Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Breathe]

-- Mod Advisory --

Please avoid off-topic personal comments guys, and let's get back on topic.

-- End of Mod Advisory --
​

 

[autonomous1one1]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings. Getting back on topic, once in a while the religious experience gets mentioned in this thread and seems worthy of further comment.[/FONT]

[In response to [FONT=&quot]Post by Michel07 [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]No one is denying that hallucinations can and do occur but the dismissal of all metaphysical, spiritual or mystical experiences in NOT a science apart from the fact that it is remarkably narrow minded.[/FONT]]
[FONT=&quot]All you have to do is produce one and verify the "truth" of it.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Feel free to proceed.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings OmarKhayyam. An example of such experience - which might be called ‘the mystical experience’ – has been produced in post #526, page 53. One may always question the interpretation of another’s subjective experience but the ‘truth’ of this particular experience has been verified over and over again throughout history by many individuals.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The issue wasn't religious belief. It was "spiritual experiences."
Talking with god. Throwing an ink well at the devil. See your dearly departed in heaven beckoning to you to come. Hearing the voice of god commanding you to do this or that.
All experiences reported by one or more true believer's. Such occurrences were cited as evidence for the existence of god.

From my perspective, OmarKhayyam, your examples of ‘spiritual experiences’ seem to lean more towards spiritualism than spirituality. Many of us are writing about spirituality and mean something totally different from what you have stated when speaking of spiritual experiences. Again, see post #526 which gives the summum bonum of spirituality in my view.

But doesn’t the fact that such experiences are not uncommon, and that different people will readily attribute such experiences to vastly different things, not highlight a problem here? It shows the experiences happen, but casts strong doubt on your assertion for their cause.......

Greetings Themadhair. It does not seem readily apparent that the points you raise highlight a problem. Unless one studies the variety of experiences, how can it be determined that similar descriptions are being attributed to different ‘things’ rather than different descriptions being given to different kinds of experiences? Perhaps you have looked at this. Even if your point is good, the specific experience covered in post #526 overcomes any such problem. This specific experience is still relatively uncommon and those with such realization usually ascribe the same or similar characteristics.

We are just biological, I do know how comforting it must be for you to believe you will live forever, its a perfectly understandable, no one wants their life to end, so a religion furnishes you with a way to cheat death, I think that is why religion is so popular, "believe and you will never truly die" a very attractive offer. I do find that mindset to be extremely arrogant, that somehow in the entire cosmos you are so important that your life will continue. Given the planet we inhabit, a planet stuck in the backwaters of the galaxy we could all perish planet and all and no one would ever know and the cosmos would continue as though we and our little planet never existed, and that is the reality of the situation, you nor me, nor our planet are really not that important, I know, "God created earth and all things in it, we are the center of the universe and will never die" Sorry, I just know when your time comes you are going to be very disappointed.

Greetings Richardlowellt. You present one perspective, a dualistic one, on eternal life which you consider to exhibit arrogance. There is another perspective that doesn’t exhibit arrogance because the term becomes meaningless from this perspective. One realizes eternal life when one realizes the True Self and this requires a nondual view and transcendence of the ego in which arrogance resides.[/FONT]

 

[Michel07]

Actually, there are a number of both reputable and non-reputable sources that do not correctly define atheism.

</p>
So now you're the expert on definitions and reputable linguists don't know what their talking about? I am not naive enough to recognize internet anonymity as credentials. The real difference between the two definitions is WHY people choose to employ one over the other. It is often not what people do but why they do it that defines their honesty. Many atheists employ arguments to discredit and belittle the beliefs of theists and then try to hide behind the skirt of non belief as though theirs was really a non committed neutral position. This constitutes intellectual duplicity not to mention hiding behind a skirt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's also a fine example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

 

[Willamena]

· This &#8216;realization&#8217; is actual and well documented for many cases; more information about it is available today than ever before. That the experience happens cannot really be questioned legitimately imo. (How the experience is interpreted can be questioned of course.)
· The &#8216;realization&#8217; is greatly transformative and is expressed in similar being and interpretation by all those so experiencing it in such a way that one can recognize a fellow &#8216;awakened&#8217; human. Exceptional characteristics expressed are nonduality and a shifted perspective of reality, eternal transcendent and infinite being, lack of fear, underlying joy, transcendence of the ego, oneness with all, and more.
· The experience can be transmitted to others and has been repeated down through the ages to us and to increasing numbers at the present period. Imo, in a limited sense it has intersubjective verifiability.
In effort to crystallize what the evidence is here, from one perspective one might conclude that the &#8216;resultant being and awareness&#8217; from the experience is the evidence of God, and that the objective evidence of the evidence () is the corroborative testimony from many, the consistency of interpretation, the enormous transformative power, and the repeatability.

I've had reason to wonder if history will recall the Internet contributing significantly towards a general rise in awareness.

 

[themadhair]

Unless one studies the variety of experiences, how can it be determined that similar descriptions are being attributed to different ‘things’ rather than different descriptions being given to different kinds of experiences?

Having talked to many people claiming such experiences there seems to be considerable overlap in what they describe – and the only real difference I’ve yet seen has been what they claim as the cause or source for those experiences. I can accept the contention that experiences can differ greatly, but I think it is a stretch to claim that different experiences can be rendered different on the basis of attributed source. The conformational bias alone should be enough to raise doubts.

Even if your point is good, the specific experience covered in post #526 overcomes any such problem.

How? Replace the word ‘god’ with ‘allah’ and I’m pretty sure it would be an accurate description of the experiences of some Muslims. I have met Scientologists who have described experiences not dissimilar to yours (they call it a ‘cognition’).

If a Hindu, Buddhist, <insert and religious follower here>, etc. had the same experience as you wouldn’t they attribute it to their own particular theology? And if so doesn’t this raise a serious question mark over your claim that such is evidence for your particular god?

This constitutes intellectual duplicity not to mention hiding behind a skirt.

When an atheist tells you what they do, or do not, believe why do you, and folks like PureX, seem so determined not to believe them? I don’t get it. If someone tells you they believe or don’t believe in X then what grounds have you for challenging that? Trying to apply a definition to someone in this seems pretty pointless, as well as being an admission that you cannot accept what that person is saying at face value.

 

[themadhair]

It's also a fine example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

Actually it isn&#8217;t. This fallacy is when a member of a particular group attempts to disown another from belonging to that group using criteria insufficient and irrelevant to establishing that disownment. CM is merely giving the definition of atheist that he uses, as well as elucidating on the definition that applies to him while commenting on why he feels that some offered definitions fail.

Pretty much think your implication of the fallacy is well off the mark here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've had reason to wonder if history will recall the Internet contributing significantly towards a general rise in awareness.

Yeah, it would probably only be found to have contributed towards a general rise in awareness in those who use the internet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Pretty much think your implication of the fallacy is well off the mark here.

And I pretty much think you're wrong. :yes:

 

[themadhair]

And I pretty much think you're wrong. :yes:

Care to substantiate why?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

And I pretty much think you're wrong. :yes:

Well that's encouraging.

 

[PureX]

I've had reason to wonder if history will recall the Internet contributing significantly towards a general rise in awareness.

I fear just the opposite. It seems to me that the internet provides an easy way for anyone to find ratification for anything.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I fear just the opposite. It seems to me that the internet provides an easy way for anyone to find ratification for anything.

Wow, I didn't realize the internet provided such formal authority. I've written up a treaty with my mother-in-law outlining that she can't come visit for more than one day at a time. Do you think I can get that ratified on the internet?

 

[themadhair]

I fear just the opposite. It seems to me that the internet provides an easy way for anyone to find ratification for anything.

Maybe I'm naive, but I have confidence that in the free market of ideas in an unrestricted format such as the internet will allow the best of those ideas to come out on top.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Maybe I'm naive, but I have confidence that in the free market of ideas in an unrestricted format such as the internet will allow the best of those ideas to come out on top.

Been reading On Liberty?

 

[Willamena]

How? Replace the word ‘god’ with ‘allah’ and I’m pretty sure it would be an accurate description of the experiences of some Muslims. I have met Scientologists who have described experiences not dissimilar to yours (they call it a ‘cognition’).

If a Hindu, Buddhist, <insert and religious follower here>, etc. had the same experience as you wouldn’t they attribute it to their own particular theology?

They already have. One could argue that they started the whole shebang.

And if so doesn’t this raise a serious question mark over your claim that such is evidence for your particular god?

The claim, though, is "evidence for god".

 

[themadhair]

The claim, though, is "evidence for god".

And if different concepts of god are contradictory?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

And if different concepts of god are contradictory?

Well then they're wrong and I'm right...Or maybe they're just interpreting it wrong... Well everyone but me is... Oh darn, this is much harder that I thought it'd be...

 

[nonbeliever_92]

In any case no evidence has been posted on this thread.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I've had reason to wonder if history will recall the Internet contributing significantly towards a general rise in awareness.

Yeah, it would probably only be found to have contributed towards a general rise in awareness in those who use the internet.

I fear just the opposite. It seems to me that the internet provides an easy way for anyone to find ratification for anything.

Greetings Willamena. Although atotalstranger and PureX make interesting points, from my perspective on the type of awareness you are addressing in post #526 the Internet is definitely creating a boom right now. Those who are guiding us in the spirituality area have noted the vast expansions in interest and how they themselves are able to reach greatly expanded audiences throughout the world. For the first time in history one has a tremendous reservoir of information, techniques, and guides available at fingertip. Me thinks the boom from the Internet will show up in history but of course at this point it is a guess based upon the trend within only a few years of experience.