You know that feeling you have toward the May 21st people?

[_MrStakhanovite]

Harold Camping's Eschatology is nothing like the other people in those photos.

Seriously, stop mocking something you don't understand.

[_68Cadillac]

Seriously, stop mocking something you don't understand.

You're correct. I don't understand any of their religions because none of them make any sense. This includes yours. I can make no sense of the gibberish.

So I'll mock, and you'll take it.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I don't understand any of their religions because none of them make any sense.

Then you should read some books.

This includes yours.

I'm an atheist, I don't have an eschatology.

I can make no sense of the gibberish.

It's not gibberish.

So I'll mock, and you'll take it.

If you don't take the time to understand people's beliefs, you can't expect other people to do the same. If you don't take other people seriously, you can't expect others to.

[_EAllusion]

There's two versions of the "prove love for a mother" cliché' that is frequently trotted out against atheists. It's usually done to demonstrate that belief without evidence or demonstrable evidence is sometimes Ok in order to imply that belief in God is one of those times.

The first version asks you to prove you love your mother. The other is to trust that someone else loves their mother when they say so.

While there are things that one is justified in believing without evidence - such as the belief that your senses are generally a reliable guide to reality - this is something that can and should be believed only with evidence. The evidential burden is a little different in each case, though.

In Simon's version, it starts out with establishing through intersubjective experience that people experience a class of emotions and attitudes we label "love." That's actually straightforward, and yet usually is the hang-up because Simon probably doesn't understand why "love" is intersubjective, but not "God." Going from there, proving to someone else to the extent you can is a matter of having behavior consistent with love and the value of testimony of mundane things. It's a weak case, but given the stakes being so low and love for one's parents so common, not something we would be apt to challenge. Proving to yourself, however, is much stronger because you are in the position to know what you are internally experiencing and the claim is just about what you are internally experiencing. The only trick is making sure that what you call love matches what other people call love, which is actually a pretty short hurdle in this case.

[_68Cadillac]

I'm an atheist, I don't have an eschatology.

Me too. Sorry for the misunderstanding, your attack read like apologist copy.

And I'll still mock them, I don't require a full understanding of the minutia of their religions.

[_Buffalo]

Brilliant!

[_Simon Belmont]

There's two versions of the "prove love for a mother" cliché' that is frequently trotted out against atheists.

Just to clear something up: I am not against atheism. I do have some questions about it, and I think there are some things that I can't make sense of. But I am not anti-atheist.

And 68Cadillac: you don't know enough to mock someone else's deeply held belief system. Learn a thing or two about why completely rational, sane, and highly intelligent people are sometimes deeply devoted to their faith.

[_Ceeboo]

Brilliant!

"Brilliant"?

Not the word I would have used. (Wouldn't have even considered it, really)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

"Brilliant"?

Not the word I would have used. (Wouldn't have even considered it, really)

Peace,
Ceeboo

It is brilliant. It illustrates the absurdity of the whole rapture/second coming belief that is so often taken for granted.

[_MrStakhanovite]

And I'll still mock them, I don't require a full understanding of the minutia of their religions.

But why? What do you hope to accomplish by mocking believers? Whatever rhetorical point you wanted to make is defeated by equating Camping’s unique American dispensationalist views with people like C.S. Lewis (Church of England) or the Pope, who have a very different understanding of Revelation and other prophetic works. I mean, Martin Luther would have thought Camping to be outright demonic for his views. And John Piper? Really?

I don’t understand what you are trying to do here.