Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[themadhair]

It is obvious from your posts, Commoner and Themadhair, that you do not understand this Mystic Experience.

You make this comment only to follow it up with interpretational based criteria. Your entire dismissal of Commoner’s spider experience analogy boiled down to asserting that the mystic experience differed because it was “nondual”and that there is“no subject, no object, and no interpretation.”I think you just demonstrated Commoner’s point somewhat due to:

1) Having no basis whatsoever for ignoring “previous conditions held internally”, particularly given some of the argumentation given previously that would make it hard to discount the role of the person’s theology in the interpretation of the experience.
2) Having no basis for declaring that such experiences do not involve a “subject that experiences an object” (object interpreted rather broadly here) and would appear to be committing the fallacy of reification in the process.
3) Having a set of criteria that, even when you change your terms as you did in your declaration that “The Mystic Instance is the breakthrough of the nonduality into realization”, are still entirely interpretation.

Commoner’s analogy made the point that the same experience by two different people can be regarded very differently solely on the basis of differing reactions. Without a well-defined/workable set of criteria that can differentiate between experiences other than the favourable interpretation you appear to constantly reference, there appears to be no quantatively difference (either logically or practically) that we (myself and Commoner) can see between the mundane and the mystic other than the interpretation itself.

 

[Commoner]

Commoner, let us take your nice, clearly written spider example that Themadhair appreciates so much.Your view is that you have a human (the subject) which experiences a spider (the object) and interprets that experience based on previous conditions held internally. That view is not in any way representative of the Mystic Experience which is nondual; there is no subject, no object, and no interpretation. It is not a human reaching up to experience Enlightenment, union with God. Because of your dualistic interpretation of ‘experience’ here, let us use ‘instance’ for the purpose of discussion. The Mystic Instance is the breakthrough of the nonduality into realization. The direct awareness of this nonduality, this oneness, is the instance. It is not an interpretation for it is part of the instance at the outset. My prior use of ‘experience’ was known to be misleading from the beginning. Your interpretation of ‘experience’ from the dualistic view always has a subject that experiences an object. That is not correct here and that is why some mystics say that the Mystic Instance is not an experience and they don’t put a term on it that will misrepresent.

There is no subject, no object and no interpretation. So nobody is having an experience of anything and does not interpret it. I think we agree.

It might be a lack of understanding that makes what you're describing a strange concept to me, but it's the lack of any real evidence that such a thing exists at all that's bothering me. Now that you've gone a step further and removed the interpretation, I think there's simply nothing left. I doubt that not excepting the idea has anything to do with my failure to comprehend it. For instance, there are a lot of concepts in physics that I have a very tough time visualizing or imagining, but that doesn't mean I reject them. If you show me evidence that more than three dimensions exist, I'll accept it even though it's impossible for me to actually grasp the concept fully.

Now, let us take a look at your 'psychotic' interpretation. Of course, you will turn to mental disorder to understand something so far outside your experience and understanding; to make the square peg fit into the round hole.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that a mental disorder fits the bill. And it doesn't even have to be a disorder or something psychotic, I just mean that it is nothing outside the realm of how our brain is known to function - there's no element of the mystic thingy that's new or special, at least from the perspective of an outside observer.

But let me try some thoughts out on you, Commoner, to see if there is any area that we can agree on here. In my understanding, the psychotic has lost some touch with some aspect of your reality - the subject-object reality and the objective world surrounding the subject. There will be something show up in conversation, in tests, or other means that does not match your objective reality. Right? Well, the Mystic has no such lost touch in reality. The Mystic can see everything exactly as you do and can function as a scientist or any other profession as well as you. There is no psychosis. What the 'attribute that makes the Mystic Experience something more' is the nondual perspective that has been added. The dualistic perspective is still understood and the unique self with a nondual perspective always will understand everything from your dualistic perspective as well because one comes through the dualistic perspective.

Loss of touch with reality, well yes, that's certainly the most common definition. I think your description of an "added perspective" fits the bill of a hallucination quite nicely (that is "a sensory perception in the absence of external stimuli").

No, the symptoms do not have to be long-lasting. It can be a single, isolated event, so the symptoms would not necessarily be noticable (well, outside that one event, that is). On the other hand, it could be a enduring condition.

Do you know of any psychosis that exists in thousands at the same time, that thousands more seek because of its extra ordinariness, that teachers are transmitting to thousands of others in many countries, and that adds an element of joy to underly all living?

Yes, there are these magic shrooms (psilocybe mushrooms) that make you hallucinate. A pretty good explanation of the "economics of shrooms" that you've described here. How did you know?!

Thousands of students having hallucinations at the same time, thousands more seek it, drug dealers are "transmitting" the shrooms to thousands of students in many countries.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Hey Commoner and Themadhair. Thank you for monitoring and responding so quickly. Themadhair, we can come back to discuss your issue of 'interpretation' more but let us address the comments of Commoner first.

There is no subject, no object and no interpretation. So nobody is having an experience of anything and does not interpret it. I think we agree.

It might be a lack of understanding that makes what you're describing a strange concept to me, but it's the lack of any real evidence that such a thing exists at all that's bothering me. Now that you've gone a step further and removed the interpretation, I think there's simply nothing left. I doubt that not excepting the idea has anything to do with my failure to comprehend it. For instance, there are a lot of concepts in physics that I have a very tough time visualizing or imagining, but that doesn't mean I reject them. If you show me evidence that more than three dimensions exist, I'll accept it even though it's impossible for me to actually grasp the concept fully.

By George, it does seem that you are getting closer, Commoner, and you have such a reasonable approach. One does not necessarily expect you to accept the Mystic Experience as presented in this thread, just hope that you will have an open mind on it and hold it possible. Thoughts on the 'evidence that it exists' were given in post #526 as evidence of the evidence:
In effort to crystallize what the evidence is here, from one perspective one might conclude that the ‘resultant being and awareness’ 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.

......Loss of touch with reality, well yes, that's certainly the most common definition. I think your description of an "added perspective" fits the bill of a hallucination quite nicely (that is "a sensory perception in the absence of external stimuli").....

..Yes, there are these magic shrooms (psilocybe mushrooms) that make you hallucinate. A pretty good explanation of the "economics of shrooms" that you've described here. How did you know?!

Thousands of students having hallucinations at the same time, thousands more seek it, drug dealers are "transmitting" the shrooms to thousands of students in many countries.

'EEk' is right, if you really believe what you have written about not being able to discern the Mystic Experience from drug induced hallucination. With the utmost of respect let me suggest that with your brilliant mind and daily experience on complex matters you should be the one explaining why the Mystic Experience is nothing like a hallucinatory experience, but since you are not let me try to add a few more bullets on this. However before that, concerning your first comment above let me note that no one has said that the Mystic Experience is a 'sensory' perception. It is more of an awareness, a shift in awareness without involvement of any of the five senses. For illustration of its nature, for a moment direct your attention, your consciousness and awareness (not thoughts) on your self, your inner most self. Just be aware of it. No senses are involved, right?

Now, some thoughts on how one can tell that the Mystic Experience is not like a drug induced hallucination:
- Let's think in terms of your perspective, Commoner, the reality of the objective world around you. If you have been in the presence of one who is hallucinating you undoubtedly have noticed that your reality is not seen by that person as you see it. The Mystic, on the other hand, can see your reality just as you see it without any distortions.
- Tests have shown that the individual while hallucinating under drugs has impaired performance of tasks, operation of equipment, pattern recognition, other functions, etc. in your reality. The Mystic has no such impairment and probably can add bridge scores at a 24 table duplicate tournament faster than you can.:angel2:
- Hallucination usually wears off as the drug diminishes in the body and it usually takes more drug to reacquire. The Mystic has no such dependency and can eat what you eat.
- It has been my limited experience (observing others, writings of others, and never having tried drugs for first hand experience) that no two hallucinations are described the same by one person and are described even with more variability when two or more persons are involved. Mystics are consistent as evidenced in the free book The History of Mysticism.

Well, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, those are a few of my favorite things, :Singing:Commoner, but one is certain that you could add many more better ones if you should so turn your mind onto it.

Regards,
a..1

 

[Commoner]

Hey Commoner and Themadhair. Thank you for monitoring and responding so quickly. Themadhair, we can come back to discuss your issue of 'interpretation' more but let us address the comments of Commoner first. By George, it does seem that you are getting closer, Commoner, and you have such a reasonable approach. One does not necessarily expect you to accept the Mystic Experience as presented in this thread, just hope that you will have an open mind on it and hold it possible. Thoughts on the 'evidence that it exists' were given in post #526 as evidence of the evidence:
In effort to crystallize what the evidence is here, from one perspective one might conclude that the ‘resultant being and awareness’ 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.

Unfortunatelly I don't make the same conclusion and I dare say your conclusion is unfouded. The "awareness" is evidence only of itself - and even then, only to the one experiencing it. You would first have to show that there is such an "awareness", that differs in some relevant way from our usual ways of thinking, then demonstrate why you are justified in calling it god (beyond simply re-defining "god" as the experience itself).

The only thing your "evidence" is evidence of, is that claim(s) of a certain kind of expericence exist.

'EEk' is right, if you really believe what you have written about not being able to discern the Mystic Experience from drug induced hallucination.

That's not what you asked. You gave specific attributes and asked if I knew of any psychosis that exists with those attributes. And I did, so I answered you. But I wouldn't really say that I find your description of the mystic experience indicative of it being a hallucination per se, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that any drugs were used, I hope that's clear.

With the utmost of respect let me suggest that with your brilliant mind and daily experience on complex matters you should be the one explaining why the Mystic Experience is nothing like a hallucinatory experience, but since you are not let me try to add a few more bullets on this. However before that, concerning your first comment above let me note that no one has said that the Mystic Experience is a 'sensory' perception. It is more of an awareness, a shift in awareness without involvement of any of the five senses. For illustration of its nature, for a moment direct your attention, your consciousness and awareness (not thoughts) on your self, your inner most self. Just be aware of it. No senses are involved, right?

You're right, if no senses are involved, "delusion" would be a better description. In fact, I would say that again, it fits quite nicely with the description of "primary delusions", which are defined among other things as arising suddenly and not being comprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (Karl Jespers, General Psychopathology)

Now, some thoughts on how one can tell that the Mystic Experience is not like a drug induced hallucination:
- Let's think in terms of your perspective, Commoner, the reality of the objective world around you. If you have been in the presence of one who is hallucinating you undoubtedly have noticed that your reality is not seen by that person as you see it. The Mystic, on the other hand, can see your reality just as you see it without any distortions.

Yet the mystic does not see things as I do, or we would not be having this conversation, would we? On the topic of hallucinations - you might imagine it is something very dramatic (like seeing a lion in the bathroom), but actually a hallucination can be something as insignificant as a smell. It is not at all necessary that it would be noticable at all (not unless the person having the hallucination, probably not even knowing it, were to point it out).

- Tests have shown that the individual while hallucinating under drugs has impaired performance of tasks, operation of equipment, pattern recognition, other functions, etc. in your reality. The Mystic has no such impairment and probably can add bridge scores at a 24 table duplicate tournament faster than you can.:angel2:

Well, tests might have shown that individuals under the influence of drugs have impaired performance, but not that people suffering from delusional thinking would not be able to do math. (the bridge things is also very likely, since I don't play it)
On the other hand, drugs that can cause hallucinations in high dosages are know to be used to heighten awareness and actually benifit performance. (Caffeine Can Cause Hallucinations | LiveScience) So I wouldn't have to stretch my imagination too far to conclude that there is a fine line between heightened awareness and psychosis.

- Hallucination usually wears off as the drug diminishes in the body and it usually takes more drug to reacquire. The Mystic has no such dependency and can eat what you eat.

Hallucinations do not have to be drug induced, so I don't see how that's relevant.

- It has been my limited experience (observing others, writings of others, and never having tried drugs for first hand experience) that no two hallucinations are described the same by one person and are described even with more variability when two or more persons are involved. Mystics are consistent as evidenced in the free book The History of Mysticism.

Well, as I've said before, I'm not claiming that the experience must necessarily be a hallucination or a delusion per se, I'm just pointing out that different mental disorders and psychotic events seem to have the same characteristics. I could only speculate on the reason for these experiences being consistent (if indeed they are), but neither do I see a reason for that to point to anyting special. Off the top of my head I can think of something like claustrophobia as being similarly consistent throughout different cultures, time periods etc... It might suggest that the "experience" could have a biological source, although it might also be a result of a combination of different sources (environmental, biological, psychological...).

 

[autonomous1one1]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings Commoner. Thank you for responding and you have my sincere apology if anything in this post comes across as blunt or inconsiderate. When such divergent views are being discussed one’s wisdom is not always sufficient to express in a manner consistent with the great respect that is truly felt.[/FONT]

Unfortunatelly I don't make the same conclusion and I dare say your conclusion is unfouded. The "awareness" is evidence only of itself - and even then, only to the one experiencing it. You would first have to show that there is such an "awareness", that differs in some relevant way from our usual ways of thinking, then demonstrate why you are justified in calling it god (beyond simply re-defining "god" as the experience itself).


The only thing your "evidence" is evidence of, is that claim(s) of a certain kind of expericence exist.

So the experience of others and learning from others is not part of your approach here? In the case of the Mystic Experience we have some resultant beings with extraordinary messages and exemplary ways of being which are well documented. At a minimum one would expect you to agree that there is (not just evidence for a claim that there is) a unique experience with significant transformation power. Whether or not God is involved can be a question for further discussion.

That's not what you asked. You gave specific attributes and asked if I knew of any psychosis that exists with those attributes. And I did, so I answered you.

[FONT=&quot]Ahh, so you were responding to my question. How could one be so dumb as to ask such a stupid question? (smiles)[/FONT]

But I wouldn't really say that I find your description of the mystic experience indicative of it being a hallucination per se, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that any drugs were used, I hope that's clear.

Thank you for that clarification. From my view at this point the hallucination explanation has been slain. Can we not agree, Commoner, that the Mystic Experience is not a hallucination? From my own experience of the Mystic Experience it can be offered that the defining characteristics for a hallucination are not present in any way. One characteristic of the Mystic is absolute honesty. You either consider me truthful or not, fut if so, my testimony should add a smidgeon of evidence with what has already been presented for the removal of the hallucination from your equation. However, delusion requires more discussion.

You're right, if no senses are involved, "delusion" would be a better description. In fact, I would say that again, it fits quite nicely with the description of "primary delusions", which are defined among other things as arising suddenly and not being comprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (Karl Jespers, General Psychopathology)

[FONT=&quot]Yes, the ‘delusion’ is closer. However, it is interesting that you chose Karl Jespers for your definition. He came under considerable criticism for the manner in which he proposed that delusion should be defined and diagnosed. Without going into detail, it is interesting also that the criticism was that using Jespers’ approach could lead therapists into assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded. That is what one feels is happening in this thread, Commoner. So, this loving patient requests greater understanding from you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]A more common definition is ‘delusions are false beliefs that are firmly held. The views of the Mystic have never been proven false and have held for thousands of years. In fact, some very unusual aspects in the earlier years have been verified to be true by science.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To my knowledge, there is no known ‘delusion’ for which the Mystic exhibits any attributes. Some, with great lack of understanding, mistake the words from a Mystic to be ego oriented, to be delusion of grandeur. However, in truth nothing could be further from the truth because the Mystic is not egomaniacal but instead is operating with full control of ego and with the intent of serving humankind, serving others not being served.[/FONT]

Yet the mystic does not see things as I do, or we would not be having this conversation, would we? On the topic of hallucinations - you might imagine it is something very dramatic (like seeing a lion in the bathroom), but actually a hallucination can be something as insignificant as a smell. It is not at all necessary that it would be noticable at all (not unless the person having the hallucination, probably not even knowing it, were to point it out).

Ahhh, but the Mystic has no such lost touch in your reality. Please give permission mentally for one to offer refinement to your perception about why we are having this conversation. It is not due in any way to the Mystic's inability to see your reality exactly as you see it. The Mystic has been through it. This conversation is due to your inability to see reality as the Mystic sees it.

Well, tests might have shown that individuals under the influence of drugs have impaired performance, but not that people suffering from delusional thinking would not be able to do math. (the bridge things is also very likely, since I don't play it)
On the other hand, drugs that can cause hallucinations in high dosages are know to be used to heighten awareness and actually benifit performance. (Caffeine Can Cause Hallucinations | LiveScience) So I wouldn't have to stretch my imagination too far to conclude that there is a fine line between heightened awareness and psychosis.

Hallucinations do not have to be drug induced, so I don't see how that's relevant.

Well, as I've said before, I'm not claiming that the experience must necessarily be a hallucination or a delusion per se, I'm just pointing out that different mental disorders and psychotic events seem to have the same characteristics. I could only speculate on the reason for these experiences being consistent (if indeed they are), but neither do I see a reason for that to point to anyting special. Off the top of my head I can think of something like claustrophobia as being similarly consistent throughout different cultures, time periods etc... It might suggest that the "experience" could have a biological source, although it might also be a result of a combination of different sources (environmental, biological, psychological...).

[FONT=&quot]If one may offer a counter view to the bolded part above, it has been pretty clearly shown that the mental disorders do not have the same characteristics. There are key differences. Also, one appreciates your ingenuity of debate, broad knowledge, and propensity to grasp anything negative to associate with the Mystic Experience but caffeine overdose and claustrophobia have little to do with our discussion. Claustrophobia is an anxiety fear and is not even a psychosis. But, no matter, you are trying to generate an understanding of a way that the Mystic Experience could be consistent throughout different cultures, time periods, etc. However, you miss the obvious answer as a possibility: the Mystic Experience is a realization of the ultimate truth which is available to anyone at anytime at any place.[/FONT]

Regards,
a..1

 

[Commoner]

So the experience of others and learning from others is not part of your approach here? In the case of the Mystic Experience we have some resultant beings with extraordinary messages and exemplary ways of being which are well documented. At a minimum one would expect you to agree that there is (not just evidence for a claim that there is) a unique experience with significant transformation power. Whether or not God is involved can be a question for further discussion.

Hmmm, I'm having quite a bit of trouble understanding how "learning from others" is relevant here. Or that some extraordinary men have had the "mystic experience". It's also true that extraordinary men, especially those of a philosophical and/or artistic disposition have shared many other types of experiences not attributed to anything mystical (ranging from inspirational and transformative experiences to experiences connected to mental illnesses and misuse of drugs and alcohol...). Unfortunatelly, I must re-emphasize the issue of interpretation here. Unless you are able to conclude that the interpretation (or the experienced "instance", if you're more comfortable with that) is indeed a consequence of the same phenomenon, you are still dealing with common interpretations of those "instances" and passively disregarding others. So I'm affraid I can't just accept the premise that there are "mystic experiences" - a type of experience that differs in some relevant way (beyond interpretation) from other types of experiences. I'm sure you'll be very annoyed by me repeating this position.

From my view at this point the hallucination explanation has been slain. Can we not agree, Commoner, that the Mystic Experience is not a hallucination? From my own experience of the Mystic Experience it can be offered that the defining characteristics for a hallucination are not present in any way. One characteristic of the Mystic is absolute honesty. You either consider me truthful or not, fut if so, my testimony should add a smidgeon of evidence with what has already been presented for the removal of the hallucination from your equation. However, delusion requires more discussion.

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Certainly, we can agree that your explanation of what you call a "mystic experience" is not a hallucination. But I must re-state that I never meant to use "hallucination" as the de facto explanation of the mystic experience, only to compare the attributes of each type of experience.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, the ‘delusion’ is closer. However, it is interesting that you chose Karl Jespers for your definition. He came under considerable criticism for the manner in which he proposed that delusion should be defined and diagnosed. Without going into detail, it is interesting also that the criticism was that using Jespers’ approach could lead therapists into assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded. That is what one feels is happening in this thread, Commoner. So, this loving patient requests greater understanding from you.[/FONT]

Jaspers certainly was criticised, but not for anything relevant to our discussion. His position was that psychopathology was an expression of underlying physical (biological) problems, where environmental conditions only served as triggers - not "shapers" of the particular symptom. He therefore argued that these "symptoms" could not be understood by themselves but point to an underlying disorder - and that's where the "danger" was - that that could be misinterpreted as meaning that anything that could not be understood pointed to a mental disorder. But this is more of a logical mistake that it is a mistake in Jasper's description.

Contrary to that, his critics proposed the source of psychopathology to be environmental (social, cultural,...circumstances) and could therefore be understood by themselves, without a need to establish an underlying disorder. So while I partially agree with you, I don't think this is relevant to our discussion, as we are (or I am) examining the characteristics of delusions not the actual sources of delusions.

[FONT=&quot]A more common definition is ‘delusions are false beliefs that are firmly held. The views of the Mystic have never been proven false and have held for thousands of years. In fact, some very unusual aspects in the earlier years have been verified to be true by science.[/FONT]

Well, under such a broad definition I dare call anyone delusional. I would find it unusual if, in order to diagnose a delusion, one would need to disprove the belief. I mean, certain beliefs clearly cannot be disproven. It has never been proven false that invisible pink unicorns exist, yet we would call anyone asserting that delusional. I must, even though I know you'll object, put the burden of proof on you. You are, after all, asserting that the "mystic experience" is something special, something that differs from our normal experiences, so I feel perfectly justified in expecting you to prove that your assertion is not false, without feeling an overwhelming need to prove that it is false before calling it delusional. Huh, science? Please tell me more!

Ahhh, but the Mystic has no such lost touch in your reality. Please give permission mentally for one to offer refinement to your perception about why we are having this conversation. It is not due in any way to the Mystic's inability to see your reality exactly as you see it. The Mystic has been through it. This conversation is due to your inability to see reality as the Mystic sees it.

What's the difference? Either I see reality differenty than the mystic, or the mystic sees reality differenty that I. Seeing "more" than the reality most people see can still mean a "loss of touch with reality" if whatever is "added" to the perception is false. So as far as I can see this argument comes down to pure semantics.

[FONT=&quot]If one may offer a counter view to the bolded part above, it has been pretty clearly shown that the mental disorders do not have the same characteristics. There are key differences. Also, one appreciates your ingenuity of debate, broad knowledge, and propensity to grasp anything negative to associate with the Mystic Experience but caffeine overdose and claustrophobia have little to do with our discussion. Claustrophobia is an anxiety fear and is not even a psychosis. But, no matter, you are trying to generate an understanding of a way that the Mystic Experience could be consistent throughout different cultures, time periods, etc. However, you miss the obvious answer as a possibility: the Mystic Experience is a realization of the ultimate truth which is available to anyone at anytime at any place.[/FONT]

Clearly I must have missed the "key differences" and still don't see even one attribute of the "mystic experience" that differs in any relevant way to common human experiences. You seem to think that I'm arguing that your "mystic experience" is a psychosis, but I'm not. I'm saying that, at most, it shows some characteristics as "unusual" as being the subject of the study of psychopathology.

You're also missing the obvious fact that while I have given a speculative explanation of why the mystic experience might be consistent (which I maybe shouldn't have, even though I tried to stress it was pure speculation), your conclusions are just as speculative but much more extraordinary. Humans have shared many things that have been consistent throughout history and cultures, I find it surprising that this would seem unusual to you - or that finding this consistency in something would prompt you to label it as "special".

 

[PureX]

Well, under such a broad definition I dare call anyone delusional. I would find it unusual if, in order to diagnose a delusion, one would need to disprove the belief. I mean, certain beliefs clearly cannot be disproven. It has never been proven false that invisible pink unicorns exist, yet we would call anyone asserting that delusional.

Yet again, I will remind you that this analogy is both invalid and insulting (which I believe to be the intent of using it) as NO ONE IS ASSERTING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PHENOMENA. We have reasonable evidence to suggest that such a phenomena does not exist, and this is why no such phenomena is being asserted. Please refrain from using this insulting and misleading analogy.

 

[themadhair]

Please refrain from using this insulting and misleading analogy.

Would hallucination (perception in the absence of a stimulus) fit better?

 

[autonomous1one1]

[FONT=&quot]Greetings Commoner. Again, let appreciation be expressed for your continuing endurance at such a slow pace. Your last post is being given careful consideration and will receive response. One must consider why one’s language is having such difficulty getting one’s points across and which points truly are worth pursuing through the maze fed back. It has been suggested that if one returns to one’s native language there might be better success in clearer expression of what is offered. In my case, that native language would be baby babble. Ha ha
Regards,
a..1
[/FONT]

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yet again, I will remind you that this analogy is both invalid and insulting (which I believe to be the intent of using it) as NO ONE IS ASSERTING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PHENOMENA. We have reasonable evidence to suggest that such a phenomena does not exist, and this is why no such phenomena is being asserted. Please refrain from using this insulting and misleading analogy.

Is there evidence that anyone's God (however they define it) exists? I beg of you to present it if there is.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Would hallucination (perception in the absence of a stimulus) fit better?

Although "hallucination" is fitting, I don't prefer the term myself. Call me crazy, but I find it a little degrading to the people holding whatever beliefs they have, unevidenced and unjustified as they may be. "Hallucination" implies to me that the person just went on an acid trip and turned to Jesus Christ. And I usually don't like to insult the person holding whatever beliefs they have (except in certain cases), so I mostly refrain from using it, unless I can't think of anything better to describe it as.

In that sense, I agree with PureX. I can understand how someone may find it insulting. But I think PureX (perhaps subconsciously) equates respect for a belief with respect for a person. Unjustified and unsubstantiated beliefs do not deserve respect. People do. At the moment, I think "psychological processes" does a similar job and carries less negative baggage with it.

Just nit-picking, though. Don't mind me.

 

[Commoner]

Yet again, I will remind you that this analogy is both invalid and insulting (which I believe to be the intent of using it) as NO ONE IS ASSERTING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH A PHENOMENA. We have reasonable evidence to suggest that such a phenomena does not exist, and this is why no such phenomena is being asserted. Please refrain from using this insulting and misleading analogy.

I never realized you were a mystic. I don't see how you'd find it insulting, I certainly know people that honestly believe that invisible humans (ghosts) exist - are you saying there's something inherently disgusting about believing in invisible horses with horns that makes them a poor analogy? Would you prefer ghosts? And just as a side note, you have absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist. Nor do you have any evidence for the existance of god (which was demostrated in this very thread).

 

[Vile Atheist]

I never realized you were a mystic. I don't see how you'd find it insulting, I certainly know people that honestly believe that invisible humans (ghosts) exist - are you saying there's something inherently disgusting about believing in invisible horses with horns that makes them a poor analogy? Would you prefer ghosts? And just as a side note, you have absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist. Nor do you have any evidence for the existance of god (which was demostrated in this very thread).

Be patient about the evidence, friend. We're only 136 pages in.

 

[Commoner]

Be patient about the evidence, friend. We're only 136 pages in.

Can't rush these things, you know. :beach:

 

[imaginaryme]

I never realized you were a mystic. I don't see how you'd find it insulting, I certainly know people that honestly believe that invisible humans (ghosts) exist - are you saying there's something inherently disgusting about believing in invisible horses with horns that makes them a poor analogy? Would you prefer ghosts? And just as a side note, you have absolutely no evidence that invisible unicorns don't exist. Nor do you have any evidence for the existance of god (which was demostrated in this very thread).

Are you calling people delusional?
Last time I went to the shrink, I brought some screenshots of online debate, the Gwynnite Hypothesis, and the Bible to explain (in terms of physics) "end-time" prophecy. During the discussion, I also mentioned how me and the neighbor "proved the existence of god." She read my documents and said, "wow." I was actually wondering if they would come by my house later with the butterfly nets. They came by, alright... with a food box. She was worried that i wasn't eating enough. So, it may be fair to say that I'm not delusional (because I wonder about it all the time.) And, since she is the only working scientist I know; next time I see her, I'm going to bring all my documentation and ask her if she would like to publish. That said, I'll exit stage left. Anything by way of actual "proof" from this corner will likely first appear in a journal of psychiatry. I'm not a scientist, I'm a mathematician.

 

[Commoner]

Are you calling people delusional?

Only on forums, in person I'm rarely that nice.

 

[imaginaryme]

Only on forums, in person I'm rarely that nice.

I was "more offended" by PureX jumping in your .... rather than by your post. Of course, I don't "do" getting offended with online debate. I just shut the compy off and go to bed.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I was "more offended" by PureX jumping in your .... rather than by your post. Of course, I don't "do" getting offended with online debate. I just shut the compy off and go to bed.

DIFFERING OPINIONS!!?!?!!?!!!!!!11!!!!eleven??!?1

*anger* I am offended!!! :faint:

 

[imaginaryme]

DIFFERING OPINIONS!!?!?!!?!!!!!!11!!!!eleven??!?1

*anger* I am offended!!! :faint:

Canadians! Shut the compy off and go to bed.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Canadians! Shut the compy off and go to bed.

*whines* I am in bed!