Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it ever happens to me, then we can compare notes. Until then, I still say it's all in the mind.
Everything we experience is "all in the mind."
Quote:
Yes, but this is the familiar reliance on what Jonesey referred to as human understanding that the Bible warned against and Mystic dismisses as limited and flawed human perception.
They are right in that humans are hardwired to think in a way that enables survival, but not in a way that reveals truth. Something More is required than unreliable human conclusions ('common sense' as it is often called) that led to the snowdome -cosmos, medical cures based on humors, leeches and flys' wings; and Creation -myths.
It comes down to Inspired Revelation or scientific discovery; reason and evidence or irrationality; Logic or blind faith.
I wouldn’t disagree with the first part of that at all. The question I’d ask is do wolves, bears and angels represent similar things depending on the cultures? If so, why do you automatically come to the conclusion you do?
It am not sure is automatic, it is just what I find the most probable by looking at the evidence we have. And that includes people using cognitive bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
We’re not far off in our opinion. But I don’t agree that they are useless as evidence that it’s worth exploring, for those who are inclined to do so, how one goes about having those experiences for themselves.
Exactly. For you, a personal experience is of value. I have no problem with religious people having beliefs provided they do not use them to hurt themselves or others. Freedom of religion effects atheists just as much as religious / spiritual people.
But if other people can not verify your experience is valid, then I have no reason to believe your experience above that of the man here in Germany who sees giant cockroaches.
Nothing in your post addresses my point that one can be rational and not reach the conclusion you are saying a rational person must reach, that all or most spiritual experiences are false. One can reach the conclusion that spiritual experiences are as subjectively experienced as physical experiences but that does not mean either didn’t happen.
Well said, Pleroo. What we DO know is that our brains interpret stimuli presented to it and create what we perceive. It can only rely on what exists within our recorded experiences and cognitions to do this. We then must use these to communicate the experiences to others. Harry and his cohort simply assume that there is NO stimuli for spiritual experiences based on their expectations of material reality. They dismiss any consideration of a greater Reality than they concretely experience.
It am not sure is automatic, it is just what I find the most probable by looking at the evidence we have. And that includes people using cognitive bias.
Exactly. For you, a personal experience is of value. I have no problem with religious people having beliefs provided they do not use them to hurt themselves or others. Freedom of religion effects atheists just as much as religious / spiritual people.
But if other people can not verify your experience is valid, then I have no reason to believe your experience above that of the man here in Germany who sees giant cockroaches.
You seem unaware of your own cognitive bias when you repeatedly refer to mentally dysfunctional people as if they are representative of us all. Why would you use the exceptions to characterize the rest of us? Do you actually believe we are all mentally dysfunctional? Do you believe you interpret your experiences dysfunctionally?
Last edited by MysticPhD; 05-02-2020 at 10:24 AM..
It am not sure is automatic, it is just what I find the most probable by looking at the evidence we have. And that includes people using cognitive bias.
Exactly. For you, a personal experience is of value. I have no problem with religious people having beliefs provided they do not use them to hurt themselves or others. Freedom of religion effects atheists just as much as religious / spiritual people.
But if other people can not verify your experience is valid, then I have no reason to believe your experience above that of the man here in Germany who sees giant cockroaches.
I wouldn't expect anyone to. But, it seems to me that some atheists can't abide other people sharing their experiences on a religious and spirituality forum without constantly interjecting their belief that sharing those experiences has no value to them. It's like they don't want to allow the rest of us to draw our own conclusions about what value we take away from it. That's how it comes off, at any rate. Me, I'd rather address the actual content of the experience, rather than insisting it can't have happened, and I honestly don't understand why that seems to be such a sore spot for some atheists.
You seem unaware of your own cognitive bias when you repeatedly refer to mentally dysfunctional people as if they are representative of us all. Why would you use the exceptions to characterize the rest of us? Do you actually believe we are all mentally dysfunctional? Do you believe you interpret your experiences dysfunctionally?
I wouldn’t disagree with the first part of that at all. The question I’d ask is do wolves, bears and angels represent similar things depending on the cultures? If so, why do you automatically come to the conclusion you do?
We’re not far off in our opinion. But I don’t agree that they are useless as evidence that it’s worth exploring, for those who are inclined to do so, how one goes about having those experiences for themselves.
This sounds like Mystic's 'radio- receiver brain gets garbled messages' argument. Which is of course explaining away the fact that the Mental Messages that are claimed to come from one source come through in different ways.
The excuse is that the faulty brains we have evolved (hardly 'designed' unless through a less than perfect evolutionary method (the evolution is real -but God uses it apologetic) garble the messages into...would you believe...results shaped by our culture and beliefs, unless they are hustled into orthodoxy by an Authority.
Obviously the apologetic is that it is the brain, shaped by culture that is shaping these messages and obviously the rationalist claim is that they are products of the brain and shaped by custom and culture.
So, putting aside all the stuff about Krauss or Dawkins apparently appealing to Something More than just the human mind as producing human consciousness and mind, and the usual appeals to the unknowns, it comes down to either hypothesis seems to fit the facts
I'll just say that logic would say that the mind producing these culture -shaped mental images is the default as we know the mind exists. It is for those arguing for an outside source to substantiate that hypothesis, and I'm sure that Krauss and Dawkins are well aware of that.
As usual, Occam's razor comes into play and for those who would dismiss the Principle of parsimony, the materialist default and the burden of proof, I'd say they can do that, but can never again honestly use the word 'Logic' in making their arguments.
I wouldn't expect anyone to. But, it seems to me that some atheists can't abide other people sharing their experiences on a religious and spirituality forum without constantly interjecting their belief that sharing those experiences has no value to them. It's like they don't want to allow the rest of us to draw our own conclusions about what value we take away from it. That's how it comes off, at any rate. Me, I'd rather address the actual content of the experience, rather than insisting it can't have happened, and I honestly don't understand why that seems to be such a sore spot for some atheists.
I find it is the other way, that people on the internet who have mystical experiences have a problem with us not believing them, and that their experience 'proves' alternative views false. Hence my response to IWas that started our conversation.
I have noticed many spiritual people on forums too busy kicking the sign posts instead of reading them while pretending to be searching for a truth.
I find it is the other way, that people on the internet who have mystical experiences have a problem with us not believing them, and that their experience 'proves' alternative views false. Hence my response to IWas that started our conversation.
I have noticed many spiritual people on forums too busy kicking the sign posts instead of reading them while pretending to be searching for a truth.
I guess we'll chalk it up to having subjective experiences of the same phenomenon. Sort of kidding. I don't dismiss that there are people who do as you say. I just wish there was less generalization of people, and an acceptance by the "some" atheists that I mentioned, that not every "spiritual" person has the same agenda or expectations, any more than every atheist does.
“We” may not feel obliged to use an experience as reliable evidence (although the more people who claim to have experienced something similar the less easy it is to dismiss). But “we” can be rational and reach a different conclusion than you have. After all, even a physical event is often experienced and perceived differently by different people. Each person may focus on a different aspect of an event or ascribe a different meaning to it. Two people could be having a conversation and walk away with very different, even conflicting, understandings of the conversation. In other words, the fact that subjective experience of the same physical event (or the same type of event) may be even vastly different does not mean that/those physical event(s) never occurred. Same thing with spiritual experiences.
However, I think what most of us atheists are saying is that if you have a personal spiritual experience...fine. Don't try to sell it to me without some concrete evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we DO know is that our brains interpret stimuli presented to it and create what we perceive. It can only rely on what exists within our recorded experiences and cognitions to do this. We then must use these to communicate the experiences to others. Harry and his cohort simply assume that there is NO stimuli for spiritual experiences based on their expectations of material reality. They dismiss any consideration of a greater Reality than they concretely experience.
Sort of kidding. I don't dismiss that there are people who do as you say. I just wish there was less generalization of people, and an acceptance by the "some" atheists that I mentioned, that not every "spiritual" person has the same agenda or expectations, any more than every atheist does.
