Ah. . . God dunnit. Good one.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Yes, I can. The point was being made that life-transforming experiences such as the mystical experience in question were somehow validators of religious belief. My point was that life-transforming experiences do not necessarily validate conclusions that one draws from those experiences. People who get hooked on drugs, for example, very often see their experience as transformative, but the pursuit of such experiences certainly isn't one that a rational person would recommend to others.
Sorry I can't give themadhair frubals for offering a documented source to back up my claim, but I thought it was a perfect response.
Last edited:
That would be where the misunderstanding occured, then, in generalizing what was said. The point, rather, was that the said experience, being transformative and as otherwise described, evidences "God".
Generalizing life-transforming experiences isn't helpful to your argument.
Dear friend Copernicus. There is no intention of overlooking something of importance to you. We could debate 'straightforward fashion' and 'summary dismissal' and 'not responsive' but my position would probably be defeated judging from your expert linguistic abilities. So, let me try to be more specific in explaining my case and offer more.
My approach in responding was to provide two refuting reasons.
One questioned the applicability of your approach; this is covered more specifically below and unless missed by me, has not yet seen your response.
The second reason applied to each of your assertions by questioning the example provided as the basis for the assertion. Both my post and that of Willemena give examples. This is further elaborated upon below also.
In my opinion, Copernicus, Willemena understands posts far better than most in RF. Therefore, it is with thankfulness that it is noted that she has decided to post on your comments and with willingness to rest my position on her case with some of your points.
Yes, that is one reasonable conclusion.
On the other hand, in these RF debates one volleys only for the private opinion in the mind of others; there is little desire on my part to change any of your opinions, beliefs, or nonbeliefs. Thus, if one wishes to rest one's case without addressing each and every point so be it. However, respectfulness and expressed importance to others (as you have expressed here) can alter this conclusion.With that in mind would you care to respond to my first question on your approach? It is important to me. Here is a better explanation of my concern (Sometimes one wishes for your linguistic abilities but might have to settle for a lesson or two.) You see, my evidence was based on one specific and unique experience, what was labeled the Mystic Experience for this thread. It is well documented and many examples have been analyzed and provided over the years. A number of characteristics about it which together point to its specialness (at least that was thought) have been listed. All of these characteristics have been noted to be pertinent to this one particular experience. To refute each of those applicable to one documented experience you have chosen many different 'experiences' some not documented to question the Mystic Experience specialness: drugs for transformation, skepticism of religion for transmittance, astrology for 'passing down,' deluded beliefs for popularity, and changing minds about religion for 'reversals of such realizations.' If you had presented one experience with all the characteristics of the Mystic Experience it would still be alive today and have gotten more attention here.
"..all over the place..." How so? You didn't give me the 'other hand' but gave me multiple examples which don't really apply from my perspective. Your post here makes my second point in agreement with Willemena - that the examples you have chosen as the bases for your assertions are not relative. Willemena addressed astrology and drugs. In my previous post, other religious experiences for reversal of decision was addressed. What you seem to be doing here to me is the same thing noted there. Correct my opinion here, Copernicus, but it seems that you take a general label of the one specific mystic, 'religious' experience (religious or mystic for examples) and looking at the total spectrum of religious experiences or misguided 'mystic experiences' by your definition try to find some exceptions. Anything about the experiences of mass murderers, serial killers, deluded individuals, those with hallucinations, and others that may be psychopathic do not apply to this specific Mystic Experience. Your comment on Dan Barker and Bart Ehrman and their relevance to the discussion is not understood.
Regards,
a..1
Last edited:
Themadhair ---
Do we have evidence that the 9/11 terrorists acted on the basis of 'mystic experiences?' From the perspective of many, every religious experience leading to action is not mystic and they did not act on that basis. In fact, most religious experiences would not be called mystic experiences.
Do we have evidence that the 9/11 terrorists acted on the basis of 'mystic experiences?' From the perspective of many, every religious experience leading to action is not mystic and they did not act on that basis. In fact, most religious experiences would not be called mystic experiences.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Do we have evidence that anyone has ever had a mystic experience?
Do we have evidence that anyone has ever had an experience?
...
Well, just what they've said.
We have a forum dedicated to Mysticism here at RF, if you're interested. Like any forum, you may have to wade through some posts to find anything specific.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism/
Some interesting threads:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-2/60840-atheist-mystic.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism/64676-mystic-sisyphus.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...experiences-intersubjectively-verifiable.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism/57718-what-allowed-my-being.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism/52187-role-modern-mystic.html
This one's kinda funny:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism/51744-why-do-mystics-find-so-difficult.html
Have a good (long, for me) weekend.
Good point, Commoner. You have my sympathies.
No, there haven't been any posts on the concept of God related to post #526 so you haven't missed anything. When originating this line of discussion it seemed obvious from the post that the concept of God was unique and that it might be one of the primary discussions. You are the first to address it and your post resonates well with me.
From one perspective, Commoner, there is one God, God is God. The many 'sides of the same coin' come about from the different perspectives that humans apply to interpreting God. Some human perspectives come from very limited world views while others come from sophisticated views encompassing many aspects. The concept of God has to come out differently. Because of the many interpretations of the concept 'God' some more modern theologians and teachers of spirituality have introduced additional terms to signify God but that narrow the interpretations humans would make. In the 1960's in the US we had the 'God is dead' theologians attempting to kill off some of the 'wrong' concepts in their world views. During that time period, late 1960's, this new way of thinking about God became real for me through the works of the Christian Dr. Paul Tillich, Professor of Theology and Philosophy and author of many books. In one of his books he introduced the God above God and the 'Ground of Being' as that God.
In contemporary spirituality, which tries to take one to direct personal experience of God, the leaders and teachers have brought additional terms, all referring to the same, out into the public eye. Permit me to offer a list of these terms to give a better idea of what we are talking of in #526: God, Ground of Being, Source, Brahman, TrueSelf, Consciousness-itself, Being-itself, Absolute, Infinite, Tao (in my view), Buddha-nature, Allah, and others and all referring to the same. Plotinus (CE 205-270) taught that there is a supreme totally transcendent One. The term used is not important except to get the interpretations of others more closely focused on what is meant. [these terms have been mentioned by Ben d and myself in other threads so this list may be expanded within 24 hrs. by editing.] At this point one suspects that all the atheists and all the theists have separated. That leaves only the 0.1% of those who have discovered this amazing perspective on reality so let me close.
Much to my amazement the experience of #526 can be found albeit with varying descriptions as the source and aim of each of the major religions. In one published writing in English about Hinduism found by me over forty years ago the following was written as the definition of Enlightenment: the being realizes identity with the Source of all being.
Regards,
a..1
Greetings ATS. In addition to what Willamena said we have the resultant beings of experience and documented accounts of them as our evidence.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
We'll get around to that evidence any time now...just around the corner.
Even if someone posted it, you either wouldn't believe it or would misinterpret it.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Thank you for your prediction from your crystal ball and the implication that I am close-minded. I wasn't aware you possessed clairvoyancy. But perhaps your Godlike powers, Willamena, would be better served bettering the world, and not berating someone who only expects a person who started a thread with the aim of presenting evidence for his deity...to actually present that evidence. But of course that wouldn't matter to you. That would be honest.
Your concern is noted. If only I gave a flying turd.
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
What's your occupation? Ever considered being a Jamaican TV psychic?
I like you, Max, even though I don't recognize the reference (some dislike of Jamaicans?
)An "experience" (any experience) could be described to high hell, but what good would that do the person who can't identify with it?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I like you, Max, even though I don't recognize the reference (some dislike of Jamaicans?
An "experience" (any experience) could be described to high hell, but what good would that do the person who can't identify with it?
The reference was Miss Cleo lol
Experiences are subjective and most likely the result of pareidolia, decoupled conversations, HADD, or something other psychological/neurological occurance. The reason why the argument from experience fails is because people have experiences directly relating to their religion. Has there ever been a Christian who had an experience of a Hindu god? If there has, I wouldn't say they're very numerous.
For experiences to be counted as evidence, they'd have to be objective.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Pertaining to the "experience" discussion, I'm currently dating a theist. And she believes BECAUSE of her experiences. I asked her to describe her most powerful experience. And she said that years ago, it was raining and she was crying about her previous boyfriend and as soon as she stopped crying, it was sunny.
What information does that give me about any God?
What information does that give me about any God?
Okay. . . don't know her.
All experiences? What about the experience of life, or the experience of reality?
What about the person like me who wasn't raised in any religion, who had an experience that she can identify with past authors who have described it, and even today has to struggle with religious symbolism? Doesn't that defy the idea that "all" arguments from this "experience" relate directly to their religion?
Has there ever been an experience of a Christian who could identify his experience with that of the Hindu? Yes. And the Alexandian. And the Celt. And the modern person from good ole' U.S.A. It happens.
The mystic believes because of his experiences, too. It is evidence (evidence, it is) that gives us reason to believe (a truism).
Clearly, it gives you symbolism. If you're sympathetic at all, you could identify.
Edit: Did you see the movie "Signs"?
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I consider the experience of life and reality to be similar, if not the same in a lot of cases. But we experience reality because we observe an entity and conceptualize it. Thus we know it exists. It is a manifestation.
In an "experience" and I thought we were talking about religious experiences, the entity has been conceptualized (or though various psychological and neurological processes, agency has been detected where none exists, for example)...but the entity itself hasn't manifested itself.
Except I didn't say "all" experiences...I said "experiences are mostly like the result of...". Obviously I don't know everyone's experience. But these processes of the mind I mention are the most rational and likely candidate as the explanation for any experience.
Nor did I say that experiences were limited to religion.
More importantly, what did those experiences say about the deity in question? Was it an objective deity (i.e. clearly the Christian God, or clearly a Hindu God)? How was this verified?