Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

And yet we've just filled the last couple of pages with a back-and-forth of one-liners. Wouldn't it have been better to just explain what you meant in the first place?

What I meant is clear: that unless you know what you're talking about, 'astrology' is not a good example of "false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period".

 

[Commoner]

Oh, begging your pardon, Commoner, if you have been through this before. However, readers might misinterpret your words to be condescending to my message, but in actuality we have never exchanged a word on it have we Commoner? If my memory has failed to recall, just point us to those posts please.

I was objecting to your repeating the points from post #526, nothing more.

You touch on a very noticeable point here Commoner. Sometimes one gets the impression that many of you are trying to slay your own concept of God - not the one some of us are writing of. There is nothing supernatural mentioned in my posts (unless it is all supernatural) and all that has been covered is deemed totally natural by me. In fact, many are in agreement with Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, and one of the early western authors about it Richard Maurice Bucke (early 1900's) for examples that elements of this Experience are part of the next steps in evolution for humankind.

Regards,
a..1

This thread was started with the intention of providing evidence for the existance of god. I believe your posts were made with the same intention. If you have a concept of god that differs greatly from the mainstream concept, it is your job to point it out. You might have already done so, in that case I must have missed it and I would ask you to explain it again or point me to the post where you have already done so.

A god is, for most people, a deity - a supernatural being, something to be worshipped and idolized. I realize I can't dictate to you what you choose to call god, but if we're going to have any sort of meaningful conversation at all, on any subject, we must have at least a basic consensus on what certain words mean.

 

[Willamena]

You touch on a very noticeable point here Commoner. Sometimes one gets the impression that many of you are trying to slay your own concept of God - not the one some of us are writing of. There is nothing supernatural mentioned in my posts (unless it is all supernatural) and all that has been covered is deemed totally natural by me. In fact, many are in agreement with Ken Wilber, Andrew Cohen, and one of the early western authors about it Richard Maurice Bucke (early 1900's) for examples that elements of this Experience are part of the next steps in evolution for humankind.

And me.

 

[Commoner]

What I meant is clear: that unless you know what you're talking about, 'astrology' is not a good example of "false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period".

I think astrology is pretty well defined, would you like a definition?

 

[Willamena]

I think astrology is pretty well defined, would you like a definition?

Again, this is going off-topic.

Do we need to start a new thread, or does it really matter?

Edit: maybe we should ask ATS and get a snide answer.

 

[Commoner]

Again, this is going off-topic.

Do we need to start a new thread, or does it really matter?

Edit: maybe we should ask ATS and get a snide answer.

Well, since you decided that astrology is not a valid example, then you should explain why. I don't see how this would be off-topic at all, especially not in this thread, which is already all over the place.

Now, If you just wanted to make a sarcastic remark - that might have been the "original off-topic" and I'm sure some son of some god, somewhere in the universe will eventually get crucified for it.

I'm sure ATS will eventually find this exchange on his own. Let's leave it to chance.

 

[Willamena]

Well, since you decided that astrology is not a valid example, then you should explain why. I don't see how this would be off-topic at all, especially not in this thread, which is already all over the place.



Now, If you just wanted to make a sarcastic remark - that might have been the "original off-topic" and I'm sure some son of some god, somewhere in the universe will eventually get crucified for it.

• That others have gone off-topic doesn't make it alright for me to go off-topic (I'm funny that way).
• 
  The claim was invalid because the 'astrology' of today in no way resembles 'astrology' of 300 years ago or 'astrology' of a few thousand years ago.
• Defining 'astrology' would be off-topic.
• 
  There was no sarcasm in any of my posts on the last few pages.
• I don't get your last line.
• I'm off for home. laters.

 

[autonomous1one1]

@ autonomous1one1

If you met me in real life you be astounded at the difference between my posts and my discourse. The lack of tone doesn’t really help matters. I use the same turns of phrase and pretty much the same words, but without tone they may come across as being blunt. The bottom line is that if I didn’t enjoy my experience here I would not be here. Sometimes, when I don’t beat around the bush, it can come over as being negative – but if you met me you wouldn’t see it that way.

At present I don’t really think we can be said to have derailed any discussion. This is how threads usually go and, no doubt, there may be folks to continue the discussion after us.

Thanks Themadhair. Good response so we shall continue. Let me proceed by tearing apart your last post (haha, as if it was possible). But stay patient for the slow pace with which my brain works and right now there is some pressing play with Commoner and Copernicus.

 

[Commoner]

That others have gone off-topic doesn't make it alright for me to go off-topic (I'm funny that way).

If you didn't want to actually bring it up, why did you even decide to make the comment. That was a bit funny.

The claim was invalid because the 'astrology' of today in no way resembles 'astrology' of 300 years ago or 'astrology' of a few thousand years ago.

Looks pretty much the same to me - same basic principles, same false claims, same topics of interest.

Defining 'astrology' would be off-topic.

But why would we even need to? Are we really unclear on what "astrology" means?

I don't get your last line.

It was just a little off-topic rant about the absurdity of the idea of "original sin".

I'm off for home. laters.

Laters!

 

[autonomous1one1]

This is not evidence of anything. Taking powerful psychoactive drugs can be extraordinarily transformative, but it usually isn't a good idea to do that. Delusions and psychotic events can also be transformative, but that does not suggest that we ought to strive to be deluded or psychotic.

Skepticism of religion is also a repeatable experience that can be transmitted from one person to another. This kind of thing is hardly evidence of anything at all, other than the fact that people communicate with and influence each other.
​

​

Again, this is not particularly impressive. Lots of false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period, but they aren't necessarily worthy of being valued. Astrology, for example, is provably false, yet it has a very old history of belief and preservation.

You seem very impressed by the popularity of beliefs. There are lots of deluded beliefs being taught in the world, and some have very popular followings. Why do you consider this kind of argument persuasive?
​

It is also true that such "realizations" can be reversed. Lots of people change their minds about religion all the time. In that case, it does not "drive the being for the rest of one's finite participation". Again, there is no real force behind your argument. Subjective experiences are not evidence for the beliefs you are promoting. People disagree about how to interpret such experiences all the time....

Greetings Copernicus. Thank you for taking the time to examine each point in my previous post. Two questions come to mind however. All of the characteristics presented apply to one extraordinary experience that is, even to this day, not too common nor easy to realize. The collective of the characteristics for one experience is important. You have proposed defeating each characteristic using a totally different experience type for each characteristic. None of your examples alone would meet all of the characteristics. Doesn't this raise a concern in your mind? On the second issue, Willamena has offered that some counter notions that you put forward are irrelevant. This is my concern also because of the examples you have chosen for one reason. Let me attempt to clarify by picking one specific case.

It is also true that such "realizations" can be reversed. Lots of people change their minds about religion all the time. In that case, it does not "drive the being for the rest of one's finite participation".

Perhaps you can provide an example, but to my knowledge this realization has never been reversed and one might venture that it cannot be. You see, the realization is in the being, the being is it. It is not a matter of just changing ones mind. It is much more in the fabric. One's perspective of reality and one's sense of self are not easy to change and once shifted in this realization they cannot be reversed in my opinion. The fact that people change their minds about religion all the time just isn't relevant.

Best Wishes,
a..1

 

[Willamena]

If you didn't want to actually bring it up, why did you even decide to make the comment. That was a bit funny.

My comment didn't take it off topic.

Looks pretty much the same to me - same basic principles, same false claims, same topics of interest.

If you say so (I can hardly dispute what it looks like to you).

But why would we even need to? Are we really unclear on what "astrology" means?

We don't, as far as I'm concerned, need to define it. I'm clear on what it means.

 

[Commoner]

My comment didn't take it off topic.

Maybe not, but any criticism of your comment could not have been addressed without having gone off-topic. It was a hit-and-run!

 

[Copernicus]

Yes, those things can be extraordinarily transformative, but that's sort of irrelevent.​

And tell me again why you would want to take drugs, be deluded or psychotic based on anything A1O1 said?​

You're making no sense.

Edit: You know what. . . you want to take your drugs, you go take your drugs, I don't care; but that has nothing to do with the conversation to date.

Willamena, did you think that I was advocating that people take drugs? Did you miss my comment "but it usually isn't a good idea to do that"? Perhaps I should have put a sarcastic smiley on it. :sarcastic Would that have worked?

 

[Copernicus]

What I meant is clear: that unless you know what you're talking about, 'astrology' is not a good example of "false beliefs and superstitions have been valued and transferred through several thousand years to the present period".

For crying out loud. It was just an example of a belief system that is demonstrably false and has been around for a few thousand years. I was only trying to make the point that ancient beliefs are not necessarily reasonable beliefs.

 

[Copernicus]

Greetings Copernicus. Thank you for taking the time to examine each point in my previous post. Two questions come to mind however. All of the characteristics presented apply to one extraordinary experience that is, even to this day, not too common nor easy to realize. The collective of the characteristics for one experience is important. You have proposed defeating each characteristic using a totally different experience type for each characteristic.
None of your examples alone would meet all of the characteristics. Doesn't this raise a concern in your mind?

Look, I simply refuted each of your points with what I thought were good reasons to reject them. If you thought that they weren't good reasons, then respond to them in a straightforward fashion. A summary dismissal is not actually responsive. What raises a concern in my mind is your failure to engage those points.

On the second issue, Willamena has offered that some counter notions that you put forward are irrelevant...

I think that they were direct and to the point. From what I read of her remarks, I don't think that she understood the points I was making to you.

This is my concern also because of the examples you have chosen for one reason. Let me attempt to clarify by picking one specific case.

OK, but I can't help but feel that you have no response to my other points.

Perhaps you can provide an example, but to my knowledge this realization has never been reversed and one might venture that it cannot be. You see, the realization is in the being, the being is it. It is not a matter of just changing ones mind. It is much more in the fabric. One's perspective of reality and one's sense of self are not easy to change and once shifted in this realization they cannot be reversed in my opinion. The fact that people change their minds about religion all the time just isn't relevant.

You seem to be all over the place on this "mystical" experience. On the one hand, you seem to think that it has recurred repeatedly throughout history and that the very repetition and commonality supports your case. But the fact is that lots of people have had mystical experiences that were obviously delusions. The 9/11 terrorists went to their deaths believing that their mystical experiences justified their acts of mass murder. The Son of Sam serial killer had a mystical life-changing experience when he heard voices in his head ordering him to kill people. And then there have been true believers--devout Christian fundamentalists such as Dan Barker and Bart Ehrman. Do you think that these people lacked your mystical experience? How could you possibly know? Do you think that you know what was in their minds before they became apostates?

 

[Copernicus]

My comment didn't take it off topic.

Actually, both your comments went off topic from my perspective. I was addressing points that Autonomous1one1 made. Your first comment misinterpreted and misrepresented what I actually said. The "astrology" comment was a perfectly valid response to what he had said. You started quibbling about how one ought to define "astrology", which was completely off topic.

 

[Willamena]

Look, I simply refuted each of your points with what I thought were good reasons to reject them. If you thought that they weren't good reasons, then respond to them in a straightforward fashion. A summary dismissal is not actually responsive. What raises a concern in my mind is your failure to engage those points.

Your first point was, apparently, that because drug-induced/delusional experiences exist that are transformative, this totally unrelated experience that is transformative cannot evidence God. Can you explain that further please?

 

[Willamena]

The 9/11 terrorists went to their deaths believing that their mystical experiences justified their acts of mass murder.

Do you have a source for this?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

what! 120 pages, still no evidence!

 

[themadhair]

Do you have a source for this?