What evidence out there crushes religious faith?

[atanu]

I do have one that drastically reduced my faith. The case of a patient that had their hippocampus removed. They were no longer able to have new memories, however their procedural memory was still good. If memory is important to the soul, then permanent loss of memory is a big deal.

IMO, that can be explained if one is ready to look through the spectacle of 'objective idealism'. If mind-body (including the brain) is a process of the indivisible reality (whatever name you may give it) and just not the apparent unconnected discrete object in space, then explaining the loss of local awareness or memory becomes easy and parsimonious. The spirituality actually slowly weans one away from the entrenched notion (engendered based on the play of sense perceptions) that "I am this body". Gradually the awareness changes to "I am". It takes a lot of time for the understanding that the "I am" awareness is a general that is particularised in diverse ways. This understanding can be gained through experience of 'samadhi' in meditation wherein the subject-object division dissolves.

In the Eastern religions, the above is sometimes explained (usually to the initiates) by means of metaphors (but there is now empirical evidence for objective idealism). Suppose you are river-water, trapped in a whirlpool and you have lost touch with the truth that you are not different from the river. But does the destruction of the whirlpool by a process of the river destroys the water? I think it may take a huge amount of time (and lucky experiences) to see that this indeed is the case.

...

 

[ChristineM]

My reason for trusting that ghosts may exist is this:

The amount of claims of such encounters is vast. Though that doesn't prove, in some cases it can make for a solid abductive reasoning argument, which doesn't lead to the strongest arguing, but still makes a case.

That, and other reasons.

My reason for trusting ghosts do not exist is...

I have an actor friend, a believer in ghosts who was offered a gig on one of the many "proof" of ghosts programs. He was overjoyed that he may actually see a ghost. He had to report to a "haunted" castle which he did. He was handed a script in which even the ghosts were scripted. He walked of set a very delusioned man.

 

[ChristineM]

What evidence out there crushes religious faith?

I don't think it will crush faith, it is (usually) blind, even to something like this

 

[atanu]

And the objections to those evidences?

Soul, spirit, God in the general sense, and underlying conscious reality in the general sense.

Just curious!

I'm not after a specific religion. So nothing about specific religions.

Proofs will suffice too!

Stick to objective facts, and inferences!

What evidence crushes religious faith?

No evidence can obliterate the truth. And never can the untrue exist. What exists is the Truth only. But interactions in the world, especially interactions in RF can seem to mask it temporarily.

When a child experiences the result of the sense of touch, it forms an idea that “I am this”. “I am this” sense is indoctrinated by 99% interactions in the world. A few fellows may come to hear the truth of the “I am” being the general universal truth that particularises itself into uncountable numbers of “I am this” particulars.

Some among these may be fortunate to experience sudden and inexplicable drowning of the ego-consciousness of the form of “I am this” in the unlimited-indivisible “I am” and lose altogether the ego and the body sense. This being then becomes the whole — the song, the flowers, the sun and the bliss itself. This is timeless. But the ego-mind may emerge again and find the hairs raised and remember the orgasms that shook the frame of the body. It is the most memorable non-experience for any ego-mind.

Such an ego-mind begins to believe in the primary and primal truth of “I am”. But alas, the experience is not repeated again for years. The ego-being loses interest in pursuing devotional and/or meditative practices. To spend time and overcome the sense of emptiness the ego-being registers at RF.

At RF he encounters all types— his own types who claim to be a believer of non-dual Brahman that is of the nature of energy. He does not answer as to how Brahman will know itself if it is devoid of consciousness? Although no answer comes, yet the unfalsifiable claim continues. That is the first and most deceptive crusher of faith. If one is not of the enquiring type one will begin to believe this concept of non-dual Brahman that is devoid of consciousness and thus divinity.

The poor ego-being encounters genuine scientist types also who keep asking “Prove that consciousness continues after body”. It is actually a foolish question. It is like asking whether a mirror will know where the man that it was mirroring has gone to. It is like asking a created character of a novel “Where is your author now”. But fortunately, science has brought out indirect evidence that suggests that the premise of ‘realism’ that there is an objective universe external to the observation is wrong. Data from brain scans suggest that the brain is a constraining filter for the play of consciousness in particular ways. Examination of expert meditators shows that not only they maintain a different kind of brain wave on a continuous basis from common people but that their brains get altered physically in positive ways. The fact of brain plasticity, which is well documented, suggests that conscious volition can over-rule instinctive mind run by chemical drama.

The ego-being may also encounter trolls, who have no questions but who carry acid buckets. But trolls cannot cause any real permanent damage.

But my experience indicates that sooner or later the truth of the ontological primitive “I am” will prevail.

…

 

[osgart]

IMO, that can be explained if one is ready to look through the spectacle of 'objective idealism'. If mind-body (including the brain) is a process of the indivisible reality (whatever name you may give it) and just not the apparent unconnected discrete object in space, then explaining the loss of local awareness or memory becomes easy and parsimonious. The spirituality actually slowly weans one away from the entrenched notion (engendered based on the play of sense perceptions) that "I am this body". Gradually the awareness changes to "I am" pervades the body. It takes a lot of time for the understanding that the "I am" awareness is a general that is particularised in diverse ways. This understanding can be gained through experience of 'samadhi' in meditation wherein the subject-object division dissolves, helps.

In the Eastern religions, the above is sometimes explained (usually to the initiates) by means of metaphors (but there is now empirical evidence for objective idealism). Suppose you are river-water, trapped in a whirlpool and you have lost touch with the truth that you are not different from the river. But does the destruction of the whirlpool by a process of the river destroys the water? I think it may take a huge amount of time (and lucky experiences) to see that this indeed is the case.

...

My identity, and my memories are what give meaning to my life. I think you are saying that the body entangles one and when the body dies the conscious life is freed up to be its true nature. We are the river and not the whirlpool means that when the whirlpool ceases the river runs and water is never lost. So while my ability of memory suffers because of the brain, the brain when removed from the situation frees up the conscious life to live fully. Did I at all get that right?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

And the objections to those evidences?

Soul, spirit, God in the general sense, and underlying conscious reality in the general sense.

Just curious!

I'm not after a specific religion. So nothing about specific religions.

Proofs will suffice too!

Stick to objective facts, and inferences!

Using "mundane" things to justify and explain mystic experiences. Assuming the person believes their experiences are human and not alien or anything outside of human nature and nature itself. Unfortunately, such things are only focused on abrahamics. So, don't know what else that may be explored outside of God.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

My reason for trusting ghosts do not exist is...

I have an actor friend, a believer in ghosts who was offered a gig on one of the many "proof" of ghosts programs. He was overjoyed that he may actually see a ghost. He had to report to a "haunted" castle which he did. He was handed a script in which even the ghosts were scripted. He walked of set a very delusioned man.

Oh it's a given the TV shows aren't accurate.

So if a TV show on scientific matters was incorrect and scripted, you wouldn't believe any scientific theories?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The crushing evidence, is the actual lack of crushing evidence.

Can't say something is there when it's really not.

Atheism is faith that the overwhelming number of claims of religious experience, spiritual experience, etc, etc, etc, have little merit outside some odd psychological phenomena, and also as a side, tends to put weight on scientific theories they themselves may not fully compute, but they have faith that the process without a doubt works for said scientific theories.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh it's a given the TV shows aren't accurate.

So if a TV show on scientific matters was incorrect and scripted, you wouldn't believe any scientific theories?

They are sold as genuine and the gullible accept them as genuine.

There is evidence of scientific theories, which must go through rigorous review and repeated testing to become scientific theories.
There is no evidence of ghost and therefore no review or testing
So such a comparison is like comparing apples with supertankers

Of course you are welcome to your beliefs.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There is no evidence of ghost

If this was the debate forum.... I'd ask you to prove it.

Now here's the thing. Any evidence proves that wrong. You can look at a video of orbs or whatever, and say it's fake. But you are willing to pour through thousands of stories, videos, etc, and explain how each one doesn't qualify as evidence? And if we stop believing people's opinions on things, how can we even trust each other enough to discuss a subject? Or, looking at it another way, Amanaki talked of a ghost experience in this thread. I trust he isn't trying to sell or be crafty, so I believe him, as well as thousands of other stories. Just not the reality TV show stuff.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

There is evidence of scientific theories, which must go through rigorous review and repeated testing to become scientific theories.

This is turning science into a construct similar to how theists turn God into a construct.

So tell me... what scientific theories do you know for a fact have 0 flaws in their testing, scientific explanations, and conclusions?

 

[atanu]

My identity, and my memories are what give meaning to my life. I think you are saying that the body entangles one and when the body dies the conscious life is freed up to be its true nature. We are the river and not the whirlpool means that when the whirlpool ceases the river runs and water is never lost. So while my ability of memory suffers because of the brain, the brain when removed from the situation frees up the conscious life to live fully. Did I at all get that right?

More or less yes. You rephrased it nicely. There is a concept of the subtle body though. But let us not complicate this further.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Atheism is murder. If faith in life is hope, then dis-believing in God is like saying you want to murder God.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What evidence out there crushes religious faith?

No evidence ever crushes religious faith. That's the problem.

Why is that a problem?

 

[ChristineM]

This is turning science into a construct similar to how theists turn God into a construct.

So tell me... what scientific theories do you know for a fact have 0 flaws in their testing, scientific explanations, and conclusions?

Science does not do fact but gravity works.

 

[ChristineM]

Atheism is murder. If faith in life is hope, then dis-believing in God is like saying you want to murder God.

Atheist believe in life. And how does one murder what doesn't exist.

But you want to accuse of murder, check the rate of killing for religion throughout history before you throw stones in your glass house

 

[Wandering Monk]

And the objections to those evidences?

Soul, spirit, God in the general sense, and underlying conscious reality in the general sense.

Just curious!

I'm not after a specific religion. So nothing about specific religions.

Proofs will suffice too!

Stick to objective facts, and inferences!

The Holocaust.

 

[osgart]

The Holocaust.

That wipes out hopes of a benevolent God.

What about other God's?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Atheist believe in life. And how does one murder what doesn't exist.

But you want to accuse of murder, check the rate of killing for religion throughout history before you throw stones in your glass house

But you are in fact an atheist, so if God did exist you would want to murder him, thus God his hiding from you waiting for you to reveal your true nature, which is going swimmingly. Have a nice day. Next, please.

 

[ChristineM]

But you are in fact an atheist, so if God did exist you would want to murder him, thus God his hiding from you waiting for you to reveal your true nature, which is going swimmingly. Have a nice day. Next, please.

Nope, do not decide what i would do, it is very ignorant. It is obvious that you have no comprehension of what atheism is but deliberately inject it with misunderstanding and hatred. Its sad attitudes like yours that causes friction.

If there were evidence of a gods existence (which there isn't) i would review that evidence and take it at whatever value it gives and weigh it against the horrors and suffering attributed to your god. If that evidence was strong enough I would have no choice but to accept the evidence.

As, i guess, most atheists would.

So tell me, why would an omni everything god need to hide? Not sure you were able to think that one out before putting your mouth in gear