You say that there is a god...

[dybmh]

Ignored? It's the basis for my belief that others are doing the same now.

Yes. You are ignoring that you are capable of misunderstanding feelings and experiences.

Why? It's an unsupported claim. And though I don't think you are claiming it as fact, some people probably hold similar beliefs. "You must have a god-complex" is not far from what you've said about me already. I understand why you think that. Maybe you're correct. I don't think so, but I have no incentive to try to disabuse you of the notion. Should it matter to me if you are correct? What if I do have an inflated and unjustified sense of self? It's worked for 68 years and gotten me to the place in life I aspired to be and now aspire to maintain, so you can understand why I might be a little averse to unsolicited advice.

Brilliant.

If you're saying my claim is unsupported, then your claim is unsupported in exactly the same way. If my claim about you and your experience is unsupported, eventhough I had an experience just like yours, then your claims about me and my experience are unsupported, eventhough you delude yourself into thinking it's the same as what you experienced.

And you still haven't commented about whether or not you have considered that your experience matches a marijuana buzz.

The fact that you think I claimed to use magic or telepathy is evidence that it is YOU who is not paying attention. The fact that you think you've given me a reason to change any opinion tells me that you don't know what it takes to convince a critical thinker.

You're not critically thinking. You cannot or will not assimilate new information. That makes it zealotry or dogmaticism.

Sure you do if you believe in disembodied minds, although you might not use that word.

I don't believe in disembodied minds. False again. How many times will it take for you to be wrong before you change your behavior?

And you have not addressed that my experience is diametrically opposite of what you described. Everything you conjured in your mind about me was wrong. What do you have to say about that?

That's not a belief I hold. It's how most theists define spiritual - having to do with God, the chief spirit in the Abrahamic pantheon of gods and lesser spirits.

The test was to accurately tell me, about my context and my mental experiences. You have failed again.

Yes, there are people that think that way as well.

They're just as right as you are.

Is it true that atheist = evil? If not then spiritual =/= belief in "spirits".

My claim is that I don't believe that they experience gods when they claim otherwise. That doesn't come from medicine or bridge.

The logical chain is: "I was wrong >>> Everyone everywhere for all time must be wrong too"
Then when asked how can you know this about people you've never met and never spoken to?
Answer: "Because I am a good thinker, I was a successful Dr. and I rapidly learned to be good bridge player"

And you still have not addressed the potential that drug use would have for influencing your experience making it more likely to be false.

So you say. I say that the delusion is calling one's own mind an experience of a god.

Ummm, that's exactly what you're doing when defending your own thoughts and beliefs about others.

"Do you think you refuted that? You rejected it, but you didn't try to explain why it's wrong.

I gave you a whole list and an explanation. Here's a bullet point list of your arguments.

• my personal experience making that mistake,
  • Sample size of 1, this is a very weak argument
• the commonality of human beings and their nervous systems
  • the same psycholgical phenomena can have many different causes, this is a very weak argument
• , the disparity in the reports of those claiming to experience a god
  • supports a god experience does not undermine it, invalid arguement
• , the number of former believers who agree that they once "experienced God,"
  • supports and does not undermine, invalid argument
• and the history of mankind repeatedly making similar mistakes
  • they weren't mistakes they were progress, invalid argument
  • your criticism seems to be with cartoon versions of gods and spirits, it's a strawman
  • then you project that cartoon version onto others
  • if it feels good to reaffirm superiority then it feels good to project inferiority on others - highly plausible alterantive
• regarding other creations of the mind
  • those can be diagnosed by trained professionals - weak argument
  • you are not one of those people
  • you seem to be woefully inadaquate for that sort of work
• And if no god exists, which is very possible, I am definitely correct.
  • And if not, you're definitely incorrect - weak argument

So you have made 7 arguments. 2 are completely invalid. 5 are weak.

I said your claim was: "I know what's happening with everyone's spiritual experiences because I know myself."
You said: "Not exactly but close enough"

You made 5 weak arguments, and I proved you don't know everyone's experiences because everything you said about me and my experiences was false.

I think it's correct for the reason already given - my personal experience making that mistake, the commonality of human beings and their nervous systems, the disparity in the reports of those claiming to experience a god, the number of former believers who agree that they once "experienced God," and the history of mankind repeatedly making similar mistakes regarding other creations of the mind misunderstood as received messages from conscious external agents separate from the self. And if no god exists, which is very possible, I am definitely correct. Where's your rebuttal of that?"

I already gave it. See above.

And you still haven't attempted rebuttal even after seeing that. Nor have you acknowledged seeing or understanding it. I won't ask for a rebuttal again. Once is enough. I've tentatively concluded that you have none. Absent falsification of that argument from you, I consider the issue resolved. That's how it always works with dialectic. The last plausible, unrebutted argument is considered correct, since correct ideas cannot be falsified.

I already did, you didn't quote it or rebut a single thing in it.

The point: You have nothing but weak reasons and doesn't add up to knowing anything with any certainty about every person on the planet who doesn't agree with you.

And, I gave you a strong valid counter-example myself.

You have no idea that my context pushes AWAY from theistic Judaism not towards it.

 

[nPeace]

And "research" means more than simply looking in the nearest dictionary -- or on Google.

Dictionaries and search engines are useful tools, but to be used properly, they must be the first step in research - not the last.

If you use a modern dictionary for an ancient word, it's not useful as a first step in research.
Getting the original meaning, or word usage takes priority.

 

[nPeace]

The conversation can go on as long as we both want, but the issue of you claiming to have posted your science somewhere in this thread was resolved for me days ago. You claim was rejected, and we're no longer arguing about whether such a post exists. Our discussion has evolved into why that happened, which can be an interesting discussion as well for each of us. I think I made a good and constructive suggestion about conducting apologetics in a mixed audience like this containing many critical thinkers. What works among believers doesn't work in this milieu, and as you might have discovered, can be counterproductive.

Nothing can be resolved on a false claim someone makes and declares himself the judge, and final word on it.
If a person does that, and has not produced one shred of evidence for their claim, that person is playing the bully, and slanderer of another person, and is actually more arrogant than the most haughty of individuals.
You haven't acted different to that person.

I have not claimed to have posted [my] science somewhere in this thread, and I know that a few persons know this, including @lukethethird who is keeping silent about that... and I believe he is not going to say anything against you, So the truth will continue to elude you.
I'm imitating God here.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12) 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 ...because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you use a modern dictionary for an ancient word, it's not useful as a first step in research.
Getting the original meaning, or word usage takes priority.

Sure it is -- modern dictionaries (at least the more comprehensive ones) often include the etymologies of words... which can be a very useful first step.

 

[nPeace]

That is admitting that you are not listening to me. You are listening to yourself. In a previous thread, I indicated this to you. You are arguing with yourself.

You can say that again.

 

[nPeace]

Sure it is -- modern dictionaries (at least the more comprehensive ones) often include the etymologies of words... which can be a very useful first step.

What is faith?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What is faith?

Better question:

But seriously, do you want my definition, or a dictionary's?

 

[nPeace]

Better question:

But seriously, do you want my definition, or a dictionary's?

Why is that a better question?

Aren't you the one saying "modern dictionaries (at least the more comprehensive ones) often include the etymologies of words... which can be a very useful first step."

I'm giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your claim.
What is faith, and what is a minister?

I'll tell you what is love, after you demonstrate your claim... if you can.

 

[lukethethird]

Nothing can be resolved on a false claim someone makes and declares himself the judge, and final word on it.
If a person does that, and has not produced one shred of evidence for their claim, that person is playing the bully, and slanderer of another person, and is actually more arrogant than the most haughty of individuals.
You haven't acted different to that person.

I have not claimed to have posted [my] science somewhere in this thread, and I know that a few persons know this, including @lukethethird who is keeping silent about that... and I believe he is not going to say anything against you, So the truth will continue to elude you.
I'm imitating God here.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12) 11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 ...because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

The notion that God exists out there is not based on intelligence by any stretch of the imagination and you failed to demonstrate otherwise. You don't even know why you believe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why is that a better question?

You might want to check your dictionary for the definition of "humor."

Aren't you the one saying "modern dictionaries (at least the more comprehensive ones) often include the etymologies of words... which can be a very useful first step."

I'm giving you an opportunity to demonstrate your claim.
What is faith, and what is a minister?

I feel no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.

You have access to knowledge -- do what you will with it, but your choices and the consequences are on you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course they do - Naturalism is the philosophy that is the foundation of scientific thought and work; there wouldn't be much reason to do science without it.
...

No, that is how there is methodlogical naturalism versus philoshical naturalism. And there are systems of science that do not rely on naturalism.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, that is how there is methodlogical naturalism versus philoshical naturalism. And there are systems of science that do not rely on naturalism.

I should've specified methodological naturalism -- which is pretty vital when it comes to the physical sciences, anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I should've specified methodological naturalism -- which is pretty vital when it comes to the physical sciences, anyway.

Well, yes. That is relevent for hard natural science. We agree.

 

[nPeace]

You might want to check your dictionary for the definition of "humor."

I feel no obligation to demonstrate anything to you.

That's okay. Telling people something is true, and not feeling obligated to demonstrate the claim, is a personal choice.

You have access to knowledge -- do what you will with it, but your choices and the consequences are on you.

Of course I have access to knowledge. That why I don't accept your claim.
I hope you realize that last clause applies to you, and you aren't thinking it just applies to someone else.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nothing can be resolved on a false claim someone makes and declares himself the judge, and final word on it.

But the matter is resolved for me. I've stopped asking you for evidence and I've told you my conclusion.

I have not claimed to have posted [my] science somewhere in this thread

You were asked for it and told that poster that you had already posted it. He kept asking you for your science, and I suggested that he stop asking and make an educated guess, and did that myself.

If a person does that, and has not produced one shred of evidence for their claim, that person is playing the bully, and slanderer of another person, and is actually more arrogant than the most haughty of individuals.

But I have produced evidence for my claim. It's the evidence that led me to my conclusion about what has happened here. I think that you were careless with language and implied that you had given Luke what he requested. The reason is that he and I (and perhaps one other) got that same impression from your posting, which I discussed with him in terms of there being no need to ask for the same thing more than once or twice. Now, you've reversed yourself and say that you never claimed or implied that. I've told you before that I don't consider you a liar or a troll. You believe what you write even if others don't, and you are genuinely offended at my demeanor.

I understand what you do as a kind of dyslexia, but at the level of sentences and paragraphs rather than letters and words. You process information much less efficiently, and somehow, the characters on the screen aren't rendered into the ideas they were intended to encode and transmit. Ideas morph into other ideas unwitnessed by and unknown to the self due to an inability to grasp or comprehend some kinds of ideas. Think about those two words and their literal meaning, as in grasping an object using a prehensile thumb. This means the ability to keep an idea forefront in consciousness for an extended time without it changing in the process while considering it.

If so, you're not alone. I just addressed this phenomenon on another thread involving two others who seem friendly and largely constructive but don't seem to be able to cooperate in a discussion to the consternation of many.

It means what I said. The fact you cannot understand should be an indicator that you don't know as much as you think.

This discussion has become repetitive now. I've made an evidenced argument and you have dismissed it without trying to explain why it's wrong. You say that I don't have enough evidence. I disagree, and that's doesn't contradict my conclusion anyway. None of the below does. "Sample size of 1, weak argument" No, my evidence is robust and includes multiple data sources as described. You keep disregarding it and reverting to this meme. "They were progress, not mistakes." No, they were mistakes, and they demonstrated man's proclivity for assigning agency to the creations of his own mind. "those can be diagnosed by trained professionals" Irrelevant. I could go on, but it's all the same - rejection without falsification.

Also, you've become angry and are taking pot shots: "you seem to be woefully inadaquate for that sort of work." So, we're done. It's become too personal for you.

Speaking of inadequate, which you misspelled, your arguments have no persuasive power. They're unevidenced opinions - things that you don't like, but none of those comments makes me wrong.

And you dismissed a very important point out of hand: "if no god exists, which is very possible, I am definitely correct." Your reply was, "And if not, you're definitely incorrect - weak argument" Weak argument? You offered no argument. And my point is correct and significant. Gods appear to be fictions of man's imagination like muses were. Man has made progress discarding the one millennia ago, but not the other, which have huge institutions promulgating the insufficiently evidenced claim that gods exist, so we're not surprised when people confuse spiritual experiences for gods like I did when I was subject to that influence. The claim that people are experiencing a god rests on the existence of gods not just being possible, but actual. No two describe the same god. You can't make any of that go away, and until you do, my position is plausible and I consider the matter resolved. You presented no case that I am wrong - just that you don't accept that I'm right without falsification - and you presented it twice.

Here's a bullet point list of your arguments.

• my personal experience making that mistake,
  • Sample size of 1, this is a very weak argument
• the commonality of human beings and their nervous systems
  • the same psycholgical phenomena can have many different causes, this is a very weak argument
• , the disparity in the reports of those claiming to experience a god
  • supports a god experience does not undermine it, invalid arguement
• , the number of former believers who agree that they once "experienced God,"
  • supports and does not undermine, invalid argument
• and the history of mankind repeatedly making similar mistakes
  • they weren't mistakes they were progress, invalid argument
  • your criticism seems to be with cartoon versions of gods and spirits, it's a strawman
  • then you project that cartoon version onto others
  • if it feels good to reaffirm superiority then it feels good to project inferiority on others - highly plausible alterantive
• regarding other creations of the mind
  • those can be diagnosed by trained professionals - weak argument
  • you are not one of those people
  • you seem to be woefully inadaquate for that sort of work
• And if no god exists, which is very possible, I am definitely correct.
  • And if not, you're definitely incorrect - weak argument

So you have made 7 arguments. 2 are completely invalid. 5 are weak.

 

[SkepticThinker]

"When people tell me... I convert that to..." means you're changing what they're saying to fit your own desire.
"When people tell me... I convert that to... " means you aren't speaking the same language.



That doesn't work in psychology and psychiatry. You are operating outside of your field of expertise.



Your projection includes context. You are lacking context. And those are simple gestures.



Gestures. The problem is when a person does not accept the correction: "I'm not angry" "I'm not sad"

"When they tell me that they sense..." your test involves the assumption that these are tactile sensations. Also it involves rationalizing your own experience.



Double-standard Dr. YOU are part of that same long history. You are not actually immune to this. My evidence are the multiple times on this forum you are proven wrong but cannot admit it, and do not change your behavior to compensate. You do not adjust.



Likewise you cannot refute that your knowledge is incomplete. You don't know what you don't know. That's fact.



Then I win. You don't know what you don't know.

Sure it does.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I hope you realize that last clause applies to you, and you aren't thinking it just applies to someone else.

You need not worry.

 

[dybmh]

Sure it does.

"You can assume that much of what is true for you is true for them." That's what was claimed.

That works? You assume that what is true for you is true for your clients? Sounds like a horrible clinical practice. See attached. A harvard PHD disagrees with you.

 

[Angelical]

You say that there is a god, but irrespective of whether or not there actually is, why should I be convinced that you know or are even capable of knowing such a thing?

For Years I have had a kind of Stalemate with Atheists, for them in their heads. Where they say, “Those are gods with a little g, not God”. They want a man in the Clouds, but can accept gods as they put it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For Years I have had a kind of Stalemate with Atheists, for them in their heads. Where they say, “Those are gods with a little g, not God”. They want a man in the Clouds, but can accept gods as they put it.

Seems rather odd for an Atheist to acknowledge the existence of any god.
As an agnostic non-theist, I neither want nor need a man in the clouds.