Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 116

Thread: Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

  1. #91
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    570
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Not “anti-nature”, different from nature.
    why? where is your proof? here's what my essay proves

    (1) there was no juxtaposition between nature and SN prior to enlightenment., ancient world God and nature were fine together.

    (2) term super nature meta physis, meta hamousios are first used around 500 by st Cyril then pseudo Dynonisius

    (3) Duns Scotus stats speaking of Supra natura Latin in 1200s or so.

    (4)that's 500 years after the term is first used it's only then that they start talking about any kind of juxtaposition

    (5) these differences are recognized by modern anthropologists beginning with the great Emile Durkheim



    Your “paradigm” is based upon an idiosyncratic use of language.

    backed by major theologians and anthropologists' quoted MJ Scheeben the top Thomistic philosopher of 19th century. It's in use 900 years before the philosophes twisted it.


    Words have specific meanings. This is why we have one word for natural, i.e. “[1] the material world, especially as surrounding humankind”. And supernaturall i.e. [1] of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
    (1) there is n theologian r theological dictionary or creed or council that says SN = "abnormal
    that is your fantasy

    (2) ordinary dictionaries are based upon popular use so they are inadmissible since the Christian doctrine is not created by the masses.

    (3) you are just repeating your paradigm that's not proof that it's right.re-stating your opinion is not p[roof.



    So you’re claiming that you have 52 credible, evidence-based substantive arguments for the existence of a deity. I’m sure you believe that.
    since you already told us that you don't examine evidence why do you even pretend to ask for it? Getting evidence is not a problem. refusing to consider the evidence means there's no basis for discussion.


    Self-published I presume.

    of course you do. where's your book? where's your Ph.d? what university do you teach at? what academic journal did you run?


    I don’t think YOU know what “supernatural” is other than some mystical construct of your own imagination.
    since the concept itself is a mystical construct what sense does that make to say that? your view of science is just a naturalistic construct. two can play the genetic fallacy game.

    Jerry A. Coyne, is far from being an idiot. He’s a Ph.D, a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. And you’re misrepresenting his argument. That’s’ not what he’s saying.

    He's an idiot with a Ph.D. A person who takes his own ideological propaganda seriously and refuses to consider the ideas of the other side because he's so sure he's right is not a brilliant thinker.


    [QUOTE]His argument is that IF there was any ‘supernatural’ input in the ‘natural’ world we would be able to detect it through scientific testing, because it is the role of science to test and verify the facts of the natural world. There is no such evidence.

    we have but since you refuse to consider evidence no point in telling you. let the reader look back at previous posts.

    Subjective nonsense based upon mystical woo worthy of Depak Chopra himself.
    200 empirical studies in peer reviewed journals say it's not subjective.

    objectivity is a pretense. we cannot be objective but certain methodologies can yield objective facts.

  2. Amen seer amen'd this post.
  3. #92
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,372
    Amen (Given)
    1659
    Amen (Received)
    1056
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    why? where is your proof? here's what my essay proves

    (1) there was no juxtaposition between nature and SN prior to enlightenment., ancient world God and nature were fine together.

    (2) term super nature meta physis, meta hamousios are first used around 500 by st Cyril then pseudo Dynonisius

    (3) Duns Scotus stats speaking of Supra natura Latin in 1200s or so.

    (4)that's 500 years after the term is first used it's only then that they start talking about any kind of juxtaposition

    (5) these differences are recognized by modern anthropologists beginning with the great Emile Durkheim backed by major theologians and anthropologists' quoted MJ Scheeben the top Thomistic philosopher of 19th century. It's in use 900 years before the philosophes twisted it.
    Yes, this is the point. The Enlightenment marks the difference between the so-called Dark Ages and the age of science. Picturesque as your ideas may seem, they've long been superseded by the facts and the methodology of science. There may “not have been juxtaposition between nature and SN prior to enlightenment”, but there is now. It’s the difference between horse-and-buggy and rocket science.


    (1) there is no theologian r theological dictionary or creed or council that says SN = "abnormal that is your fantasy

    (2) ordinary dictionaries are based upon popular use so they are inadmissible since the Christian doctrine is not created by the masses.

    (3) you are just repeating your paradigm that's not proof that it's right.re-stating your opinion is not p[roof.
    But science does, it says on the basis of lack of credible, testable evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist.

    since the concept itself is a mystical construct what sense does that make to say that? your view of science is just a naturalistic construct. two can play the genetic fallacy game.
    Science is supported by empirically verified evidence; mysticism is not supported by substantive evidence that’s the difference.

    He's an idiot with a Ph.D. A person who takes his own ideological propaganda seriously and refuses to consider the ideas of the other side because he's so sure he's right is not a brilliant thinker.
    Jerry A. Coyne’s argument is, that there is that IF there was any ‘supernatural’ input in the ‘natural’ world we would be able to detect it through scientific testing. And there is no such evidence. You’ve not refuted this claim, calling him “an idiot” is not a refutation. His argument is supported by verifiable facts your “ideas” are not. End of story. No amount of wish-fulfilling pseudo-intellectual waffle will make any difference to the facts.

    200 empirical studies in peer reviewed journals say it's not subjective.
    Ah, I guess these 200 empirical studies are like your "52 credible, evidence-based substantive arguments for the existence of a deity".

    objectivity is a pretense. we cannot be objective but certain methodologies can yield objective facts.
    Only scientific methodology can yield empirical testable objective data.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  4. #93
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    570
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Yes, this is the point. The Enlightenment marks the difference between the so-called Dark Ages and the age of science. Picturesque as your ideas may seem, they've long been superseded by the facts and the methodology of science. There may “not have been juxtaposition between nature and SN prior to enlightenment”, but there is now. It’s the difference between horse-and-buggy and rocket science.

    that's nothing more than the yea=boo theory. you are saying "I like brand X and I hate brand Y therefore is better." It's totally inapplicable here because no matter how much better enlightenment ideas may be they can't change the fact that the concept of SN was different before they got hold of it. so they responded to an idea the chuch did not believe, in other words their hi jack of SN is nothing but a straw man.


    But science does, it says on the basis of lack of credible, testable evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist.
    since I have 200 studies that prove it does that statement is false.

    (a) the definition is crucial because if SN is mystical experiment then know mystical exits as an experience,therefore, SN exists.

    (b) I just proved above that SN = mystical experience

    (c) therefore SN must exist/

    200 peer reviewed studies published in academic journals.

    Science is supported by empirically verified evidence; mysticism is not supported by substantive evidence that’s the difference
    .

    wrong. I have 200 studies that say it is. read the book



    Jerry A. Coyne’s argument is, that there is that IF there was any ‘supernatural’ input in the ‘natural’ world we would be able to detect it through scientific testing.
    I just showed you that we do detect it


    And there is no such evidence.
    yup 200 studies worth

    You’ve not refuted this claim, calling him “an idiot” is not a refutation.
    200 studies is more refutation than you will get on most things. It only took four studies to get air bags in cars

    His argument is supported by verifiable facts your “ideas” are not. End of story. No amount of wish-fulfilling pseudo-intellectual waffle will make any difference to the facts.
    are you even following what's been said? 200 studies is science. science says you are wrong.

    His argument is including things from Genesis creation myth that has nothing to do with SN. he's just assuming anything to do with God is SN and I just proved that's wrong. His argument doesn't apply to SN therefore it's clearly wrong.

    Ah, I guess these 200 empirical studies are like your "52 credible, evidence-based substantive arguments for the existence of a deity".
    circular reasoning. so typically atheist. you know the 52 are wrong because you don't like their conclusions that disproves the 00 studies or the 200 studies are wrong they disprove the other.

    don't confuse me with linear thinking. atheists need that good old circular reasoning. It was good enough for Dawkins it's good enough for me.

    Only scientific methodology can yield empirical testable objective data.
    the studies use scientific methodology that's why they are published in peer reviewed journals.

  5. #94
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,372
    Amen (Given)
    1659
    Amen (Received)
    1056
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    that's nothing more than the yea=boo theory. you are saying "I like brand X and I hate brand Y therefore is better." It's totally inapplicable here because no matter how much better enlightenment ideas may be they can't change the fact that the concept of SN was different before they got hold of it. so they responded to an idea the chuch did not believe, in other words their hi jack of SN is nothing but a straw man.
    The concept of the supernatural was indeed different before the advent of modern science. Now it’s irrelevant.

    since I have 200 studies that prove it does that statement is false.

    (a) the definition is crucial because if SN is mystical experiment then know mystical exits as an experience,therefore, SN exists.

    (b) I just proved above that SN = mystical experience

    (c) therefore SN must exist/

    200 peer reviewed studies published in academic journals.
    Links please!

    The seeming experience of the mystical is purely brain activity. It’s based upon wish fulfilment, auto-suggestion and is purely subjective. It can also be induced by certain types of epilepsy or hallucinogens, which reinforces the purely material nature of the phenomenon. It exists only in the minds of the delusional.

    wrong. I have 200 studies that say it is. read the book
    What book?

    I just showed you that we do detect it
    Nope. You asserted it, you haven’t shown it.

    yup 200 studies worth
    Sigh!

    200 studies is more refutation than you will get on most things. It only took four studies to get air bags in cars
    Air-bags exist, the supernatural does not.

    are you even following what's been said? 200 studies is science. science says you are wrong.
    So you keep saying.

    His argument is including things from Genesis creation myth that has nothing to do with SN. he's just assuming anything to do with God is SN and I just proved that's wrong. His argument doesn't apply to SN therefore it's clearly wrong.
    Any claim, any explanation of an event, falls within the scope of science because science is a method of investigation. That’s Coyne’s argument.

    circular reasoning. so typically atheist. you know the 52 are wrong because you don't like their conclusions that disproves the 00 studies or the 200 studies are wrong they disprove the other.

    don't confuse me with linear thinking. atheists need that good old circular reasoning. It was good enough for Dawkins it's good enough for me.
    Nope. Merely questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

    the studies use scientific methodology that's why they are published in peer reviewed journals.
    Enough already!
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  6. #95
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    570
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The concept of the supernatural was indeed different before the advent of modern science. Now it’s irrelevant.
    of course it's relevant what the Christian idea is because that's what you are arguing is the untruth of Christian ideas. you are making straw man argument

    Links please!
    to the studies? http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/



    The seeming experience of the mystical is purely brain activity. It’s based upon wish fulfilment, auto-suggestion and is purely subjective.

    there's a whole chapter disproving that in the book. essentially the studies showing mystical experience is good for you and valid are controlled. Study instrument called "the M scale" proves a true mystical experience fro, a false one. The studies that reduce the experience to brain chemistry are not controlled and don't use the M scale. Thus they can't probe they are dealing with real mystical experience.


    It can also be induced by certain types of epilepsy or hallucinogens,
    false. Drugs facilitate but do not cause. there are numerous differences. there's a large portion of a chapter in the trace of God about that too.


    which reinforces the purely material nature of the phenomenon. It exists only in the minds of the delusional.
    wrong, the studies show measurable results. the effects are real

    What book?
    the one with the studies in it. not paying attention? I linked to it above.

    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman, on amazon



    Nope. You asserted it, you haven’t shown it.
    yup I did how it. that's what the studies are about, studies are in the book, I keep talking about the book.



    Sigh!

    you should be frustrated because your whole smug anti-religious nonsense is just hot air. that is proved by the dox all over the web sites and book I've linked to.


    Air-bags exist, the supernatural does not.
    obviously it does exist because the studies prove it. you are just reciting a mantra





    Any claim, any explanation of an event, falls within the scope of science because science is a method of investigation. That’s Coyne’s argument.
    that's nonsense. It's clearly double talk because when religious people state beliefs they are talking metaphysics and that's unproved so untrue. when you state your dogma it's "science " and science is always true. Science is not the understanding of reality. It's about one narrow aspect of reality. empirical data about the workings of the physical world.


    Nope. Merely questioning your unsubstantiated claims.

    that's nonsense. you are doing circular reasoning that's obvious. you have not read a single study but you assert their untruth then use that to assert the untruth of the 52 arguments. You had no valid argument to begin with.

    your arguments are all undergirded by dogma rather than facts


    Enough already!
    yes, I've cleaned your clock about five times now. why don't you send Old Jery Cyote over here. I would love to debate him.

  7. #96
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,372
    Amen (Given)
    1659
    Amen (Received)
    1056
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    of course it's relevant what the Christian idea is because that's what you are arguing is the untruth of Christian ideas. you are making straw man argument
    Supernaturalism is irrelevant in the scientific age; there’s no substantive evidence that 'the supernatural' exists. If there was, then it wouldn't be “supernaturalism” any-more, but “naturalism”. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. The entire process civilization has been a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic and religious mysticism in favour of evidence-based knowledge. And the trend continues.

    to the studies? http://www.amazon.com/dp/0982408714/

    there's a whole chapter disproving that in the book. essentially the studies showing mystical experience is good for you and valid are controlled. Study instrument called "the M scale" proves a true mystical experience fro, a false one. The studies that reduce the experience to brain chemistry are not controlled and don't use the M scale. Thus they can't probe they are dealing with real mystical experience.
    Nope. The Hood/Stacy Study makes clear that ‘mysticism’ is merely a cultural construct not a reality in-and-of itself. It varies between the different acculturation of adherents from differing religious and cultural presuppositions.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10.01508.x/pdf

    false. Drugs facilitate but do not cause. there are numerous differences. there's a large portion of a chapter in the trace of God about that too.

    wrong, the studies show measurable results. the effects are real

    the one with the studies in it. not paying attention? I linked to it above.

    The Trace of God by Joseph Hinman, on amazon
    The brain alone can induce inner peace and a spiritual sense of ‘onenesses with the deity, according to researchers. This can be the result of brain surgery, certain forms of epilepsy or hallucinogenic drugs such as ketamine, ALL reinforcing the demonstrable fact that “mystical experiences” are purely physical manifestations. As well, such experiences can be deliberately manipulated by researchers with similar results.

    Many studies say this including:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1002...s.2010.66.html

    that's nonsense. It's clearly double talk because when religious people state beliefs they are talking metaphysics and that's unproved so untrue. when you state your dogma it's "science " and science is always true. Science is not the understanding of reality. It's about one narrow aspect of reality. empirical data about the workings of the physical world.
    The issue is not whether people have what they think are "mystical experiences", clearly they do. The question is how and why such experiences occur. The brain alone can induce inner peace and a spiritual sense of ‘onenesses with the deity, according to researchers. This can be the result of brain surgery, certain forms of epilepsy or hallucinogenic drugs such as ketamine reinforcing that such “mystical experiences” are purely physical manifestations, nothing more. Furthermore such “experiences” can be deliberately manipulated by researchers with similar results.

    Many studies say this including:

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/1002...s.2010.66.html

    that's nonsense. you are doing circular reasoning that's obvious. you have not read a single study but you assert their untruth then use that to assert the untruth of the 52 arguments. You had no valid argument to begin with.
    There is substantiated evidence that many people have what they term “mystical experiences”, there’s NO substantiated evidence that these experiences are anything other than natural manifestations of the material brain. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known natural laws of science that governs our experiences and not some supernatural mystical process that exists outside those laws.

    your arguments are all undergirded by dogma rather than facts
    Quite the reverse, my arguments are undergirded by evidence as opposed to yours which derive from religious presuppositions.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  8. #97
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    570
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    Supernaturalism is irrelevant in the scientific age; there’s no substantive evidence that 'the supernatural' exists. If there was, then it wouldn't be “supernaturalism” any-more, but “naturalism”. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing mystical explanation. The entire process civilization has been a gradual dismantling of presumptions of magic and religious mysticism in favour of evidence-based knowledge. And the trend continues.
    Again as my essay proved what you are calling SN is merely a straw man argument. SN doesn't exist because you label the wrong things with that term. The term really refers to Mystical experience no demies it exists.




    Nope. The Hood/Stacy Study makes clear that ‘mysticism’ is merely a cultural construct not a reality in-and-of itself. It varies between the different acculturation of adherents from differing religious and cultural presuppositions.

    That is totally wrong. show me the source you taking that from. Hood invented the M scale he's formed of mine and I know very well what he believes.


    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10.01508.x/pdf

    you are confused about what this link means. It's a confirming study corroborates Hood's work. Hood is the guy whose work I'm supporting so this study backs my arguments. btw it's Stace not Stacy

    The brain alone can induce inner peace and a spiritual sense of ‘ oneness with the deity, according to researchers.
    that is not what researchers say. First I don't believe any do say it except reductionists who deny the reality of the self. secondly there's no basis in proof for such a notion. Third the universal nature of the experience implies an external origin for the experience.


    This can be the result of brain surgery, certain forms of epilepsy or hallucinogenic drugs such as ketamine, ALL reinforcing the demonstrable fact that “mystical experiences” are purely physical manifestations. As well, such experiences can be deliberately manipulated by researchers with similar results.
    four studies prove it's not related to epilepsies. Numerous studies prove it's not pathological. I deal with all of this in the book.



    that article is not a study and it's talking about the brain stimulating people and their methods of determining spirituality are wrong. They don't use the M scale so there's no way to establish that they are dealing with mystical experience.


    The issue is not whether people have what they think are "mystical experiences", clearly they do. The question is how and why such experiences occur. The brain alone can induce inner peace and a spiritual sense of ‘onenesses with the deity, according to researchers.
    we are not talking about a mere feeling of peace. Mystical experience is so [profound i's transforming. As I already pointed out those who do brain stimulation don't use the M scale so they can't prove they are producing mystical experience.


    that's the same article as above. so same answer


    There is substantiated evidence that many people have what they term “mystical experiences”, there’s NO substantiated evidence that these experiences are anything other than natural manifestations of the material brain. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known natural laws of science that governs our experiences and not some supernatural mystical process that exists outside those laws.
    yes therte a hug ody of evidence indicatimng that

    (1) the nature of the experience

    (2) thye universality of the experience

    (4) 8 tie breakers

    [uote]Quite the reverse, my arguments are undergirded by evidence as opposed to yours which derive from religious presuppositions.[/QUOTE]

    I have so much evidence I wrote a book the bib is 20 pages. you have 2 links and they don't apply

  9. #98
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,372
    Amen (Given)
    1659
    Amen (Received)
    1056
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    Again as my essay proved what you are calling SN is merely a straw man argument. SN doesn't exist because you label the wrong things with that term. The term really refers to Mystical experience no demies it exists.
    There is no good reason, other than wish-fulfilment, for thinking that so-called mystical experiences are not a natural by-product of the material brain.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...10.01508.x/pdf

    you are confused about what this link means. It's a confirming study corroborates Hood's work. Hood is the guy whose work I'm supporting so this study backs my arguments. btw it's Stace not Stacy



    that is not what researchers say. First I don't believe any do say it except reductionists who deny the reality of the self. secondly there's no basis in proof for such a notion. Third the universal nature of the experience implies an external origin for the experience.
    There’s nothing in this study that indicates that the so-called mystical experiences are externally related and not solely a product of the material brain. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the Hood study has not been replicated.

    that article is not a study and it's talking about the brain stimulating people and their methods of determining spirituality are wrong. They don't use the M scale so there's no way to establish that they are dealing with mystical experience.




    we are not talking about a mere feeling of peace. Mystical experience is so [profound i's transforming. As I already pointed out those who do brain stimulation don't use the M scale so they can't prove they are producing mystical experience.
    We’re talking about experiences wherein the participants are utterly convinced they have had experience of “the other”, but there's no substantive evidence that they actually have. These experiences are clinically measurable and nothing indicates than they’re more than natural brain activity.

    yes therte a hug ody of evidence indicatimng that

    (1) the nature of the experience

    (2) thye universality of the experience

    (4) 8 tie breakers

    [uote]Quite the reverse, my arguments are undergirded by evidence as opposed to yours which derive from religious presuppositions.

    I have so much evidence I wrote a book the bib is 20 pages. you have 2 links and they don't apply
    The “universality of the experience” merely says that the human brain is universally similar all over the world and has been throughout human history. I suggest you Google “Scholarly articles for neurological basis of mystical experiences” and educate yourself (there are many of them). You’re jumping to conclusions based upon faith rather than supported by fact.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  10. #99
    tWebber metacrock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Dallas Tx.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    570
    Amen (Given)
    0
    Amen (Received)
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There is no good reason, other than wish-fulfilment, for thinking that so-called mystical experiences are not a natural by-product of the material brain.
    there are eight good reasons. I call them "tie breakers" discuss them in the next to last chapter of the book. I'll just mention a couple here. I've already talked about them and you have not answered them.

    (1) universal nature

    These experiences should not be the same from culture to culture because religious ideas are cultural constructs. Yet these experiences are the same. that means there has to be an external reality.

    (2) It's always positive and life transforming

    Not long term negatives, that could not be better if it was planned, which brings up the question maybe it is planned. You can't explain it and God does explain it.

    (3) working is a measure of truth content

    when I ask atheists "how do you know science is true? they say "it works." these experiences are religion working. this is doing what religion claims to do for you. that's a reason to accept it as a mark of truth content.



    There’s nothing in this study that indicates that the so-called mystical experiences are externally related and not solely a product of the material brain. Furthermore, to my knowledge, the Hood study has not been replicated.
    There doesn't have to be not the purpose of the study. In fact Hood, whose work the study corroborates, does believe because the universal argument I just gave above is his argument.


    We’re talking about experiences wherein the participants are utterly convinced they have had experience of “the other”, but there's no substantive evidence that they actually have. These experiences are clinically measurable and nothing indicates than they’re more than natural brain activity.

    yes there's a load of substantial evidence. The content of the experience the nature of the experience and the effects of it upon the persons life. Those three points above answer this as well.


    The “universality of the experience” merely says that the human brain is universally similar all over the world and has been throughout human history.
    that does not work

    (1) no other example of something that is written into the brain as part of the soft ware and causes life transforming experiences with no negatives, that's absurd.

    (2) not all people have mystical experience but they all have human brains.

    (3) why don't we all speak the same langue or have the same culture?

    I suggest you Google “Scholarly articles for neurological basis of mystical experiences” and educate yourself (there are many of them). You’re jumping to conclusions based upon faith rather than supported by fact.
    I've written several scholarly articles on that subject. The atheist pabulum, on brain/mind determinism is crap. l Have proved it. I also published articles about it in the academic journal that I published, Negations.

    one such article:

    Mind is not reducible to brain

  11. #100
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,410
    Amen (Given)
    727
    Amen (Received)
    3329
    Quote Originally Posted by metacrock View Post
    I've written several scholarly articles on that subject. The atheist pabulum, on brain/mind determinism is crap. l Have proved it. I also published articles about it in the academic journal that I published, Negations.

    one such article:

    Mind is not reducible to brain
    Good link, this has been a contentious issue around here.
    "Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.” C.S. Lewis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •