    If someone comes out into society and starts telling me something BASED on this god, then I really do not care what I am undermining, or how much they require believing in a god to stay supported or emotionally stable. Not a jot.

    In that scenario what they are telling me is either true, or it is not. It can not be both. So if they have no evidence to support the existence of the deity they are basing their position on, then I am likely to point that out.

    Exactly. Showing up at a funeral and telling all and sundry that their grandma's going to rot in the ground is a bit dickish but if someone wants their opinions to be taken seriously then the basis for those opinions is relevant.


  • #161
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It certain does, and that brings me to the most annoying/frustrating atheist argument of all time in my humble opinion (drum roll)

    "I know God/gods/a creator does not exist"

    There is so many flaws with the logic of such an assertion ...

    Back to this old chestnut. Just to be clear are you saying that anyone making any statement of the form "I know X does not exist" is incorrect? or are you just reserving this for special properties of gods and creators?


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    LZ5by5 wrote: »
    I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

    I think what he means is that the positive emotional support religion plays in someones life is fine until someone tries to, say, enact a law that bans abortion based on that positive emotional support. Then it becomes fair game for debate and critical assessment.

    As nozzferrahhtoo says it depends on the context.

    I wouldn't challenge the religious beliefs of a woman who's husband has just died. If she believes he is heaven good for her.

    I would challenge her religious beliefs if the next day she or someone sharing her beliefs, set up a campaign to get Creationism taught in all schools because we can't deny the truth of Jesus' resurrection or some such.


  • #163
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pH wrote: »
    Back to this old chestnut. Just to be clear are you saying that anyone making any statement of the form "I know X does not exist" is incorrect? or are you just reserving this for special properties of gods and creators?

    I am reserving it for things, including things with the special properties of gods, that are untestable and indeterminable.

    We have no ability to test if the universe was created or not, nor do we have any ability to test if a supernatural force interacts with the universe (creator or not).

    We cannot say these things don't exist. We can say we have no evidence they do, or that all the "evidence" put forward by theists is better explained by explanations that don't require taht they do exist.

    I've no idea if a creator deity exists, but I do know (that is to say I'm satisfied to the point of being happy to say this) that theists don't either, and the stories of such interactions with said deity are far better explained using currently understood natural explanations.


  • #164
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    "I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
    This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

    If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
    "Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
    "Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"


  • #165
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    komodosp wrote: »
    "I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
    This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

    If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
    "Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
    "Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"
    People who force their opinions on others usually think they're trying to help the person. We know they're trying to help us, just as the guys with the sandwich boards saying "The End is Nigh" are trying to help us. It doesn't mean we have to listen to them or that we shouldn't get annoyed by them.

    This is how the conversation should go: "Oh you think I'm going to hell if I don't accept your mythology as true? Well isn't that fantastic!! Now go away please"


  • #166
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Wicknight wrote: »
    We have no ability to test if the universe was created or not, nor do we have any ability to test if a supernatural force interacts with the universe (creator or not).

    There is one possible test, if a law of nature could be broken on request to the supernatural being, such as if amputees prayed to god for their arms to grow back and they did spontaneously and immediately. Such things never happen of course because prayer only seems to work when the outcome is ambiguous and you can never be sure if there was any supernatural element involved. So the interaction of a supernatural being could be proven but it can't be disproven just as the believers like it.


  • #167
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    komodosp wrote: »
    "Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
    "Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"
    LOL fairish point!


  • #168
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Dades wrote: »
    LOL fairish point!

    It'd be more fair if, when questioned about this cliff, the response was: "It's an invisible cliff that only those whose hearts are open to it can see but I know it's there" :P


  • #169
    komodosp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,657 ✭✭✭komodosp


    Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

    In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.

    I might add religious people use this argument too... a bit off topic I know, but religious people thank God for the seemingly random good things but don't blame him for the bad...
    "I believe in God but not that he hates homosexuals", you have no idea what God does and doesn't like, you've no choice but to believe the guy who told you he exists in the first place (priest/bible/whatever). It's like saying, "I believe in the Big Bang but I think it happened 25.2 billion years ago, not 13.7 billion" without any more research than reading the wikipedia article.


  • #170
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    komodosp wrote: »
    Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

    In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.

    I might add religious people use this argument too... a bit off topic I know, but religious people thank God for the seemingly random good things but don't blame him for the bad...
    "I believe in God but not that he hates homosexuals", you have no idea what God does and doesn't like, you've no choice but to believe the guy who told you he exists in the first place (priest/bible/whatever). It's like saying, "I believe in the Big Bang but I think it happened 25.2 billion years ago, not 13.7 billion" without any more research than reading the wikipedia article.

    The second part is not off topic, the argument that you find annoying from atheists is a direct response to the religious people who use the argument ;)

    We know that both bad and good things just happen and god isn't involved in either of them but as long as there are people out there thanking god for what they perceive as good things it's perfectly valid to point out that there are a great many more bad things going on and it's ludicrous to point to the good stuff as evidence for his existence and either ignore the bad stuff or make an appeal to ignorance, the "god knows best" or "god works in mysterious ways" argument you just gave. If you want to say he's involved in good stuff, you have to also explain the bad stuff.

    A prime example is people who nearly died from illness but got better and thanked god for making them better. They forget if god didn't want them to be sick they wouldn't have got sick in the first place. It's like thanking someone for taking their knife away from your throat.


  • #171
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,840 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    komodosp wrote: »
    Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

    I cant say I've ever seen these arguments made. What have seen, and what superficially looks the same but is quite different, are questions like "If god is good, why do bad things happen?", "Why would an infinitely loving/merciful god hate homosexuals" and "If he is so interested in people nowadays believing in him, why doest he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?". As Sam says, these are done in response to theists making claims about the nature of a god they cant possibly understand, and those claims are quite annoying.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,609 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    komodosp wrote: »
    In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.
    I can't believe you're using the "God Moves In Mysterious Ways" argument to counter the glaring holes in the benevolent god concept!


  • #173
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    komodosp wrote: »
    "I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
    This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

    If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
    "Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
    "Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"
    Dades wrote: »
    LOL fairish point!

    I've always said this. Its one of the reasons I'm so harsh on moderates on the forum here. At least fundamentalists are internally consistent. I think a person who honestly believes their loved ones are probably going to hell but doesn't do everything in their power to stop them are in a morally untenable position. Only real responses I've gotten to this is faux-liberal equivocation (I have no right to force my beliefs on others) or ludicrous avoidance (They may come to God on their own later in life). Seriously? You see someone ten feet away from a cliff, walking right towards it staring at the clouds, and your response is to hope they'll notice when they're two feet away?

    It's the exact same reason I get annoyed at people who take a position that is essentially "I respect that you think the omnipotent creator of the universe insists that gay sex is evil but I'd prefer if you went with what I say instead".

    You can't claim to respect their beliefs and then criticise their entirely rational behaviour following from those beliefs.

    Of course the only reasonable recourse is to decide to condemn their beliefs for the ludicrous and dangerous delusions that they are, which is not a position most people are comfortable with.


  • #174
    patmartino
    Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭patmartino


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This assumes that a soul is a tangible thing. Not everyone is convinced of this.

    When were we human enough in our evolution for god to give us souls.
    komodosp wrote: »
    Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    A prime example is people who nearly died from illness but got better and thanked god for making them better. They forget if god didn't want them to be sick they wouldn't have got sick in the first place. It's like thanking someone for taking their knife away from your throat.

    I had a friend who hit a horse while driving at night 11pm last week on a back road in Meath. The car was a write off and it was all the usual ...thank god, he was watching out for me BS. If he existed don't you think he wouldn't have put you in the situation.


  • #175
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    talkingdog wrote: »
    This is the biggest issue I have with religion.

    We know the bible is a work of fiction.

    All future discussions by theists should be done without reference to the bible.



    There is so much contradiction and interpreted meanings in the bible. Just look at Jackass, Fanny, PDN, they can make the bible fit any particular issue.
    At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!


  • #176
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    KindOfIrish wrote: »
    At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!

    Eh?


  • #177
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    KindOfIrish wrote: »
    At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!

    KindOfIrish...hmm. Could we have by chance lucked into getting a US creationist of Irish descent in our midst? This could be entertaining.

    Just so you know, current models suggest that the big bang occurred about 13 billion years ago, not one hundred million billion as you suggest.


  • #178
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Zillah wrote: »
    Just so you know, current models suggest that the big bang occurred about 13 billion years ago, not one hundred million billion as you suggest.

    Heresy!!

    13.73±0.12 Billion.:mad:
    Not sure what fascist atheist church you get your info from


  • #179
    cavedave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    Malty_T

    Heresy!!

    13.73±0.12 Billion.
    Not sure what fascist atheist church you get your info from

    He is a blasphemer. Who is up for taking Zillah to switzerland and sacrificing him at the LHC?


  • #180
    roosh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭roosh


    I think it's the same for both "sides" of the debate, both can be equally frustrating, because there are a great many assumptions on both sides that go unquestioned. When two people debate the existence of God, it is usually assumed by both sides that they are debating the same thing, when in actual fact, it can be such that each is arguing against their own particular perception of their "opponents" conceptualisation of what God is.

    This often manifests as the strawman argument against "the man in the clouds". Where one person argues against their own personal conceptualisation of God, assuming that it is what is the generally held belief.

    As an irreligious/areligious (whatever the term is) believer in God, I find that the atheist argument often boils down to an argument against religion, which is itself a fallacious argument, as God can exist independent of religion. That is perhaps the one I find most annoying.

    I think there is probably a whole different need for a discussion on the nature of God, so that both sides know what the other believes, before the question of existence can be discussed. Indeed, the question of existence can often be answered in the course of discussion on the nature of God.


    Another one that gets my goat up, is similar to the above, where people argue against their own subjective interpretation of a word or a concept, assuming that their interpretation of it, is the same as the person they are arguing against, or even that it is the standardised interpreation. I say this with particular reference to the argument against the "supernatural".

    It is usually argued that belief in the supernatural is irrational and in some way ignorant and non-scientific, when this is based solely on what someone's interpretation of what the word supernatural means, as opposed to how it is defined in the dictionary. Which, when known shows that belief in the supernatural is actually entirely rational, while non-belief in the supernatural is the actual irrational belief - by definition that is.


    Another one is the "celestial teapot" argument, where God is likened an invisible teapot in the aether, with certain characteristics added in. The obvious disconnect is usually ignored, as there would perhaps be a meaningful comparison, if there existed somewhere a river of tea from an unknown source, or at least some other material phenomenon that was asserted to have arisen from this teapot.


    Also, the one that really gets annoying, moreso after failure to accept or follow logic, is the argument against personal experience as a source of information and knowledge, when in fact it is the only real source of knowledge, as our entire existence is in the form of personal experience, even scientific experiments are subject to the subjectivity of personal experience.


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    mangaroosh wrote: »
    As an irreligious/areligious (whatever the term is) believer in God, I find that the atheist argument often boils down to an argument against religion, which is itself a fallacious argument, as God can exist independent of religion. That is perhaps the one I find most annoying.
    There are a few arguments for a god independent of religion for example the cosmological argument, ontological argument, teleological argument etc which are all flawed in their own special way but are all ultimately pointless because such a god is irrelevant to our existence. A god only becomes relevant when it is theistic, ie when it interacts in our world, and that's where arguing against religion comes in. As a god becomes more and more defined, the harder it is to defend, that's the theistic god but as it becomes less and less defined it becomes irrelevant, that's the deistic god

    mangaroosh wrote: »
    It is usually argued that belief in the supernatural is irrational and in some way ignorant and non-scientific, when this is based solely on what someone's interpretation of what the word supernatural means, as opposed to how it is defined in the dictionary. Which, when known shows that belief in the supernatural is actually entirely rational, while non-belief in the supernatural is the actual irrational belief - by definition that is.
    Now that's a claim and half. Care to justify it? Especially the assertion that belief in the supernatural is scientific.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Another one is the "celestial teapot" argument, where God is likened an invisible teapot in the aether, with certain characteristics added in. The obvious disconnect is usually ignored, as there would perhaps be a meaningful comparison, if there existed somewhere a river of tea from an unknown source, or at least some other material phenomenon that was asserted to have arisen from this teapot.
    The celestial teapot is an argument against theistic gods which are given certain characteristics that must be justified, eg that he is a teapot or that he answers prayers. You're mixing it up with an argument for a deistic god, the "something must have created the universe" type arguments, which again are ultimately pointless because even if you 100% prove that something created the universe, there will be a collective cry of "so what?" until you go on to prove the nature of this thing that created the universe, be it a teapot, a spaghetti monster or an intangible being that doesn't like gayness.
    mangaroosh wrote: »
    Also, the one that really gets annoying, moreso after failure to accept or follow logic, is the argument against personal experience as a source of information and knowledge, when in fact it is the only real source of knowledge, as our entire existence is in the form of personal experience, even scientific experiments are subject to the subjectivity of personal experience.

    No, just no. "Personal experience" is the least reliable source of information in existence. Our brains perceive the world through extremely flawed senses that can perceive things that are not there. One of the most important goals of science is to remove personal experience from the equation as much as possible and work with empirical data instead. If you've had a personal experience yourself that's great for you but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously unless you have some externally verifiable evidence. Thousands of people claim to have seen a miracle at Knock a few weeks ago and I don't believe them so I'm not going to accept your unverifiable account either

    Have a look at this video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI


Advertisement