Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[Dunemeister]

Nonsense. Non belief may be in the minority, but it is just as old as belief. There have always been non-believers, they may have always been the minority, but they were always there.

Not as nonsensical as you think. There may have been nonbelievers throughout history, in the sense that there may have been some people who didn't buy into the larger group's theology. But there simply isn't much evidence of atheism until very recently.

 

[rojse]

Do you have a reason for saying that?

Because it is private experience that a single individual has.

Besides, given that they're internal experiences, what's the difference?

The first statement presumes that the person genuinely has an experience, the amended statement does not.

 

[rojse]

Not as nonsensical as you think. There may have been nonbelievers throughout history, in the sense that there may have been some people who didn't buy into the larger group's theology. But there simply isn't much evidence of atheism until very recently.

Considering the social (and before recent times, physical) persecution that occured not only towards atheists, but those people whose beliefs varied from the accepted norm, (and still occurs even today) it is not difficult to see why.

 

[Storm]

Because it is private experience that a single individual has.

And this means their existence is in doubt?

The first statement presumes that the person genuinely has an experience, the amended statement does not.

How do you define "genuine?"

 

[Dunemeister]

Considering the social (and before recent times, physical) persecution that occured not only towards atheists, but those people whose beliefs varied from the accepted norm, (and still occurs even today) it is not difficult to see why.

That's right. There has been a fifty thousand year coverup of atheism. Sorry, I forgot.

 

[rojse]

And this means their existence is in doubt?

No, it means it should be in doubt.

How do you define "genuine?"

I'm going to go down a slightly different path than that - an individual's experiences are individual. An event that occurs to someone might only occur in that persons head, and have no wider significance other than to say that this person is mentally unbalanced.

Not suggesting that you or any other theist is not sane at all, but if we are going to say that personal experiences are indicative of something larger than that single experience, what is to say that your experiences (or my experiences, for that matter) are any more meaningful than that of a person in a mental hospital?

 

[rojse]

That's right. There has been a fifty thousand year coverup of atheism. Sorry, I forgot.

Yes, with atheists covering themselves up.

 

[gnostic]

There has been a fifty thousand year coverup of atheism.

huh?

 

[Caladan]

Not as nonsensical as you think. There may have been nonbelievers throughout history, in the sense that there may have been some people who didn't buy into the larger group's theology. But there simply isn't much evidence of atheism until very recently.

And yet the scribes of the Bible felt its necessary to declare: "the fool saith in his heart there is no god"

 

[Caladan]

Doubtful. Unbelief is an extremely recent and minority phenomenon. Belief is far and away the majority human experience. It's only modern western society that has cultivated anything like a culture of (religious) unbelief, and even then, as atheists will attest, it sure seems like a small, relatively lonely group.

I dont know what country you live in, but you need to get out of its borders more, in many societies or publics atheism is a norm.
if we have to be technical, then we might shrug history off and say that atheists only came out of the closet during the 18th century. but this would be a sad case of misunderstanding history. the word atheism has Greek origins, and it did not only apply to people who believed in false gods, but also those who believed in no gods at all. people who read Greek philosophy and literature are aware of debate between Greek intellectuals, some of whom parodied the gods, while other more conservative philosophers protested it.

One of the schools of Indian philosophy called Samkhya is also considered to have incorporated atheism and lack of belief in a creator god into its philosophy.

 

[Storm]

No, it means it should be in doubt.

Why?

I'm going to go down a slightly different path than that - an individual's experiences are individual. An event that occurs to someone might only occur in that persons head, and have no wider significance other than to say that this person is mentally unbalanced.

Not suggesting that you or any other theist is not sane at all, but if we are going to say that personal experiences are indicative of something larger than that single experience, what is to say that your experiences (or my experiences, for that matter) are any more meaningful than that of a person in a mental hospital?

For the simple reason that we're not insane.

 

[Dunemeister]

I dont know what country you live in, but you need to get out of its borders more, in many societies or publics atheism is a norm.
if we have to be technical, then we might shrug history off and say that atheists only came out of the closet during the 18th century. but this would be a sad case of misunderstanding history. the word atheism has Greek origins, and it did not only apply to people who believed in false gods, but also those who believed in no gods at all. people who read Greek philosophy and literature are aware of debate between Greek intellectuals, some of whom parodied the gods, while other more conservative philosophers protested it.

One of the schools of Indian philosophy called Samkhya is also considered to have incorporated atheism and lack of belief in a creator god into its philosophy.

Okay, I am evidently in error on this one. Let's not let this thread get too far off track in any event.

 

[Storm]

Rojse, a question: is a dream a genuine experience?

 

[linwood]

Why?


For the simple reason that we're not insane.

By what standard?

We deem certain people "insane" simply because they`ve had experiences comparable to what you term "mystical".

Why are some experiences "mystical" while theirs are "insane"?

 

[Storm]

By what standard?

Functionality.

We deem certain people "insane" simply because they`ve had experiences comparable to what you term "mystical".

Such as?

Why are some experiences "mystical" while theirs are "insane"?

I can't answer that without more info.

 

[Willamena]

but i do believe atheism went very far back. probably when there first started to be other religions there started to be atheists.

I tend to agree that as long as there have been people who "get it," there have been people who didn't.

 

[rojse]

Why?

Surely an event that that makes such substantial claims and requires such substantial presumptions should not just be taken on face value. We should be examining reasonable alternatives to the situation in question.

For the simple reason that we're not insane.

1. Who says that we are not?
2. Even if not insane, who says that we are not experiencing temporary delirium?
3. Who says that it can't be explained entirely in physical terms, without resorting to God?

 

[rojse]

Rojse, a question: is a dream a genuine experience?

The dream does occur, yes. Whether this is indicative of anything larger than that person's own imagination is up for debate.

 

[Storm]

Surely an event that that makes such substantial claims and requires such substantial presumptions should not just be taken on face value. We should be examining reasonable alternatives to the situation in question.

When did I suggest otherwise?

1. Who says that we are not?

Psychiatry.

2. Even if not insane, who says that we are not experiencing temporary delirium?

Neurotheology.

3. Who says that it can't be explained entirely in physical terms, without resorting to God?

I'm not a materialist, personally. I don't think much that happens in the mind can be satisfactorily explained in entirely physical terms.

The dream does occur, yes. Whether this is indicative of anything larger than that person's own imagination is up for debate.

Why do you accept that dreams occur, but question mystical experiences?

 

[Dunemeister]

1. Who says that we are not [insane]?

I do.

2. Even if not insane, who says that we are not experiencing temporary delirium?

Actually, the Christian position is that humans are experiencing a more or less permanent debilitation due to damage to their sensus divinitatus.

3. Who says that it can't be explained entirely in physical terms, without resorting to God?

I do.

And the very fact that this is a controversial position doesn't mean it can be dismissed (as you appear to be saying). Nor does it mean that it's on an equal footing with all the others. The test would be whether the perspective sheds more light on our current condition than the alternatives.