Evidence?

[autonomous1one1]

Originally Posted by autonomous1one1
Greetings Yossarian. Just wanted to offer a comment on the "semblance of a pattern." There is a select group of experiences that do have common characteristics such that many of us think that one breakthrough experience is being described. I posted on this experience above in a response to Nanda.

Hmm, could you give me a post number? I don't want to have to search through the entire thread.

My pleasure, Yossarian. It is post #86. The experience that I write about might be relatively rare for any specific generation of the past but when the last 2500 years is considered there are many examples to read about. Whereas the experience is most often found in the religious realm, it is noteworthy in philosophy, poetry, psychology, and other realms as well; and is more prevalent today than in any period in the past in my opinion.
Regards,
a..1

 

[yossarian22]

This thread isn't about evidence for any one religion.

I quoted your OP for a reason. One of your points is highly flawed. There is no evidence for any religion.

 

[yossarian22]

My pleasure, Yossarian. It is post #86.

Thanks.

The experience that I write about might be relatively rare for any specific generation of the past but when the last 2500 years is considered there are many examples to read about. Whereas the experience is most often found in the religious realm, it is noteworthy in philosophy, poetry, psychology, and other realms as well; and is more prevalent today than in any period in the past in my opinion.
Regards,
a..1

The issue I take is that a randomly selected sample does not have any sort of consistency. When you arbitrarily pick and choose your samples, you are not following any sort of acceptable procedure.
I will look into those books though. I have a shortage on things to read.

 

[autonomous1one1]

....... When you arbitrarily pick and choose your samples, you are not following any sort of acceptable procedure.

How so in this case?

 

[yossarian22]

How so in this case?

Its a common practice for a reason. If we arbitrarily pick events with similar outcomes, we are just changing the data to suit our needs. Now stratifying (or blocking) is an acceptable practice, so long as you do not base it off the response. So picking experiences from blocks of time would be acceptable.
Edit: it would be best not to drag this thread further off topic. If somebody can show me data that follows a pattern in an acceptable manner, I will cede the point.

 

[logician]

Obviously, it does not prove that God exists - it could be mass hysteria, for example, or some natural phenomena that affects how the brain or senses perceive stimuli. However, to dismiss it without consideration of all possibilities, including the existence of a higher entity, is not good practice for a statistician.

The workings of human neurons and the existence of a supernatural entity are completely independant of each other.

 

[rojse]

The workings of human neurons and the existence of a supernatural entity are completely independant of each other.

What I tried to say was that what many people think is real may not actually be. For example, we perceive different visual images different because of how we think. There is only one object, but the way people perceive it is quite varied, to the point where, if we compare our different perceptions of one object, it would seem so far apart that we are both examining a different object.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Its a common practice for a reason. If we arbitrarily pick events with similar outcomes, we are just changing the data to suit our needs. Now stratifying (or blocking) is an acceptable practice, so long as you do not base it off the response. So picking experiences from blocks of time would be acceptable.
Edit: it would be best not to drag this thread further off topic.

Greetings Yossarian. You make a good point about skewing data which is consistent with my scientific background as well. Investigation of the religious experience seems to me to require something different, however, more like the late Project Blue Book the Air Force had for investigation of UFO experiences. Every single event had to be examined because even one single event that was significant would have been important to the conclusion of the whole study. They didn't do a statistical analysis of the entire database and reach a conclusion based upon lack of statistically valid similarities.

....If somebody can show me data that follows a pattern in an acceptable manner, I will cede the point.

Anyway, your open mindedness and willingness to take a look at the books mentioned in my prior post is appreciated. They are pointers to a particular type of experience that does have similar characteristics. You surprise me here, and I offer my compliments.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Rolling_Stone]

May I direct you to 2 posts in another thread:

From a philosophical stand point if you make the supposition that God is a collective of consciousnesses and we are created by god you then must make the supposition that we are part of gods consciousnesses and as a collective we have the knowledge of god. Do you see how this theory does not work?

The more I thought about this response the more I smiled. People throughout history have been describing this as experience and interpreting it according to their understanding and culture. It goes hand-in-hand with religious concepts and descriptions using words like: revelation, born again, enlightenment, Oneness, Buddha-mind, Atman, and Christ-consciousness to name a few. Perhaps you ought to read The Integrated Theory of Intelligence.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Reality does not end where the skin begins. Its inevitable corollary is equally true: life does not end where the skin ends. We can, with practice, see the world from the perspective of energy without boundaries. And as much as people might rail against this unconventional perspective, it is much more consistent with modern science than the dominant worldview: that of a universe composed of relatively isolated yet interacting bits and pieces.

As we cultivate the conscious awareness of our responses to life's situations, we begin to see patterns and correlations between our mind-state and our reality. As the veil lifts, we become painfully aware of the connection between our thinking and our experiences: between cause and effect. Our physical perceptions become increasingly superfluous as we begin to see ‘things’ as thought-forms and time—the movement between the birth of an idea and its fulfillment—as a soft cushion protecting us from ourselves.

And this is just the beginning. No one can walk this path for us. Each of us is on our own timetable.

 

[Willamena]

I quoted your OP for a reason. One of your points is highly flawed. There is no evidence for any religion.

Um, yes there is... but I suppose it depends on how you're defining "religion." There's churches and temples, rites and rituals, congregations and charity events, prayers and shared beliefs. And donuts. There is plenty of evidence for "any religion."

 

[yossarian22]

Um, yes there is... but I suppose it depends on how you're defining "religion." There's churches and temples, rites and rituals, congregations and charity events, prayers and shared beliefs. And donuts. There is plenty of evidence for "any religion."

Doh. If you look at it that way... you are correct. There is evidence for the existence of religion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There is no evidence for any religion.

There's that irrational demand for "evidence" again. What was it that William Blake wrote?

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, until he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern.”[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]One reviewer of Blake’s poems wrote that “They give fresh proof of the alarming increase of the effects of insanity.” Blake is remembered as a visionary, but how is the critic remembered?
[/FONT]

 

[Willamena]

What was it that William Blake wrote?

Okay, but what does that have to do with the irrefutable evidence that religons exist??

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Okay, but what does that have to do with the irrefutable evidence that religons exist??

Not everyone is shackled to "objectivism." "Irrefutable evidence" is a silly demand, for unimaginative thought imposes shackles on the human spirit. It makes them less than truly human. "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

 

[Willamena]

Not everyone is shackled to "objectivism." "Irrefutable evidence" is a silly demand, for unimaginative thought imposes shackles on the human spirit. It makes them less than truly human. "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

Wouldn't the "doors" (of subjectivity) "cleansed" so that everything is "infinite" indicate that William Blake was "shackled to" objectivity (I have no idea what objectivism is)?

What thought is not imaginative?

Edit: I won't argue the concept of "less then huamn," as I lived 20 years of my life as such.

 

[yossarian22]

Not everyone is shackled to "objectivism." "Irrefutable evidence" is a silly demand,

Pity I don't ask for irrefutable evidence. I ask for evidence of any kind. Of course it needs to be meaningfl

for unimaginative thought imposes shackles on the human spirit. It makes them less than truly human. "As the true method of knowledge is experiment, the true faculty of knowing must be the faculty which experiences."

Horse****

 

[Willamena]

Pity I don't ask for irrefutable evidence. I ask for evidence of any kind. Of course it needs to be meaningful

Yes, meaningful... that's the irrefutable kind.
(and incidentally subjective...)

 

[yossarian22]

Yes, meaningful... that's the irrefutable kind.

Not necessarily. We might have just been fooled by randomness.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Pity I don't ask for irrefutable evidence. I ask for evidence of any kind. Of course it needs to be meaningfl

If you say so.

You don't believe -- I won't attempt to make ye:
You are asleep -- I won't attempt to wake ye.
Sleep on! sleep on! while in your pleasant dreams
Of Reason you may drink of Life's clear streams.
Reason and Newton, they are quite two things;
For so the swallow and the sparrow sings.

Reason says `Miracle': Newton says `Doubt.'
Aye! that's the way to make all Nature out.
`Doubt, doubt, and don't believe without experiment':
That is the very thing that Jesus meant,
When He said `Only believe! believe and try!
Try, try, and never mind the reason why!'
(William Blake)