Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is a Religious Experience?
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Rockinghorse Winner
May 10, 2012, 1:55:16 AM5/10/12
to
It is a fact of human experience that most people experience something that
they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
<http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
this type.
What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
am not completely in control of the experience.
With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
someplace 'outside' me.
I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested in
what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
have such an experience.
What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of all
religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
What are some other aspects of religious feeling? What are some of the
differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
experience in?
Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
<http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
this type.
What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
am not completely in control of the experience.
With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
someplace 'outside' me.
I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested in
what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
have such an experience.
What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of all
religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
What are some other aspects of religious feeling? What are some of the
differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
experience in?
Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
Giga
May 10, 2012, 4:19:14 AM5/10/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message
news:slrnjqmm24.dik....@badass.edu...
>
> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of
> all
> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
> religious
> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person
> who
> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
> What are some of the
> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
> their
> experience in?
person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources to
interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is an
interesting point!
>
> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the physical body
count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is that an
experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the physical?
> Is religious
> feeling incompatible with atheism?
is.
> Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs?
mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them. This
is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis and
not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
convenient and comforting etc.
>Thoughts? Ideas?
>
Fred M. McNeill
May 10, 2012, 8:18:55 AM5/10/12
to
At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
the representation of certain photon energies
as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
At a maximum, the reported conversations with
'God' by epileptics such that they refuse any
medication.
At a common personal experience : several dreams I have
had in which I acted out practiced cultural religious
stories.
Different brains produce different effects(experiences).
the representation of certain photon energies
as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
At a maximum, the reported conversations with
'God' by epileptics such that they refuse any
medication.
At a common personal experience : several dreams I have
had in which I acted out practiced cultural religious
stories.
Different brains produce different effects(experiences).
Dare
May 10, 2012, 10:45:04 AM5/10/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message news:slrnjqmm24.dik....@badass.edu...
meaning beyond just the facts of what happened.
Sometimes there may be a "revelation" of sorts....
interpreted as a special message or some special knowledge
given to the individual.
There may be a change in perception....
a change in light, or the "flow of time"...
a separation from the normal world....
an altered state of consciousness.
Perhaps the experience is immune to the effects of analysis...
it defies attempts at explanation. Even if the individual has
some doubts about the "super-natural" aspect, there is still
that nagging reluctance to dismiss the feeling that it is a
different kind of experience.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 10, 2012, 10:57:50 AM5/10/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Do you mean beyond it, as in after death, or behind it as in 'another level
of awareness?'
As for the profound influence it has on us, I interpret this as meaning the
experience touches something in us that reverberates (literally vibrates),
and that we are attuned to some aspect of our being that we weren't before
the experience.
>> What are some of the
>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>> their
>> experience in?
>
> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources to
> interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is an
> interesting point!
>
>>
>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>
>
> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a religious
> experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the physical body
> count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is that an
> experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the physical?
Yes, I would call that a religious experience. I think a feeling of
incoporeality is not theistic in and of itself, though it can lead to a a
belief in a deity through reflection and refinement.
In fact, might it be that religious belief all starts from the experiences
you describe - of an incorporal existence? Might this be the origin of
religion?
>
>> Is religious
>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>
> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to life
> is.
>
>> Can a religious experience ever
>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>> terms of those beliefs?
>
> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them. This
> is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis and
> not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
> convenient and comforting etc.
Perhaps you're right that it would be challenging to each and every person
who experienced it, including those already religious. Perhaps this is the
way religion is kept fresh, by the continual injection of direct experiences
of this kind.
of awareness?'
As for the profound influence it has on us, I interpret this as meaning the
experience touches something in us that reverberates (literally vibrates),
and that we are attuned to some aspect of our being that we weren't before
the experience.
>> What are some of the
>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>> their
>> experience in?
>
> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources to
> interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is an
> interesting point!
>
>>
>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>
>
> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a religious
> experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the physical body
> count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is that an
> experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the physical?
incoporeality is not theistic in and of itself, though it can lead to a a
belief in a deity through reflection and refinement.
In fact, might it be that religious belief all starts from the experiences
you describe - of an incorporal existence? Might this be the origin of
religion?
>
>> Is religious
>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>
> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to life
> is.
>
>> Can a religious experience ever
>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>> terms of those beliefs?
>
> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them. This
> is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis and
> not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
> convenient and comforting etc.
who experienced it, including those already religious. Perhaps this is the
way religion is kept fresh, by the continual injection of direct experiences
of this kind.
Immortalist
May 10, 2012, 11:19:31 AM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 10:55 pm, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:
Some animals are social and need to communicate more than animals that
are solitary or in dumb herds which means they must go beyond other
animals in recognizing the self and others. In humans language was add
to this more complex level of instinctual social communication.
A critical question in human evolution is how the hierarchy typical of
ape societies was transformed into its opposite, the egalitarianism of
hunter gatherers. Human brain size started to expand dramatically from
the split with chimps. One consequence of this increased cognitive
capacity was the invention of weapons such as wooden spears. Weapons
were the great equalizers, and would have had the effect of flattening
out the hierarchy of a still apelike society, Boehm suggests. Another
leveler would have been the cognitive ability of the weak to form
coalitions against tyrannical leaders...
...as egalitarianism slowly evolved in the human lineage, it would
have exposed a critical weakness in the social structure: with the
power of the alpha males eclipsed, how was order to be kept? If no one
were willing to defer to anyone else, who would determine the
interests of the group? Who would take the personal risk of punishing
deviant and antisocial behavior?
The threat of freeloading and anarchy would have become increasingly
serious as human cognitive abilities increased. Individuals would have
figured out new and better ways to take advantage of the group's
protection without contributing anything in return. Nothing is more
corrosive to a group's cohesion than free riders. If they go
unpunished, the advantage of social living quickly diminishes; others
will contribute less, and the group will disintegrate or crumble under
challenge from neighbors. Free riders would have gained new power with
the advent of language, a perfect instrument with which to deceive,
prevaricate and manipulate. Those who were not pulling their full
weight had a new means of cloaking their selfishness...
...In evolutionary theory the role of religion as a force for social
cohesion and this is a fairly standard idea. But a new wrinkle on this
argument argues that the development of language allowed the
elaboration of reciprical altruism in human societies. With this
elaboration came greater opportunities for 'freeloaders' to cheat the
system by deception. There must be "...some context in which
statements were reliably and indubitably true.".. ...scared truths
which are unverifiable and unfalsifiable along with the communal
rituals of religion provide committed individuals with defense
"against the lie" ...there are good examples of this aspect of
religion operating even today, for instance among Orthodox Jews in the
diamond district seal even large contracts with a handshake. So the
defense against the the lie allows enhanced trust between members of
the community. Presumably repeated participation in the rituals of
religion provides a measure of verification that the trust is
warranted, making freeloaders easier to detect.
http://theforcethat.blogspot.com/2006/05/religion-and-science.html
Before the Dawn: Recovering the
Lost History of Our Ancestors
by Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/
The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and
Why It Endures - Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B003B3NVZY/
Once there is language, conflicts of language ideas emerge layered on
top of mammalian instinctual hardware.
Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
Because the occurrance of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people
are motivated to reduce it; this is roughly analogous to the processes
involved in the induction and reduction of such drives as hunger or
thirst----except that, here, the driving force arises from cognitive
dissonance rather than physiological needs. To hold two ideas that
contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity, and---as Albert
Camus, the existentialist philosopher, has observed---humans are
creatures who sppend their lives trying to convine themselves their
existence is not absurd.
And since religious ideas are parasites on our strongest emotional
hardware they can trigger the tangle up in;
Quine's Web of Beliefs
According to Quine's metaphor of the web, all of our beliefs justify
and are justified by all of our other beliefs. They are all connected
by an explanatory network, and changes in one place can require
changes elsewhere. Thus, all of our beliefs are connected to our
observations of the world. What we observe can lead us to change any
of our beliefs, no matter how certain we may have been that they were
true. ...we try to change as few beliefs as possible, but we cannot
rule out the possibility that some observations will require sweeping
changes in the web.
Such sweeping changes do not occur often. When they do occur, they are
usually heralded as scientific revolutions, such as when Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) replaced Isaac Newton's (1642-1727) world view
with his special and general theories of relativity, and when Charles
Darwin (1809-1882) presented his theory of evolution, and when Sigmund
Freud (1856-1939) revealed the powers of unconscious motivation.
Similar sweeping changes may also occur in our personal lives, as when
we embrace a new religion with great fervor or decide that atheism is
the correct attitude and reject all religion.
...Are any beliefs immune from this process? Many philosophers believe
so. They hold that some beliefs do not depend on observation for their
justification, and that no observations whatever could show them to be
wrong. Beliefs of this type are said to count as a priori knowledge,
meaning that their justification is independent of experience. A
priori knowledge is contrasted with empirical knowledge, which does
depend on observation for its justification.
Thus, these philosophers give certain beliefs a privileged place in
the web. They are protected by something like a one-way glass. The
beliefs behind the glass, our a priori knowledge, provide
justification for the beliefs in front of it, our empirical beliefs,
but nothing that happens in front of the glass can change what goes on
behind it...
...The web of belief is set up in such a way that it is always
possible to hold any belief, come what may...
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117
In summary a million years ago an apes picked up rocks and hit
existing tyrants making society much more equal, and thus began the
stone age. Just joking.
wrote:
are solitary or in dumb herds which means they must go beyond other
animals in recognizing the self and others. In humans language was add
to this more complex level of instinctual social communication.
A critical question in human evolution is how the hierarchy typical of
ape societies was transformed into its opposite, the egalitarianism of
hunter gatherers. Human brain size started to expand dramatically from
the split with chimps. One consequence of this increased cognitive
capacity was the invention of weapons such as wooden spears. Weapons
were the great equalizers, and would have had the effect of flattening
out the hierarchy of a still apelike society, Boehm suggests. Another
leveler would have been the cognitive ability of the weak to form
coalitions against tyrannical leaders...
...as egalitarianism slowly evolved in the human lineage, it would
have exposed a critical weakness in the social structure: with the
power of the alpha males eclipsed, how was order to be kept? If no one
were willing to defer to anyone else, who would determine the
interests of the group? Who would take the personal risk of punishing
deviant and antisocial behavior?
The threat of freeloading and anarchy would have become increasingly
serious as human cognitive abilities increased. Individuals would have
figured out new and better ways to take advantage of the group's
protection without contributing anything in return. Nothing is more
corrosive to a group's cohesion than free riders. If they go
unpunished, the advantage of social living quickly diminishes; others
will contribute less, and the group will disintegrate or crumble under
challenge from neighbors. Free riders would have gained new power with
the advent of language, a perfect instrument with which to deceive,
prevaricate and manipulate. Those who were not pulling their full
weight had a new means of cloaking their selfishness...
...In evolutionary theory the role of religion as a force for social
cohesion and this is a fairly standard idea. But a new wrinkle on this
argument argues that the development of language allowed the
elaboration of reciprical altruism in human societies. With this
elaboration came greater opportunities for 'freeloaders' to cheat the
system by deception. There must be "...some context in which
statements were reliably and indubitably true.".. ...scared truths
which are unverifiable and unfalsifiable along with the communal
rituals of religion provide committed individuals with defense
"against the lie" ...there are good examples of this aspect of
religion operating even today, for instance among Orthodox Jews in the
diamond district seal even large contracts with a handshake. So the
defense against the the lie allows enhanced trust between members of
the community. Presumably repeated participation in the rituals of
religion provides a measure of verification that the trust is
warranted, making freeloaders easier to detect.
http://theforcethat.blogspot.com/2006/05/religion-and-science.html
Before the Dawn: Recovering the
Lost History of Our Ancestors
by Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Dawn-Recovering-History-Ancestors/dp/014303832X/
The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and
Why It Endures - Nicholas Wade
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Instinct-Religion-Evolved-Endures/dp/B003B3NVZY/
Once there is language, conflicts of language ideas emerge layered on
top of mammalian instinctual hardware.
Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
Because the occurrance of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people
are motivated to reduce it; this is roughly analogous to the processes
involved in the induction and reduction of such drives as hunger or
thirst----except that, here, the driving force arises from cognitive
dissonance rather than physiological needs. To hold two ideas that
contradict each other is to flirt with absurdity, and---as Albert
Camus, the existentialist philosopher, has observed---humans are
creatures who sppend their lives trying to convine themselves their
existence is not absurd.
And since religious ideas are parasites on our strongest emotional
hardware they can trigger the tangle up in;
Quine's Web of Beliefs
According to Quine's metaphor of the web, all of our beliefs justify
and are justified by all of our other beliefs. They are all connected
by an explanatory network, and changes in one place can require
changes elsewhere. Thus, all of our beliefs are connected to our
observations of the world. What we observe can lead us to change any
of our beliefs, no matter how certain we may have been that they were
true. ...we try to change as few beliefs as possible, but we cannot
rule out the possibility that some observations will require sweeping
changes in the web.
Such sweeping changes do not occur often. When they do occur, they are
usually heralded as scientific revolutions, such as when Albert
Einstein (1879-1955) replaced Isaac Newton's (1642-1727) world view
with his special and general theories of relativity, and when Charles
Darwin (1809-1882) presented his theory of evolution, and when Sigmund
Freud (1856-1939) revealed the powers of unconscious motivation.
Similar sweeping changes may also occur in our personal lives, as when
we embrace a new religion with great fervor or decide that atheism is
the correct attitude and reject all religion.
...Are any beliefs immune from this process? Many philosophers believe
so. They hold that some beliefs do not depend on observation for their
justification, and that no observations whatever could show them to be
wrong. Beliefs of this type are said to count as a priori knowledge,
meaning that their justification is independent of experience. A
priori knowledge is contrasted with empirical knowledge, which does
depend on observation for its justification.
Thus, these philosophers give certain beliefs a privileged place in
the web. They are protected by something like a one-way glass. The
beliefs behind the glass, our a priori knowledge, provide
justification for the beliefs in front of it, our empirical beliefs,
but nothing that happens in front of the glass can change what goes on
behind it...
...The web of belief is set up in such a way that it is always
possible to hold any belief, come what may...
...Think of our beliefs as being spread throughout our web. Some
beliefs are in the center, some on the edges, and the rest scattered
in between. The beliefs on the edges are those we are most willing to
give up in the face of unexpected observations. The ones in the center
are those we are least willing to give up, those we are most likely to
hold, come what may. For most of us, the belief that tables do not
move themselves is much closer to the center than the belief that we
have not misjudged the distance to the table. A great number of
unexpected observations would have to occur before we would begin to
believe that tables move themselves. As we get closer and closer to
the center, our beliefs seem to be totally protected from unexpected
observations, so protected that we cannot imagine changing them. The
belief that twice two is four, for example, seems entirely immune from
revision.
Although most of us put the same beliefs in the center, it is possible
to put anything there...
Persons And Their World: An Introduction to Philosophy - Jeffrey Olen
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0075543117
In summary a million years ago an apes picked up rocks and hit
existing tyrants making society much more equal, and thus began the
stone age. Just joking.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 10, 2012, 11:18:56 AM5/10/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
> the representation of certain photon energies
> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being human
> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
> the representation of certain photon energies
> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
>
> At a maximum, the reported conversations with
> 'God' by epileptics such that they refuse any
> medication.
>
> At a common personal experience : several dreams I have
> had in which I acted out practiced cultural religious
> stories.
>
> Different brains produce different effects(experiences).
thomas p.
May 10, 2012, 12:02:03 PM5/10/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:joftmu$mq6$1...@news.albasani.net...
According to whom?
>
>>
>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of
>> all
>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least
>> is
>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>> religious
>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person
>> who
>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
>
> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics report
hearing. So what?
>
>>
>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>
> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
It doesn't? Because you say so?
>
>> What are some of the
>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>> in
>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>> their
>> experience in?
>
> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources
> to interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is
> an interesting point!
People with a religious background will often interpret an hallucination as
a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
special?
>
>>
>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>
>
> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the
> physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is
> that an experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the
> physical?
Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take acid?
>
>> Is religious
>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>
> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
> life is.
I would say that leprechauns like to do the Hokey Pokey.
>
>> Can a religious experience ever
>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>> in
>> terms of those beliefs?
>
> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
> This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis
> and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there
> and convenient and comforting etc.
I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any objective
basis in reality.
>
>>Thoughts? Ideas?
>>
>
>
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
meddelelsen news:joftmu$mq6$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>>
>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of
>> all
>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least
>> is
>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>> religious
>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person
>> who
>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
>
> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
hearing. So what?
>
>>
>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>
> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>
>> What are some of the
>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>> in
>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>> their
>> experience in?
>
> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources
> to interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is
> an interesting point!
a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
special?
>
>>
>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>
>
> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the
> physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is
> that an experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the
> physical?
>
>> Is religious
>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>
> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
> life is.
>
>> Can a religious experience ever
>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>> in
>> terms of those beliefs?
>
> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
> This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis
> and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there
> and convenient and comforting etc.
basis in reality.
>
>>Thoughts? Ideas?
>>
>
>
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
thomas p.
May 10, 2012, 12:04:39 PM5/10/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqnn30.lun....@badass.edu...
>
>>
>> At a maximum, the reported conversations with
>> 'God' by epileptics such that they refuse any
>> medication.
>>
>> At a common personal experience : several dreams I have
>> had in which I acted out practiced cultural religious
>> stories.
>>
>> Different brains produce different effects(experiences).
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
news:slrnjqnn30.lun....@badass.edu...
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>> the representation of certain photon energies
>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>
> Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being
> human
> in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
> definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
> amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
The fact that you are babbling?
> Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>> the representation of certain photon energies
>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>
> Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being
> human
> in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
> definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
> amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
>
>>
>> At a maximum, the reported conversations with
>> 'God' by epileptics such that they refuse any
>> medication.
>>
>> At a common personal experience : several dreams I have
>> had in which I acted out practiced cultural religious
>> stories.
>>
>> Different brains produce different effects(experiences).
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
Fred M. McNeill
May 10, 2012, 12:22:29 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:18:56 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>> the representation of certain photon energies
>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>
>Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever?
Yes. The mysterious fact of existence invites 'religious'
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>> the representation of certain photon energies
>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>
>Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever?
interpretation and confabulation. 'Why' is there anything at all?
I suspect any 'real' 'reason' is beyond 'human' ken, thus extent
institutional religions are 'human' based and simply part of the
unsolvable problem.
Christopher A. Lee
May 10, 2012, 12:47:46 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:04:39 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:slrnjqnn30.lun....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>>> the representation of certain photon energies
>>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>>
>> Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being
>> human
>> in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
>> definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
>> amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
>
>The fact that you are babbling?
Has he ever done anything else?
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:slrnjqnn30.lun....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Fred M McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At a common minimum : qualia. In other specific words
>>> the representation of certain photon energies
>>> as 'red' is a religious experience. Any sensory, 'self', or
>>> situation brain based representation(qualia, virtual reality, mind,etc.)
>>> This then would include vision(rituals, etc.), hearing(music, etc.),
>>> taste(sacraments, lunch, etc.), touch(laying on of hands, praying, etc.),
>>> smell(incense, smoke, etc,).
>>
>> Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being
>> human
>> in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
>> definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
>> amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
>
>The fact that you are babbling?
Alan Ferris
May 10, 2012, 1:46:14 PM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:55:16 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
massed public response.
One laugh I had was the visiting pastor one evening who came from an
American healing church and tried to claim my knee.....when there was
absolutely no reaction or change I was blamed for not having faith.
The look on his face when I reminded him that it was his faith that
mattered when it comes to healing left me laughing all the way home.
What it really meant was that as I did not believe in his god I was
not suckered by his lines and did not fall for being fleeced.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
Petra
May 10, 2012, 1:59:18 PM5/10/12
to
> Might this by necessity include all experience whatsoever? Might being human
> in it's totality qualify as a religious type of being, according to this
> definition? If so, why don't we always experience ourselves as religious -
> amnesia? Willful forgetfulness?
>
taken into hospital and put under sedation on very strong drugs, if
you can avoid the 'sense of enlightenment' or 'aesthetic joys' outside
of the pillar boxes or places marked where such places are anticipated
or encouraged, eg a registered relationship, a marriage bureau, art
galleries football matches, fan shows, fav rave bands clubs, brothels
etc, you are less likely to be called 'pathetic bipolar diseased'
it also saves cash on the metal health who are paid hundreds and
thousands from tax payers money to employ people to monitor the
dangers inherent or possible to that sort of addiction.
Petra
May 10, 2012, 2:10:30 PM5/10/12
to
when I come to think on that women in labour and giving birth are more
at risk of suffering from pain and delusions, consequently lots of
money and research and medicine are have evolved to try prevent those
sad occurrences happening...
at risk of suffering from pain and delusions, consequently lots of
money and research and medicine are have evolved to try prevent those
sad occurrences happening...
Petra
May 10, 2012, 2:29:19 PM5/10/12
to
and if you do breast feed at home, which is very out of fashion in UK,
be warned !! never ever to describe your sense or feeling of that
satisfaction as 'saintly', oxytocin doesn't last, but reports can go
on for years and years and again...bottle feeding is very fashionable
and 'less expensive'
be warned !! never ever to describe your sense or feeling of that
satisfaction as 'saintly', oxytocin doesn't last, but reports can go
on for years and years and again...bottle feeding is very fashionable
and 'less expensive'
Petra
May 10, 2012, 3:33:33 PM5/10/12
to
If you are from any old UK colony the old saying was 'lie back and
think of your country' women shouldn't make any noises associated with
carnal pleasure, so if you are feminine, it would not be wise to
express your delight as being 'faithfully dedicated and hormonal' or
worse still 'worship of the male prowess', worship of anything that
gives religious charity freely is barred unless its registered and tax
is counted.
It seem very strange that the indecency is only associated with the
Lords work where feelings and expression of loyalty and deep
satisfying pleasure is involved.
Billions of women have been warned not to marry men that they worship,
I suppose because they will be enjoying it far too much.
think of your country' women shouldn't make any noises associated with
carnal pleasure, so if you are feminine, it would not be wise to
express your delight as being 'faithfully dedicated and hormonal' or
worse still 'worship of the male prowess', worship of anything that
gives religious charity freely is barred unless its registered and tax
is counted.
It seem very strange that the indecency is only associated with the
Lords work where feelings and expression of loyalty and deep
satisfying pleasure is involved.
Billions of women have been warned not to marry men that they worship,
I suppose because they will be enjoying it far too much.
Giga
May 10, 2012, 4:23:22 PM5/10/12
to
news:slrnjqnlre.lun....@badass.edu...
>>>
>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>
>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>
> Do you mean beyond it, as in after death, or behind it as in 'another
> level
> of awareness?'
As in after death (or before).
>
> As for the profound influence it has on us, I interpret this as meaning
> the
> experience touches something in us that reverberates (literally vibrates),
> and that we are attuned to some aspect of our being that we weren't before
> the experience.
Perhaps. Anyway this is a strong feature that distiguishes it from fanatsy
etc.
>
>
>>> What are some of the
>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>>> in
>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>> their
>>> experience in?
>>
>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources
>> to
>> interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is an
>> interesting point!
>>
>>>
>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>
>>
>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>> religious
>> experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the physical
>> body
>> count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is that an
>> experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the physical?
>
> Yes, I would call that a religious experience. I think a feeling of
> incoporeality is not theistic in and of itself, though it can lead to a a
> belief in a deity through reflection and refinement.
>
> In fact, might it be that religious belief all starts from the experiences
> you describe - of an incorporal existence? Might this be the origin of
> religion?
>
Certainly makes you wonder what else might 'out there'.
>
>>
>>> Is religious
>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>
>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>> life
>> is.
>>
>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>>> in
>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>
>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
>> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
>> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
>> This
>> is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis and
>> not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
>> convenient and comforting etc.
>
> Perhaps you're right that it would be challenging to each and every person
> who experienced it, including those already religious. Perhaps this is the
> way religion is kept fresh, by the continual injection of direct
> experiences
> of this kind.
>
> Terry
No substitue for experience.
>>>
>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>
>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>
> Do you mean beyond it, as in after death, or behind it as in 'another
> level
> of awareness?'
>
> As for the profound influence it has on us, I interpret this as meaning
> the
> experience touches something in us that reverberates (literally vibrates),
> and that we are attuned to some aspect of our being that we weren't before
> the experience.
etc.
>
>
>>> What are some of the
>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>>> in
>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>> their
>>> experience in?
>>
>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources
>> to
>> interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is an
>> interesting point!
>>
>>>
>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>
>>
>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>> religious
>> experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the physical
>> body
>> count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is that an
>> experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the physical?
>
> Yes, I would call that a religious experience. I think a feeling of
> incoporeality is not theistic in and of itself, though it can lead to a a
> belief in a deity through reflection and refinement.
>
> In fact, might it be that religious belief all starts from the experiences
> you describe - of an incorporal existence? Might this be the origin of
> religion?
>
>
>>
>>> Is religious
>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>
>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>> life
>> is.
>>
>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>>> in
>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>
>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
>> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
>> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
>> This
>> is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow basis and
>> not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
>> convenient and comforting etc.
>
> Perhaps you're right that it would be challenging to each and every person
> who experienced it, including those already religious. Perhaps this is the
> way religion is kept fresh, by the continual injection of direct
> experiences
> of this kind.
>
> Terry
Giga
May 10, 2012, 4:29:12 PM5/10/12
to
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4fabe678$0$291$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from
>>> an
>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested
>>> in
>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>> having
>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>> intention to
>>> have such an experience.
>>
>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy etc.
>
>
> According to whom?
>
Would you disagree that the fact it is not self-produced (or at least
>>> an
>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested
>>> in
>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>> having
>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>> intention to
>>> have such an experience.
>>
>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy etc.
>
>
> According to whom?
>
appears that way) is the difference between fantasy and experience? Or at
least one of them. That feeling that something happening *to* you.
>>
>>>
>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of
>>> all
>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least
>>> is
>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>> religious
>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person
>>> who
>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>
>>
>
>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>
> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics report
> hearing. So what?
>
>>
>>>
>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>
>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>
>
> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>
>>
>>> What are some of the
>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>>> in
>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>> their
>>> experience in?
>>
>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own resources
>> to interpret it and frame it within their cultural understanding. That is
>> an interesting point!
>
> People with a religious background will often interpret an hallucination
> as a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
> special?
>
>>
>>>
>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>
>>
>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the
>> physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is
>> that an experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the
>> physical?
>
> Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take
> acid?
>
would say. Once you realise that your thoughts are not you then things
become clearer it seemed to me.
>>> Is religious
>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>
>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>> life is.
>
>
> I would say that leprechauns like to do the Hokey Pokey.
>
>>
>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>>> in
>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>
>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
>> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
>> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
>> This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow
>> basis and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just
>> there and convenient and comforting etc.
>
> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any objective
> basis in reality.
>
Giga
May 10, 2012, 4:31:29 PM5/10/12
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:55:16 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>religious
>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
> massed public response.
Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>religious
>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
> massed public response.
Alan Ferris
May 10, 2012, 4:40:14 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:31:29 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:55:16 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>>religious
>>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>>
>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>> massed public response.
>
>Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:55:16 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>>religious
>>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
>>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>>
>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>> massed public response.
>
>Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
invoke.
HVAC
May 10, 2012, 4:40:30 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 1:46 PM, Alan Ferris wrote:
>
>
> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
> respond as well.
Last time *I* was at a concert, there was a smell that produced a buzz.
>
>
> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
> respond as well.
--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo
tooly
May 10, 2012, 5:02:12 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 10:45 am, "Dare" <clydad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass.super...@gmx.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnjqmm24.dik....@badass.edu...
> different kind of experience.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Altered State"...yea, that was the concept I was reaching toward.
Almost like another dimension, how does one explain one dimension to
another? Like there is no way to envision an upside down inside out
quadrahedral[is there?], perhaps there is no way to understand France
(sic) except by going there and living it. The 'religious experience'
I argue, IS an 'altered state' that does not translate well to our
sobered intellectual state. You just gotta go there and experience it
for yourself. But then, that means letting go of the rigidity of
rational discourse perhaps.
Can billions of people be so wrong throughout human history? And
though how we have 'translated' the Experience in each era by the
knowledge we possessed at any given time, and thusly often in error in
those translations [as future understandings would suggest], does it
mean that the EXPERIENCE itself was never valid either? Something is
'there'...and people keep going back, time and time gain, for
literally thousands of years now; even now, in the modern age, when
science professes to crack the code and 'understand' it all [from a
certain viewpoint anyway].
Time, space, perception...things I think we take arrogantly for
granted as anchored to our sobered state as it has evolved on this
planet [our rational view]. But there are 'other' states. Still,
there is this idea of 'the real world' versus something imagined,
conceptualized, idealized, or otherwise, dreamed up as fantasy or
insaneness. We have a science that even now tries to 'convince' us
that there are 12 or 13 'string dimensions' holding up space. WTF?
There is no way to comprehend 12 or 13 dimensions except by some fancy
math no matter why eggheads tell you otherwise [and math is not even a
good schematic, much less 'real' represenation]. Is it such a far
throw to suggest that there are 'altered states of consciousness' that
are just as valid as the 'rational mindset' we use as our homebase
standard to verify and justify 'reality' from?
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass.super...@gmx.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnjqmm24.dik....@badass.edu...
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Altered State"...yea, that was the concept I was reaching toward.
Almost like another dimension, how does one explain one dimension to
another? Like there is no way to envision an upside down inside out
quadrahedral[is there?], perhaps there is no way to understand France
(sic) except by going there and living it. The 'religious experience'
I argue, IS an 'altered state' that does not translate well to our
sobered intellectual state. You just gotta go there and experience it
for yourself. But then, that means letting go of the rigidity of
rational discourse perhaps.
Can billions of people be so wrong throughout human history? And
though how we have 'translated' the Experience in each era by the
knowledge we possessed at any given time, and thusly often in error in
those translations [as future understandings would suggest], does it
mean that the EXPERIENCE itself was never valid either? Something is
'there'...and people keep going back, time and time gain, for
literally thousands of years now; even now, in the modern age, when
science professes to crack the code and 'understand' it all [from a
certain viewpoint anyway].
Time, space, perception...things I think we take arrogantly for
granted as anchored to our sobered state as it has evolved on this
planet [our rational view]. But there are 'other' states. Still,
there is this idea of 'the real world' versus something imagined,
conceptualized, idealized, or otherwise, dreamed up as fantasy or
insaneness. We have a science that even now tries to 'convince' us
that there are 12 or 13 'string dimensions' holding up space. WTF?
There is no way to comprehend 12 or 13 dimensions except by some fancy
math no matter why eggheads tell you otherwise [and math is not even a
good schematic, much less 'real' represenation]. Is it such a far
throw to suggest that there are 'altered states of consciousness' that
are just as valid as the 'rational mindset' we use as our homebase
standard to verify and justify 'reality' from?
Alan Ferris
May 10, 2012, 5:09:34 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 16:40:30 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/2012 1:46 PM, Alan Ferris wrote:
>>
>>
>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>> respond as well.
>
>
>Last time *I* was at a concert, there was a smell that produced a buzz.
Dem was de smells of the debil weed........oooo for my youth :)
>On 5/10/2012 1:46 PM, Alan Ferris wrote:
>>
>>
>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>> respond as well.
>
>
>Last time *I* was at a concert, there was a smell that produced a buzz.
Now it is a nice glass of horlicks and early to bed
Richo
May 10, 2012, 8:21:12 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 3:55 pm, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
> the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
> religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
> are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
> someplace 'outside' me.
>
The feeling is real.
One explanation is that you have "turned off" your awareness that you
are the source.
> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine.
Really? You have no curiosity about it at all?
I find this statement hard to believe.
>I am interested in
> what makes them unique.
Why not be interested in everything?
8-)
>One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
> have such an experience.
>
> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of all
> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
> What are some other aspects of religious feeling? What are some of the
> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
> experience in?
>
> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
> feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
Religious experiences are real. They are also personal, subjective and
unavailable to anyone else.
Atheist can have similar experiences - they can engage in deep
meditation for example and lose their feeling of identity. They can go
on LSD or Peyote trips.
You are what is happening in your brain - if you fiddle about with
that - you are altering *you*
"Can a religious experience ever
contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
interpreted in
terms of those beliefs?"
I don't know - it should be *possible* . I do know that usually the
experience IS interpreted according to the persons preconceived
religious viewpoint and culture.
There have been experiments where Trans Craial Magnetic Stimulation
has induced feelings of "transendence" of the loss of self idenity -
of merging with the universe - in patients who were conscious and
asked to describe the experience.
Monotheists reported that they felt the presence of God.
Buddhists reported that they experienced a loss of self and merging
with the One - a taste of Nirvana.
Atheists reported they felt weird - that they lost the sense of where
they ended and the "outside" world began.
The experiences are real experiences - what they *mean* - the thing
you say you have no interest in - is what people murder each other to
decide who has the right "interpretation".
Mark.
wrote:
> It is a fact of human experience that most people experience something that
> they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
> experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
> William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
> <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
> numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
> this type.
>
> What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
> identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
> knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
> experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
> am not completely in control of the experience.
>
Yeah - its a part of being aware and human.
> they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
> experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
> William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
> <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
> numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
> this type.
>
> What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
> identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
> knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
> experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
> am not completely in control of the experience.
>
> With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
> the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
> religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
> are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
> someplace 'outside' me.
>
One explanation is that you have "turned off" your awareness that you
are the source.
> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine.
I find this statement hard to believe.
>I am interested in
> what makes them unique.
8-)
>One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
> have such an experience.
>
> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of all
> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
> What are some other aspects of religious feeling? What are some of the
> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
> experience in?
>
> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
> feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
unavailable to anyone else.
Atheist can have similar experiences - they can engage in deep
meditation for example and lose their feeling of identity. They can go
on LSD or Peyote trips.
You are what is happening in your brain - if you fiddle about with
that - you are altering *you*
"Can a religious experience ever
contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
interpreted in
terms of those beliefs?"
experience IS interpreted according to the persons preconceived
religious viewpoint and culture.
There have been experiments where Trans Craial Magnetic Stimulation
has induced feelings of "transendence" of the loss of self idenity -
of merging with the universe - in patients who were conscious and
asked to describe the experience.
Monotheists reported that they felt the presence of God.
Buddhists reported that they experienced a loss of self and merging
with the One - a taste of Nirvana.
Atheists reported they felt weird - that they lost the sense of where
they ended and the "outside" world began.
The experiences are real experiences - what they *mean* - the thing
you say you have no interest in - is what people murder each other to
decide who has the right "interpretation".
Mark.
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:32:57 AM5/11/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4fabe678$0$291$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from
>>>> an
>>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested
>>>> in
>>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>>> having
>>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>>> intention to
>>>> have such an experience.
>>>
>>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> According to whom?
>>
>
> Would you disagree that the fact it is not self-produced (or at least
> appears that way) is the difference between fantasy and experience? Or at
> least one of them. That feeling that something happening *to* you.
I have no idea why you think so. Mentally ill people do not think their
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4fabe678$0$291$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from
>>>> an
>>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested
>>>> in
>>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>>> having
>>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>>> intention to
>>>> have such an experience.
>>>
>>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy
>>> etc.
>>
>>
>> According to whom?
>>
>
> Would you disagree that the fact it is not self-produced (or at least
> appears that way) is the difference between fantasy and experience? Or at
> least one of them. That feeling that something happening *to* you.
delusions are self-produced.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of
>>>> all
>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least
>>>> is
>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>> religious
>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>> person who
>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>
>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics report
>> hearing. So what?
>>
>
> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
very intense and emotional?
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>
>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>>
>>
>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>
> At least not for me AFAIK.
experiences and had some objective way to judge between them? In any event
delusional people are ususally very convinced that their experiences are
real, and such experiences have had profound consequences on their lives.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> What are some of the
>>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped
>>>> in
>>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>>> their
>>>> experience in?
>>>
>>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own
>>> resources to interpret it and frame it within their cultural
>>> understanding. That is an interesting point!
>>
>> People with a religious background will often interpret an hallucination
>> as a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
>> special?
>>
>
> Difficult to say, it might be. It is so personal.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>>
>>>
>>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>>> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to the
>>> physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual experience)? Is
>>> that an experience of God or just part of oneself that is beyond the
>>> physical?
>>
>> Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take
>> acid?
>>
>
> This is something anyone can experience through very low-level meditation
> I would say. Once you realise that your thoughts are not you then things
> become clearer it seemed to me.
are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs, you will see that you no
basis for any of the claims you made above.
>
>>>> Is religious
>>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>>
>>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>>> life is.
>>
>>
>> I would say that leprechauns like to do the Hokey Pokey.
>>
>
> OK.
reality.
>
>>>
>>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted
>>>> in
>>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>>
>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in personal
>>> mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be severly
>>> challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible with them.
>>> This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very shallow
>>> basis and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is
>>> just there and convenient and comforting etc.
>>
>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any objective
>> basis in reality.
>>
>
> For sure.
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:34:57 AM5/11/12
to
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:r8snq7tbeimq6fthq...@4ax.com...
When he is not telling direct lies, yes that is what he does.
news:r8snq7tbeimq6fthq...@4ax.com...
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:41:40 AM5/11/12
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
I experienced it as a teenager when I listened to a recording of marching
music from a 30's Nazi rally. I felt an emotional reaction. I realized
then that I would have had the same reaction to a band playing the "Star
Spangled Banner". It had absolutely nothing to do with any implied
philosophy. It's all about "pushing buttons" to get a desired response.
snip
news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
music from a 30's Nazi rally. I felt an emotional reaction. I realized
then that I would have had the same reaction to a band playing the "Star
Spangled Banner". It had absolutely nothing to do with any implied
philosophy. It's all about "pushing buttons" to get a desired response.
snip
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 12:16:57 AM5/11/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
implying that a religious feeling is 'contained' in this altered state? I
think rather that the altered state is _caused_ by the awareness raised by
the religious consciousness.
> Perhaps the experience is immune to the effects of analysis...
> it defies attempts at explanation. Even if the individual has
> some doubts about the "super-natural" aspect, there is still
> that nagging reluctance to dismiss the feeling that it is a
> different kind of experience.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 12:19:48 AM5/11/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Richo
May 11, 2012, 3:18:35 AM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 10:21 am, Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
wrote:
> "Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
> interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs?"
> I don't know - it should be *possible* . I do know that usually the
> experience IS interpreted according to the persons preconceived
> religious viewpoint and culture.
> There have been experiments where Trans Craial Magnetic Stimulation
"Transcranial magnetic stimulation" -sorry.
Mark.
wrote:
> "Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
> interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs?"
> I don't know - it should be *possible* . I do know that usually the
> experience IS interpreted according to the persons preconceived
> religious viewpoint and culture.
> There have been experiments where Trans Craial Magnetic Stimulation
Mark.
Giga
May 11, 2012, 4:48:07 AM5/11/12
to
news:4facb2ba$0$282$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
experiences are very similar to real experience (in this way) then what
relevance does that have for someone who has none or few of the other usual
signs of significant mental illness?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>> of all
>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>> least is
>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>> other
>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>> religious
>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>> person who
>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>
>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics report
>>> hearing. So what?
>>>
>>
>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>
> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions cannot
> be very intense and emotional?
>
I've got no experience of what it is like I'm glad to say, so have no way to
compare it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>>
>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>>>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>>>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>>
>
>
>> At least not for me AFAIK.
>
> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real religious
> experiences and had some objective way to judge between them?
Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced very mild
visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I was fully aware at
the time or shortly afterwards that they were probably self-generated. As
opposed to everyday experience or occasional 'spiritual' experiences I have
had. There is nothing objective here. We are talking about personal
subjective experiences.
> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that their
> experiences are real, and such experiences have had profound consequences
> on their lives.
>
The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making the point
that whatever experiences I have had could be mental aberations or chemical
induced etc of course you are right. On the other they may not have been,
and the weight of evidence IMO is that they were not. Also they may not have
been what they appeared to be. This is even a better objection to any
conclusions from their content I would say. Then they are open to
interpretation and false memory as well. So for myself they are not great
evidence for anything but more of starting point, like a glimpse of what
might be true. For anyone else they would present very little evidence if
any even if they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What are some of the
>>>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already
>>>>> steeped in
>>>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>>>> their
>>>>> experience in?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>>>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own
>>>> resources to interpret it and frame it within their cultural
>>>> understanding. That is an interesting point!
>>>
>>> People with a religious background will often interpret an hallucination
>>> as a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
>>> special?
>>>
>>
>
>
>> Difficult to say, it might be. It is so personal.
>
> But you did say it.
See above
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>>>> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to
>>>> the physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual
>>>> experience)? Is that an experience of God or just part of oneself that
>>>> is beyond the physical?
>>>
>>> Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take
>>> acid?
>>>
>>
>> This is something anyone can experience through very low-level meditation
>> I would say. Once you realise that your thoughts are not you then things
>> become clearer it seemed to me.
>
> Once you realize that everything you describe is quite common to people
> who are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs, you will see that
> you no basis for any of the claims you made above.
>
Do *you* have any evidence for that statement lol.
>
>>
>>>>> Is religious
>>>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>>>
>>>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>>>> life is.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would say that leprechauns like to do the Hokey Pokey.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>
> Never mind. I was fairly sure that you would not be unduly disturbed by
> reality.
>
OK
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>>>>> interpreted in
>>>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in
>>>> personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be
>>>> severly challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible
>>>> with them. This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very
>>>> shallow basis and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif,
>>>> that is just there and convenient and comforting etc.
>>>
>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any objective
>>> basis in reality.
>>>
>>
>> For sure.
>
> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest game.
>
Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that in the
long run.
> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fabe678$0$291$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue
>>>>> from an
>>>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am
>>>>> interested in
>>>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>>>> having
>>>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>>>> intention to
>>>>> have such an experience.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> According to whom?
>>>
>>
>> Would you disagree that the fact it is not self-produced (or at least
>> appears that way) is the difference between fantasy and experience? Or at
>> least one of them. That feeling that something happening *to* you.
>
> I have no idea why you think so. Mentally ill people do not think their
> delusions are self-produced.
>
Again I wouldn't know. If it is the case that a metally ill person's unusual
> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fabe678$0$291$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue
>>>>> from an
>>>>> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am
>>>>> interested in
>>>>> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of
>>>>> having
>>>>> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious
>>>>> intention to
>>>>> have such an experience.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. That it what makes it an 'experience' rather than a fantasy
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> According to whom?
>>>
>>
>> Would you disagree that the fact it is not self-produced (or at least
>> appears that way) is the difference between fantasy and experience? Or at
>> least one of them. That feeling that something happening *to* you.
>
> I have no idea why you think so. Mentally ill people do not think their
> delusions are self-produced.
>
experiences are very similar to real experience (in this way) then what
relevance does that have for someone who has none or few of the other usual
signs of significant mental illness?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>> of all
>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>> least is
>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>> other
>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>> religious
>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>> person who
>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>
>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics report
>>> hearing. So what?
>>>
>>
>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>
> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions cannot
> be very intense and emotional?
>
compare it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>>
>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it has
>>>> profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences (this
>>>> doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations normally).
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>>
>
>
>> At least not for me AFAIK.
>
> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real religious
> experiences and had some objective way to judge between them?
visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I was fully aware at
the time or shortly afterwards that they were probably self-generated. As
opposed to everyday experience or occasional 'spiritual' experiences I have
had. There is nothing objective here. We are talking about personal
subjective experiences.
> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that their
> experiences are real, and such experiences have had profound consequences
> on their lives.
>
that whatever experiences I have had could be mental aberations or chemical
induced etc of course you are right. On the other they may not have been,
and the weight of evidence IMO is that they were not. Also they may not have
been what they appeared to be. This is even a better objection to any
conclusions from their content I would say. Then they are open to
interpretation and false memory as well. So for myself they are not great
evidence for anything but more of starting point, like a glimpse of what
might be true. For anyone else they would present very little evidence if
any even if they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What are some of the
>>>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already
>>>>> steeped in
>>>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap
>>>>> their
>>>>> experience in?
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>>>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own
>>>> resources to interpret it and frame it within their cultural
>>>> understanding. That is an interesting point!
>>>
>>> People with a religious background will often interpret an hallucination
>>> as a religious experience, others may not. You think this is something
>>> special?
>>>
>>
>
>
>> Difficult to say, it might be. It is so personal.
>
> But you did say it.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>>>> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to
>>>> the physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual
>>>> experience)? Is that an experience of God or just part of oneself that
>>>> is beyond the physical?
>>>
>>> Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take
>>> acid?
>>>
>>
>> This is something anyone can experience through very low-level meditation
>> I would say. Once you realise that your thoughts are not you then things
>> become clearer it seemed to me.
>
> Once you realize that everything you describe is quite common to people
> who are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs, you will see that
> you no basis for any of the claims you made above.
>
>
>>
>>>>> Is religious
>>>>> feeling incompatible with atheism?
>>>>
>>>> I would say an experience that seems to imply a supernatural element to
>>>> life is.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would say that leprechauns like to do the Hokey Pokey.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>
> Never mind. I was fairly sure that you would not be unduly disturbed by
> reality.
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can a religious experience ever
>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>>>>> interpreted in
>>>>> terms of those beliefs?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation in
>>>> personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and would be
>>>> severly challenged by any such experience even if it were compatible
>>>> with them. This is because these ideas would only be accepted on a very
>>>> shallow basis and not really believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif,
>>>> that is just there and convenient and comforting etc.
>>>
>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any objective
>>> basis in reality.
>>>
>>
>> For sure.
>
> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest game.
>
long run.
Giga
May 11, 2012, 4:51:43 AM5/11/12
to
news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
'Most likely' and 'probably' is a somewhat different tone than your original
assumption. Say he did now agree with you, his 'knowledge' of what you were
experiencing is as dubious as yours of his internal state.
assumption. Say he did now agree with you, his 'knowledge' of what you were
experiencing is as dubious as yours of his internal state.
Giga
May 11, 2012, 4:53:25 AM5/11/12
to
news:4facb4c6$0$305$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Wow, so you know the internal state of someone you have never met at a
meeting you have never been to! And they say atheists don't believe in the
supernatural or spiritual experiences!
meeting you have never been to! And they say atheists don't believe in the
supernatural or spiritual experiences!
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:35:23 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:41:40 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>> Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>> invoke.
>
>I experienced it as a teenager when I listened to a recording of marching
>music from a 30's Nazi rally. I felt an emotional reaction. I realized
>then that I would have had the same reaction to a band playing the "Star
>Spangled Banner". It had absolutely nothing to do with any implied
>philosophy. It's all about "pushing buttons" to get a desired response.
If you ever attend and evangelical rally you will feel those same
emotions. Having had training in reading body language and
presentational skills you can spot a speaker using techniques which
will evoke such emotional responses. I am sure those Christians there
will claim they were feeling the power of Jesus, whereas the speaker
will know exactly what they were doing to evoke that emotional
response.
Art, music, poems are all about emotional responses. Strange how some
will ignore that and claim some higher, religious, response to them. I
wonder what it is about the real world that scares them so much that
they need to invent religious belief to cope with it.
wrote:
>> Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>> invoke.
>
>I experienced it as a teenager when I listened to a recording of marching
>music from a 30's Nazi rally. I felt an emotional reaction. I realized
>then that I would have had the same reaction to a band playing the "Star
>Spangled Banner". It had absolutely nothing to do with any implied
>philosophy. It's all about "pushing buttons" to get a desired response.
emotions. Having had training in reading body language and
presentational skills you can spot a speaker using techniques which
will evoke such emotional responses. I am sure those Christians there
will claim they were feeling the power of Jesus, whereas the speaker
will know exactly what they were doing to evoke that emotional
response.
Art, music, poems are all about emotional responses. Strange how some
will ignore that and claim some higher, religious, response to them. I
wonder what it is about the real world that scares them so much that
they need to invent religious belief to cope with it.
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:39:08 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:51:43 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
The difference is that I am trained to raise such emotional responses
and could do it in the same situation or even 1 or 1 which is what my
training is for. It allows you to spot others using similar
techniques and most preachers use these. I am to cynical from my
work, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they
may not be always doing it deliberately.
But I ask you. 2 people having the same reactions and emotional
response, why do you believe 1 is religious and the other not?
and could do it in the same situation or even 1 or 1 which is what my
training is for. It allows you to spot others using similar
techniques and most preachers use these. I am to cynical from my
work, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they
may not be always doing it deliberately.
But I ask you. 2 people having the same reactions and emotional
response, why do you believe 1 is religious and the other not?
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:41:40 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:19:48 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
How would you tell? He attends his local 'church' regularly, is one
of the kindest persons I know and is active in ministering to the
young. So no, maybe you are right. He accepts that I am not caring
about his faith so unlike you he clearly is not likely to be Christian
enough for you.
But hey, I will let him know you doubt him, I can guess his answer.
>I wonder if your friend is a religious person or not.
Are you claiming he is not a true Christian?
How would you tell? He attends his local 'church' regularly, is one
of the kindest persons I know and is active in ministering to the
young. So no, maybe you are right. He accepts that I am not caring
about his faith so unlike you he clearly is not likely to be Christian
enough for you.
But hey, I will let him know you doubt him, I can guess his answer.
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 9:01:13 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:35:23 +0100, Alan Ferris
<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>If you ever attend and evangelical rally you will feel those same
>emotions. Having had training in reading body language and
>presentational skills you can spot a speaker using techniques which
>will evoke such emotional responses. I am sure those Christians there
>will claim they were feeling the power of Jesus, whereas the speaker
>will know exactly what they were doing to evoke that emotional
>response.
The Battle For Your Mind
<hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>If you ever attend and evangelical rally you will feel those same
>emotions. Having had training in reading body language and
>presentational skills you can spot a speaker using techniques which
>will evoke such emotional responses. I am sure those Christians there
>will claim they were feeling the power of Jesus, whereas the speaker
>will know exactly what they were doing to evoke that emotional
>response.
Persuasion & Brainwashing Techniques
Being Used On The Public Today
http://www.dicksutphen.com/html/battlemind.html
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 10:13:49 AM5/11/12
to
linked to items mentioned there.
Investigation work will often rely on you forming a good bond with
people, where they beleive you are wanting to help them. It does not
always work, but I am still suprised by how often it does.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 3:17:46 AM5/11/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
illness may mimic a certain healthy state does not mean that the two things
are the same. The fact still remains that on one hand you have a person with
mental illness and on the other a person, otherwise healthy, who had an
unusual experience.
Dare
May 11, 2012, 10:37:51 AM5/11/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message news:slrnjqp4lp.5b1....@badass.edu...
It seems people may seek to bring about a religious feeling
by creating a particular environment...withdrawal from the
busy-ness of life to a "sanctuary" of sorts, either literally in
a separate room (like a chapel) or by meditation or prayer
to calm and focus their thoughts(affecting brain chemistry?).
Is this a different kind of religious feeling than one that just
"hits" you out of the blue as you are driving down the highway?
I've experienced a version of both of these....
from listening to music or meditating/praying....
and a couple of times while I was actually just
driving down the highway. The flow of Time
seemed to almost come to a stop and there was
an intense feeling of an eternal "now", an appreciation
for "being" and a feeling of peace and (maybe) love?
It seemed strange since the instant before, my thoughts
were racing on about what I had to do today and impatience
at the traffic and long stop lights, etc.
It seems religious experiences aren't always pleasant.
Some people have claimed to "see" a vision of hell.
The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
come from the same source? Why do some people
_not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
feel intense emotions?
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Dare <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There may be a change in perception....
>> a change in light, or the "flow of time"...
>> a separation from the normal world....
>> an altered state of consciousness.
>
> Yes, I would agree there is an altered state, as you say. However, are you
> implying that a religious feeling is 'contained' in this altered state? I
> think rather that the altered state is _caused_ by the awareness raised by
> the religious consciousness.
I don't know what causes religious consciousness.
> Dare <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There may be a change in perception....
>> a change in light, or the "flow of time"...
>> a separation from the normal world....
>> an altered state of consciousness.
>
> Yes, I would agree there is an altered state, as you say. However, are you
> implying that a religious feeling is 'contained' in this altered state? I
> think rather that the altered state is _caused_ by the awareness raised by
> the religious consciousness.
It seems people may seek to bring about a religious feeling
by creating a particular environment...withdrawal from the
busy-ness of life to a "sanctuary" of sorts, either literally in
a separate room (like a chapel) or by meditation or prayer
to calm and focus their thoughts(affecting brain chemistry?).
Is this a different kind of religious feeling than one that just
"hits" you out of the blue as you are driving down the highway?
I've experienced a version of both of these....
from listening to music or meditating/praying....
and a couple of times while I was actually just
driving down the highway. The flow of Time
seemed to almost come to a stop and there was
an intense feeling of an eternal "now", an appreciation
for "being" and a feeling of peace and (maybe) love?
It seemed strange since the instant before, my thoughts
were racing on about what I had to do today and impatience
at the traffic and long stop lights, etc.
It seems religious experiences aren't always pleasant.
Some people have claimed to "see" a vision of hell.
The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
come from the same source? Why do some people
_not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
feel intense emotions?
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 10:51:37 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:41:40 +0100
Please let us know if he laughs (and tell him a non-existent atheist
goddess is rooting for him).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There is a cat squatter that has taken over in my house. I think I
will let him open his own cans of food."
-- Robert Parker (April 5, 2012)
goddess is rooting for him).
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"There is a cat squatter that has taken over in my house. I think I
will let him open his own cans of food."
-- Robert Parker (April 5, 2012)
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 10:50:05 AM5/11/12
to
as compared with their religious belief. It could be that those who reject
religion fear too _much_ reality.
Perhaps too much reality requires too much of us, perhaps we have to face
aspects of ourself we'd rather not have to face. It may be much safer to
study supernovas and ground sloths, instead. :)
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 11:01:33 AM5/11/12
to
lack of better labels. Some of what you described might almost qualify
as an adrenaline rush (as emotions can cause this to occur), although
this is more often part of a fight-or-flight response (which ties into
our natural survival instincts).
The somewhat common notions in society that people even have religious
experiences is, in my view, an introduction of a bias that would have
to be accounted for so as not to skew the results of a study on this
subject.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Michelle "hypatiab7" Malkin (April 4, 2012)
Dare
May 11, 2012, 11:14:13 AM5/11/12
to
"Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in message
news:20120511080133....@fidemturbare.com...
It does seem to imply something about the experience.
Is the label "religious" a kind of "place-holder" for
lack of knowledge or explanation about the experience?
When does an experience transition to what some
consider religious?...where is the "tipping point"?
Is it truly a different "kind" of experience or a
difference in "degree"?
news:20120511080133....@fidemturbare.com...
Is the label "religious" a kind of "place-holder" for
lack of knowledge or explanation about the experience?
When does an experience transition to what some
consider religious?...where is the "tipping point"?
Is it truly a different "kind" of experience or a
difference in "degree"?
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 11:19:57 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 11:14:13 -0400
"Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in message
> news:20120511080133....@fidemturbare.com...
> > On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:37:51 -0400
> > "Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
> >> doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
> >> come from the same source? Why do some people
> >> _not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
> >> feel intense emotions?
> >
> > I suspect these experiences are somtimes labeled as "religious" for
> > lack of better labels. Some of what you described might almost
> > qualify as an adrenaline rush (as emotions can cause this to
> > occur), although this is more often part of a fight-or-flight
> > response (which ties into our natural survival instincts).
> >
> > The somewhat common notions in society that people even have
> > religious experiences is, in my view, an introduction of a bias
> > that would have to be accounted for so as not to skew the results
> > of a study on this subject.
>
> It does seem to imply something about the experience.
> Is the label "religious" a kind of "place-holder" for
> lack of knowledge or explanation about the experience?
That's an excellent point, particularly because the world has seen this
"Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess"
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in message
> news:20120511080133....@fidemturbare.com...
> > On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:37:51 -0400
> > "Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
> >> doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
> >> come from the same source? Why do some people
> >> _not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
> >> feel intense emotions?
> >
> > I suspect these experiences are somtimes labeled as "religious" for
> > lack of better labels. Some of what you described might almost
> > qualify as an adrenaline rush (as emotions can cause this to
> > occur), although this is more often part of a fight-or-flight
> > response (which ties into our natural survival instincts).
> >
> > The somewhat common notions in society that people even have
> > religious experiences is, in my view, an introduction of a bias
> > that would have to be accounted for so as not to skew the results
> > of a study on this subject.
>
> It does seem to imply something about the experience.
> Is the label "religious" a kind of "place-holder" for
> lack of knowledge or explanation about the experience?
place-holder used many times throughout history (and many of used it
themselves, sometimes as a matter of social-political tradition).
> When does an experience transition to what some
> consider religious?...where is the "tipping point"?
> Is it truly a different "kind" of experience or a
> difference in "degree"?
a wide variety of reasons.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Ambition, n.: An ant crawling up an elephant's leg with rape on his
mind."
-- Uncyclopedia.org
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 11:02:21 AM5/11/12
to
said your friend felt the presence of Jesus, I was curious whether this was
a strong, unanticipated response from a nonchristian, or a normal response
from someone who was already prepared to accept the premise of the event.
You have satisfied my curiosity as to that point, so I thank you.
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 12:27:39 PM5/11/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqpf8q.7bj....@badass.edu...
>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
snip
> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>
> You bring up some interesting points. However, just because a certain
> illness may mimic a certain healthy state does not mean that the two
> things
> are the same. The fact still remains that on one hand you have a person
> with
> mental illness and on the other a person, otherwise healthy, who had an
> unusual experience.
objective way of showing that one of them is delusional while the other is
not. You have, in fact, assumed your conclusion.
>
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 12:44:14 PM5/11/12
to
accept what we are and the inner drivers, instead trying to blame it
on 'sin', claiming it is something you can be saved from by some
higher power. That is the cop out. Or dealing with injustices by
appeasing themselves by saying he will be punished in the next life.
Another cop out from the reality that some people do evil things and
get away with it.
Most religion is about making excuses for why crap happens that takes
responsibility away from the individual. Look how often believers
will deny religion in others just for some action they have taken. So
many times we will see one Christian claiming that another is not a
true Christian.
Faith is about not accepting that there are some things that cannot be
explained. The biggest fear man faces is the unknown, so religion
takes those gaps and makes up little stories and fairy tails to fill
them. Dishonesty at its best. In reality religion is now finding
itself in smaller and smaller gaps and having to think of new excuses
for why god is no present in those gaps.
At one time the supposed enlightened religious people who had the ear
of god believed that he put the earth at the centre of the universe.
Clearly that is wrong, so were they just not true Christians, where
they lacking in faith or is it that there is no god giving anybody
enlightenment so as history shows, they get things wrong again and
again.
So why should we trust the modern Christianity to be any different
from the old in its ability to get things right?
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 12:48:21 PM5/11/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:joijp5$ss7$1...@news.albasani.net...
basis do you determine that one of them is not delusional? Your argument
assumes your conclusion.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>>> of all
>>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>>> least is
>>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>>> religious
>>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>>> person who
>>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>>
>>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics
>>>> report hearing. So what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>>
>> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions cannot
>> be very intense and emotional?
>>
>
> I've got no experience of what it is like I'm glad to say, so have no way
> to compare it.
Please! You must know that delusions can cause extreme emotional reactions.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>>> of all
>>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>>> least is
>>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>>> religious
>>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>>> person who
>>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>>
>>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics
>>>> report hearing. So what?
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>>
>> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions cannot
>> be very intense and emotional?
>>
>
> I've got no experience of what it is like I'm glad to say, so have no way
> to compare it.
Such reactions have very often caused people to do incredible things both
positive and negative. This is not arcane knowledge, so it is rather odd
that you would deny knowing it.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>>>
>>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it
>>>>> has profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences
>>>>> (this doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations
>>>>> normally).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>>>
>>
>>
>>> At least not for me AFAIK.
>>
>> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real religious
>> experiences and had some objective way to judge between them?
>
> Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced very
> mild visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I was fully
> aware at the time or shortly afterwards that they were probably
> self-generated. As opposed to everyday experience or occasional
> 'spiritual' experiences I have had. There is nothing objective here. We
> are talking about personal subjective experiences.
believe in. People who think they are Napoleon for example or people who
think they have magical powers. Why pretend that you do not?
>
>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that their
>> experiences are real, and such experiences have had profound consequences
>> on their lives.
>>
>
>
> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making the point
> that whatever experiences I have had could be mental aberations or
> chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the other they may not
> have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is that they were not.
the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional people have said
exactly the same thing.
Also they may not have
> been what they appeared to be. This is even a better objection to any
> conclusions from their content I would say. Then they are open to
> interpretation and false memory as well. So for myself they are not great
> evidence for anything but more of starting point, like a glimpse of what
> might be true. For anyone else they would present very little evidence if
> any even if they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
the same conviction that you have. They are subjective feelings, and
subjective feelings are notoriously unreliable. The one objective claim
that you have made is clearly not true; such feelings, even when obviously
delusional, have produced profound changes in people's lives. There simply
is nothing unique about what you claim.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are some of the
>>>>>> differences between the religious experiences of people already
>>>>>> steeped in
>>>>>> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to
>>>>>> wrap their
>>>>>> experience in?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it *must* be expressed in some symbolism appropriate to the
>>>>> person. Certainly in retrospect they will need to use their own
>>>>> resources to interpret it and frame it within their cultural
>>>>> understanding. That is an interesting point!
>>>>
>>>> People with a religious background will often interpret an
>>>> hallucination as a religious experience, others may not. You think
>>>> this is something special?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> Difficult to say, it might be. It is so personal.
>>
>> But you did say it.
>
> See above
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?'
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Buddhist would say not but does partly depend on what counts as a
>>>>> religious experience. Does experience of your self as not-limited to
>>>>> the physical body count as a religious experience (spiritual
>>>>> experience)? Is that an experience of God or just part of oneself that
>>>>> is beyond the physical?
>>>>
>>>> Or is it similar to the hallucinations expereienced by people who take
>>>> acid?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is something anyone can experience through very low-level
>>> meditation I would say. Once you realise that your thoughts are not you
>>> then things become clearer it seemed to me.
>>
>> Once you realize that everything you describe is quite common to people
>> who are mentally ill or under the influence of drugs, you will see that
>> you no basis for any of the claims you made above.
>>
>
> Do *you* have any evidence for that statement lol.
self-delusion does not produce these symptoms? Do you think you have scored
a point? You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner
would be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way,
is hard to believe).
evidence. You are denying it.
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 12:50:28 PM5/11/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:joik32$the$1...@news.albasani.net...
it up for me.
Mike Lovell
May 11, 2012, 12:53:38 PM5/11/12
to
Well said.
--
Jews, Christians & Muslims
The content of your posts will show how much you
really believe God is looking over your shoulder
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 12:57:23 PM5/11/12
to
is not a true Christian. His answer is that if it was good enough for
Jesus to have a doubting Thomas he can have me as a friend :)
The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
hopeful of converting me.
Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
for a ride to Budapest.
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 12:59:07 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:02:21 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
Then clearly you have problems processing information. Why else would
an atheist help out a friend at a Christian event unless that friend
was Christian. Do you find yourself helping out at humanist events
often?
an atheist help out a friend at a Christian event unless that friend
was Christian. Do you find yourself helping out at humanist events
often?
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 12:39:25 PM5/11/12
to
future, telescope into a single eternal moment. There are numerous examples
of this in the religious literature.
> It seemed strange since the instant before, my thoughts
> were racing on about what I had to do today and impatience
> at the traffic and long stop lights, etc.
>
> It seems religious experiences aren't always pleasant.
> Some people have claimed to "see" a vision of hell.
>
> The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
> doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
> come from the same source? Why do some people
> _not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
> feel intense emotions?
the emotional component of religion is not one that is often mentioned.
IMHO, partly this is due to the strict, staid form of Christianity that
comes down to us from the Reformation. All the saints around God are
banished from the pantheon - leaving God by himself.
It was the saints' life story, and the prayers of intercession that went up
to them, that historically provided an emotional undercurrent to
Christianity. When this was jetissoned by parts of Christendom, God was
left by Himself, alone in his temple, companionless. This may still have
inspired awe, but gone was the compassion, empathy, and earthy love that the
saints inspired.
Petra
May 11, 2012, 1:07:59 PM5/11/12
to
> You bring up some interesting points. However, just because a certain
> illness may mimic a certain healthy state does not mean that the two things
> are the same. The fact still remains that on one hand you have a person with
> mental illness and on the other a person, otherwise healthy, who had an
> unusual experience.
>
now delusional, certainly there are tests that will be used across the
board to test the health and chemistry or hormones in the human bodies.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 1:14:59 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:57:23 +0100
What he's really saying is that he values genuine friendship above all
else. This, indeed, is a friendship of high-quality since it cannot
be shaken by differing moral viewpoints.
> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
> Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
> religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
>
> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
> it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
> hopeful of converting me.
>
> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
> for a ride to Budapest.
Vacation or business? Have a great trip either way.
--
-- Aristotle (???st?t???? Aristotéles)
else. This, indeed, is a friendship of high-quality since it cannot
be shaken by differing moral viewpoints.
> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
> Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
> religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
>
> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
> it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
> hopeful of converting me.
>
> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
> for a ride to Budapest.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal."
-- Aristotle (???st?t???? Aristotéles)
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:17:27 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:37:51 -0400, "Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message news:slrnjqp4lp.5b1....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Dare <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There may be a change in perception....
>>> a change in light, or the "flow of time"...
>>> a separation from the normal world....
>>> an altered state of consciousness.
>>
>> Yes, I would agree there is an altered state, as you say. However, are you
>> implying that a religious feeling is 'contained' in this altered state? I
>> think rather that the altered state is _caused_ by the awareness raised by
>> the religious consciousness.
What "awareness"?
Once again Reeking Hearse Loser can't grasp that his doctrinal
presumptions aren't automatically granted in the workd beyond his
religion.
>I don't know what causes religious consciousness.
>It seems people may seek to bring about a religious feeling
>by creating a particular environment...withdrawal from the
>busy-ness of life to a "sanctuary" of sorts, either literally in
>a separate room (like a chapel) or by meditation or prayer
>to calm and focus their thoughts(affecting brain chemistry?).
>Is this a different kind of religious feeling than one that just
>"hits" you out of the blue as you are driving down the highway?
It's the people who are reigious who interpret it as a religious
experience.
Those of us who aren't, have other explanations, especially those who
weren't raised in any religion in the first place.
>I've experienced a version of both of these....
>from listening to music or meditating/praying....
>and a couple of times while I was actually just
>driving down the highway. The flow of Time
>seemed to almost come to a stop and there was
>an intense feeling of an eternal "now", an appreciation
>for "being" and a feeling of peace and (maybe) love?
>It seemed strange since the instant before, my thoughts
>were racing on about what I had to do today and impatience
>at the traffic and long stop lights, etc.
>
>It seems religious experiences aren't always pleasant.
>Some people have claimed to "see" a vision of hell.
Those who already believe in one.
>The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
>doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
>come from the same source? Why do some people
>_not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
>feel intense emotions?
The closest I've been to this was the awe I felt the first time I
drove into Yosemite from the South, through the tunnel that comes out
at the parking/viewing spot at Inspiration Point, and saw the most
incredible view I have seen on two continents.
It wasn't religious.
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in message news:slrnjqp4lp.5b1....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> Dare <clyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There may be a change in perception....
>>> a change in light, or the "flow of time"...
>>> a separation from the normal world....
>>> an altered state of consciousness.
>>
>> Yes, I would agree there is an altered state, as you say. However, are you
>> implying that a religious feeling is 'contained' in this altered state? I
>> think rather that the altered state is _caused_ by the awareness raised by
>> the religious consciousness.
Once again Reeking Hearse Loser can't grasp that his doctrinal
presumptions aren't automatically granted in the workd beyond his
religion.
>I don't know what causes religious consciousness.
>It seems people may seek to bring about a religious feeling
>by creating a particular environment...withdrawal from the
>busy-ness of life to a "sanctuary" of sorts, either literally in
>a separate room (like a chapel) or by meditation or prayer
>to calm and focus their thoughts(affecting brain chemistry?).
>Is this a different kind of religious feeling than one that just
>"hits" you out of the blue as you are driving down the highway?
experience.
Those of us who aren't, have other explanations, especially those who
weren't raised in any religion in the first place.
>I've experienced a version of both of these....
>from listening to music or meditating/praying....
>and a couple of times while I was actually just
>driving down the highway. The flow of Time
>seemed to almost come to a stop and there was
>an intense feeling of an eternal "now", an appreciation
>for "being" and a feeling of peace and (maybe) love?
>It seemed strange since the instant before, my thoughts
>were racing on about what I had to do today and impatience
>at the traffic and long stop lights, etc.
>
>It seems religious experiences aren't always pleasant.
>Some people have claimed to "see" a vision of hell.
>The common factor seems to be intense emotions...
>doe the emotions and the feeling of religious experience
>come from the same source? Why do some people
>_not_ have religious experiences? Do they also not
>feel intense emotions?
drove into Yosemite from the South, through the tunnel that comes out
at the parking/viewing spot at Inspiration Point, and saw the most
incredible view I have seen on two continents.
It wasn't religious.
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:21:14 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 07:50:05 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>It could be that what scares them about the real world is it's _unreality_
>as compared with their religious belief. It could be that those who reject
>religion fear too _much_ reality.
Why do you feel the need to keep lying about those who haver no reason
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>It could be that what scares them about the real world is it's _unreality_
>as compared with their religious belief. It could be that those who reject
>religion fear too _much_ reality.
to take your religious fantasies seriously rather than listening to
them when they explain why, pathological narcissist?
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:23:14 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:02:21 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>You didn't mention anything about your friend's beliefs in the OP. Since you
>said your friend felt the presence of Jesus,
What he THOUGHT was, imbecile.
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>You didn't mention anything about your friend's beliefs in the OP. Since you
>said your friend felt the presence of Jesus,
> I was curious whether this was
>a strong, unanticipated response from a nonchristian, or a normal response
>from someone who was already prepared to accept the premise of the event.
>You have satisfied my curiosity as to that point, so I thank you.
incapable of grasping that there is a real world beynd your religion.
>Terry
Mike Lovell
May 11, 2012, 1:23:23 PM5/11/12
to
On 2012-05-11, Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
> Yes, this sounds like an 'ecstatic' moment, in which past, present and
> future, telescope into a single eternal moment. There are numerous examples
> of this in the religious literature.
And numerous examples in mental health literature.
> Yes, this sounds like an 'ecstatic' moment, in which past, present and
> future, telescope into a single eternal moment. There are numerous examples
> of this in the religious literature.
Along with "speaking to God"
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:29:38 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 11:14:13 -0400, "Dare" <clyd...@gmail.com>
wrote:
The religious interpret things in terms of their beliefs.
But religion erects walls around the mind to keep out anything which
might cast doubt on it.
So far too many believers imagine their beliefs apply to everybody
else too, including their religious interpretations.
RHW has never once admitted that atheists don't grant his beliefs nor
had the courtesy not to talk as if they did.
And like far too many theists, he amateur-psychologises all sorts of
falsehoods about us as though his beliefs described the rest of the
world outside his religion.
Like his lie in a post a few minutes earlier about why atheists
"reject religion".
wrote:
But religion erects walls around the mind to keep out anything which
might cast doubt on it.
So far too many believers imagine their beliefs apply to everybody
else too, including their religious interpretations.
RHW has never once admitted that atheists don't grant his beliefs nor
had the courtesy not to talk as if they did.
And like far too many theists, he amateur-psychologises all sorts of
falsehoods about us as though his beliefs described the rest of the
world outside his religion.
Like his lie in a post a few minutes earlier about why atheists
"reject religion".
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:35:32 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 18:27:39 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:slrnjqpf8q.7bj....@badass.edu...
denial about the world beyond his religion where there are a whole
slew of other equivalent but different religions and god-beliefs.
As well as the amateur-psychologised falsehoods he invents about those
who don't share his beliefs.
wrote:
>"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:slrnjqpf8q.7bj....@badass.edu...
>You have two people who have the same kind of symptoms. You have no
>objective way of showing that one of them is delusional while the other is
>not. You have, in fact, assumed your conclusion.
Many of his beliefs are demonstrably delusional - like his being in
>objective way of showing that one of them is delusional while the other is
>not. You have, in fact, assumed your conclusion.
denial about the world beyond his religion where there are a whole
slew of other equivalent but different religions and god-beliefs.
As well as the amateur-psychologised falsehoods he invents about those
who don't share his beliefs.
Christopher A. Lee
May 11, 2012, 1:46:39 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 17:57:23 +0100, Alan Ferris
Some of my friends have been there as well.
>The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
>Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
>religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
Some of my Lady Friend's former circle once asked me "why I hung out
with Catholics".
My response was that I hung out with friends, some of whom were
Catholics.
These were the same people who couldn't understand why I liked a lot
of religious classical music.
>We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>hopeful of converting me.
I try to avoid doing this.
It's the easiest way to lose friends because they have no idea how to
talk with an atheist no matter how often you point out that the
presumptions behind their fallacious arguments aren't granted.
When you seem to be getting this rather obvious pointy through to them
they seem to reboot and star again as if you hadn't spent the last
half hour explaining this.
>Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
>for a ride to Budapest.
<envious>
>The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
>Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
>religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
with Catholics".
My response was that I hung out with friends, some of whom were
Catholics.
These were the same people who couldn't understand why I liked a lot
of religious classical music.
>We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>hopeful of converting me.
It's the easiest way to lose friends because they have no idea how to
talk with an atheist no matter how often you point out that the
presumptions behind their fallacious arguments aren't granted.
When you seem to be getting this rather obvious pointy through to them
they seem to reboot and star again as if you hadn't spent the last
half hour explaining this.
>Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
>for a ride to Budapest.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 1:13:55 PM5/11/12
to
soundmen, videographers or some such thing. My mistake. :)
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 1:49:02 PM5/11/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:slrnjqpf8q.7bj....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>
>> You bring up some interesting points. However, just because a certain
>> illness may mimic a certain healthy state does not mean that the two
>> things
>> are the same. The fact still remains that on one hand you have a person
>> with
>> mental illness and on the other a person, otherwise healthy, who had an
>> unusual experience.
>
> You have two people who have the same kind of symptoms. You have no
> objective way of showing that one of them is delusional while the other is
> not. You have, in fact, assumed your conclusion.
I wasn't referring to delusion, for the simple reason that I don't know what
thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:slrnjqpf8q.7bj....@badass.edu...
>>* It may have been the liquor talking, but
>> thomas p. <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
>>> meddelelsen news:joh8fm$enr$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> snip
>
>>>
>>
>> You bring up some interesting points. However, just because a certain
>> illness may mimic a certain healthy state does not mean that the two
>> things
>> are the same. The fact still remains that on one hand you have a person
>> with
>> mental illness and on the other a person, otherwise healthy, who had an
>> unusual experience.
>
> You have two people who have the same kind of symptoms. You have no
> objective way of showing that one of them is delusional while the other is
> not. You have, in fact, assumed your conclusion.
form the particular religious experience took. If it was simply an
intuition of the connectedness of all being accompanied by a rush of
emotion, where is the delusion? How do you prove it?
I was really referring to the medical fact of mental illness. This is quite
easy to establish, as I think you would agree.
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:19:34 PM5/11/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqqk8e.dhi....@badass.edu...
experience is religious and objectively real even though the symptoms are
clearly shared by people suffering from delusions. Surprise me and respond
to that.
>
> I was really referring to the medical fact of mental illness. This is
> quite
> easy to establish, as I think you would agree.
people have delusions that they strongly believe in, that they see as coming
from outside themselves, that profoundly change their lives. In other words
they have exactly the same type of experience ( as far as any objective
evidence can determine) that you say are unique to the true religious
experience. I look forward to your answer that responds to the above
directly and relevantly; in other words I look forward to being incredibly
surprised.
>
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:24:53 PM5/11/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqq9ot.9nq....@badass.edu...
crazy is really what makes sense. We atheists just stubbornly deny that
obvious fact.
>
> Perhaps too much reality requires too much of us, perhaps we have to face
> aspects of ourself we'd rather not have to face. It may be much safer to
> study supernovas and ground sloths, instead. :)
>
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
thomas p.
May 11, 2012, 2:26:42 PM5/11/12
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:mbnpq7t5iq5lktbqu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:51:43 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:31:29 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
>>> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:31:29 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
>>> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:55:16 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
>>>>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>>>>>religious
>>>>>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>>>>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>>>>>>interpreted
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>>>>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>>>>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>>>>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>>>>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>>>>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>>>>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>>>>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>>>>> massed public response.
>>>>
>>>>Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
>>>>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>>>>>religious
>>>>>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>>>>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>>>>>>interpreted
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>>>>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>>>>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>>>>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>>>>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>>>>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>>>>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>>>>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>>>>> massed public response.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
>>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>>> invoke.
>>>
>>'Most likely' and 'probably' is a somewhat different tone than your
>>> Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
>>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>>> invoke.
>>>
>>original
>>assumption. Say he did now agree with you, his 'knowledge' of what you
>>were
>>experiencing is as dubious as yours of his internal state.
>>
> The difference is that I am trained to raise such emotional responses
> and could do it in the same situation or even 1 or 1 which is what my
> training is for. It allows you to spot others using similar
> techniques and most preachers use these. I am to cynical from my
> work, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they
> may not be always doing it deliberately.
>
> But I ask you. 2 people having the same reactions and emotional
> response, why do you believe 1 is religious and the other not?
He has been asked this many times by now. No doubt he has just missed those
posts and would gladly answer them if only he had seen them.
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 2:14:27 PM5/11/12
to
>
> Most religion is about making excuses for why crap happens that takes
> responsibility away from the individual. Look how often believers
> will deny religion in others just for some action they have taken. So
> many times we will see one Christian claiming that another is not a
> true Christian.
>
> Faith is about not accepting that there are some things that cannot be
> explained. The biggest fear man faces is the unknown, so religion
> takes those gaps and makes up little stories and fairy tails to fill
> them. Dishonesty at its best. In reality religion is now finding
> itself in smaller and smaller gaps and having to think of new excuses
> for why god is no present in those gaps.
>
> At one time the supposed enlightened religious people who had the ear
> of god believed that he put the earth at the centre of the universe.
> Clearly that is wrong, so were they just not true Christians, where
> they lacking in faith or is it that there is no god giving anybody
> enlightenment so as history shows, they get things wrong again and
> again.
so I would just like to steer it toward the topic of this thread if I can
(with your permission).
I agree that fear of the unknown is one of the greatest fears. However I
disagree with your assessment of religion as 'little stories and fairy
tails.' We have stories, fables, and fairy tales; they are distinct from
religion.
Your understanding of religion betrays a lack of appreciation for the
variety of religious expression out there. Sure, there are fairy tales and
made up stories to convey profound ideas to less sophisticated types of
people; but there are also lengthy theological tracts, impressive poems and
prayers, some of the greatest literature ever written, magnificent hymns,
communities, public works, etc. The list of religious expressions is
practically endless. To dismiss it all with one stroke seems to me unjust.
> So why should we trust the modern Christianity to be any different
> from the old in its ability to get things right?
occurs. That is because religion is people centered - it is performed
primarily for an audience, and that audience is always a contemporary
audience.
That is why interpreting the Bible without understanding the historical,
religious, cultural and literary contexts that surround it leads to
ludicrous results.
So, the short answer is that we should trust modern Christianity more than
ancient Christianity because it is to the modern man that it is addressed.
That means you and I. And you shouldn't 'trust' it; you should investigate
it with an open mind, like you would any other deep, thoughtful,
intellectual thing. HTH. :)
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
Giga
May 11, 2012, 3:43:05 PM5/11/12
to
news:4fad42f6$0$289$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
You have to take it in context. Of course there are people who are mentally
ill but it is ridiculous to claim everyone who has unusual experiences is
mentally ill!
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>>>> of all
>>>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>>>> least is
>>>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>>>> person who
>>>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics
>>>>> report hearing. So what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>>>
>>> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions
>>> cannot be very intense and emotional?
>>>
>>
>> I've got no experience of what it is like I'm glad to say, so have no way
>> to compare it.
>
> Please! You must know that delusions can cause extreme emotional
> reactions. Such reactions have very often caused people to do incredible
> things both positive and negative. This is not arcane knowledge, so it is
> rather odd that you would deny knowing it.
I must admit I don't know much about it. The only mentally ill people I've
known seemed to be well aware at times that their delusions were delusions.
They have often given me the impression that they have a dim awareness of
this even during episodes and they have to fight falling deeper into the
fantasy etc.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it
>>>>>> has profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences
>>>>>> (this doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations
>>>>>> normally).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> At least not for me AFAIK.
>>>
>>> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real religious
>>> experiences and had some objective way to judge between them?
>>
>> Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced very
>> mild visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I was fully
>> aware at the time or shortly afterwards that they were probably
>> self-generated. As opposed to everyday experience or occasional
>> 'spiritual' experiences I have had. There is nothing objective here. We
>> are talking about personal subjective experiences.
>
> And obviously you know that people have delusions that they completely
> believe in. People who think they are Napoleon for example or people who
> think they have magical powers. Why pretend that you do not?
>
I must admit I'm not entirely sure whether these are myths. I have no
information on this. Is it a very unusual phenomenon?
>
>>
>>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that their
>>> experiences are real, and such experiences have had profound
>>> consequences on their lives.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making the point
>> that whatever experiences I have had could be mental aberations or
>> chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the other they may not
>> have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is that they were not.
>
> You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they were not
> the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional people have
> said exactly the same thing.
Quite right. I'm not attempting to offer any evidence. I hope my posts are
evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying! There is no way
for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do is assure you I often
doubt what they really were, so there would be ample room for scepticism
even if I could share them.
>
> Also they may not have
>> been what they appeared to be. This is even a better objection to any
>> conclusions from their content I would say. Then they are open to
>> interpretation and false memory as well. So for myself they are not great
>> evidence for anything but more of starting point, like a glimpse of what
>> might be true. For anyone else they would present very little evidence if
>> any even if they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>
> There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who have
> exactly the same conviction that you have. They are subjective feelings,
> and subjective feelings are notoriously unreliable.
Of course.
> The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true; such
> feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced profound changes
> in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique about what you claim.
>
I can well imagine that is true. I was not claiming that this is *only* true
of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature. And for most
normal people is a difference between experience and fantasy.
I've never heard of this sympton being pathological. I would be interested
if it has. 'Help me doc I've realised I am not my thoughts' lol
>Do you think you have scored a point?
Did not realise we were playing darts!?
>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would be
>able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is hard
>to believe).
>
No link then?
Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them, just
some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the long-run.
ill but it is ridiculous to claim everyone who has unusual experiences is
mentally ill!
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element
>>>>>>> of all
>>>>>>> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at
>>>>>>> least is
>>>>>>> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in
>>>>>>> religious
>>>>>>> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the
>>>>>>> person who
>>>>>>> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is very novel as you say and intense often emotionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are many forms of hallucinations and the voices schizophrenics
>>>>> report hearing. So what?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you say so. I wouldn't know.
>>>
>>> How can you not know? Are you under the impression that delusions
>>> cannot be very intense and emotional?
>>>
>>
>> I've got no experience of what it is like I'm glad to say, so have no way
>> to compare it.
>
> Please! You must know that delusions can cause extreme emotional
> reactions. Such reactions have very often caused people to do incredible
> things both positive and negative. This is not arcane knowledge, so it is
> rather odd that you would deny knowing it.
known seemed to be well aware at times that their delusions were delusions.
They have often given me the impression that they have a dim awareness of
this even during episodes and they have to fight falling deeper into the
fantasy etc.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it. IOW it
>>>>>> has profound affects on them just like other intense life experiences
>>>>>> (this doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies or halucinations
>>>>>> normally).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> At least not for me AFAIK.
>>>
>>> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real religious
>>> experiences and had some objective way to judge between them?
>>
>> Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced very
>> mild visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I was fully
>> aware at the time or shortly afterwards that they were probably
>> self-generated. As opposed to everyday experience or occasional
>> 'spiritual' experiences I have had. There is nothing objective here. We
>> are talking about personal subjective experiences.
>
> And obviously you know that people have delusions that they completely
> believe in. People who think they are Napoleon for example or people who
> think they have magical powers. Why pretend that you do not?
>
information on this. Is it a very unusual phenomenon?
>
>>
>>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that their
>>> experiences are real, and such experiences have had profound
>>> consequences on their lives.
>>>
>>
>>
>> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making the point
>> that whatever experiences I have had could be mental aberations or
>> chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the other they may not
>> have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is that they were not.
>
> You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they were not
> the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional people have
> said exactly the same thing.
evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying! There is no way
for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do is assure you I often
doubt what they really were, so there would be ample room for scepticism
even if I could share them.
>
> Also they may not have
>> been what they appeared to be. This is even a better objection to any
>> conclusions from their content I would say. Then they are open to
>> interpretation and false memory as well. So for myself they are not great
>> evidence for anything but more of starting point, like a glimpse of what
>> might be true. For anyone else they would present very little evidence if
>> any even if they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>
> There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who have
> exactly the same conviction that you have. They are subjective feelings,
> and subjective feelings are notoriously unreliable.
> The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true; such
> feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced profound changes
> in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique about what you claim.
>
of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature. And for most
normal people is a difference between experience and fantasy.
if it has. 'Help me doc I've realised I am not my thoughts' lol
>Do you think you have scored a point?
>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would be
>able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is hard
>to believe).
>
deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them, just
some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the long-run.
Giga
May 11, 2012, 3:51:15 PM5/11/12
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mbnpq7t5iq5lktbqu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:51:43 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:ep9oq79b03kscteo8...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:31:29 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
>>> <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>>news:h9vnq7pemudicmu95...@4ax.com...
>>>>> <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is
>>>>>>religious
>>>>>>feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
>>>>>>contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>>>>>>interpreted
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>interpreted
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>>>>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>>>>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>>>>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>>>>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>>>>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>>>>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>>>>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>>>>> massed public response.
>>>>
>>>>Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I assisted with videoing a photographing at an evangelical rally over
>>>>> a week where thousands of Christians turned up each day and each
>>>>> evening there was a massed service. Now my friend kept telling me
>>>>> that it was amazing the feeling of Jesus's presence, he could fee a
>>>>> real buzz every evening. I to could feel a buzz, but I recognised it
>>>>> for what it was. It is the same buzz you get at a concert or major
>>>>> sports final. That smell of adrenaline causing your own body to
>>>>> respond as well. So, you would call that Jesus, I just call it a
>>>>> massed public response.
>>>>
>>>>Are you so sure you were experiencing the same things he was?
>>>
>>> Most likely, he reacted no different and felt the buzz at exactly the
>>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>>> invoke.
>>>
>>> same time. What you want to call it does not change the fact that it
>>> was a standard chemical response. He would probably agree with me now
>>> having had more experience of such events and the reactions they can
>>> invoke.
>>>
>>'Most likely' and 'probably' is a somewhat different tone than your
>>original
>>assumption. Say he did now agree with you, his 'knowledge' of what you
>>were
>>experiencing is as dubious as yours of his internal state.
>>
> The difference is that I am trained to raise such emotional responses
> and could do it in the same situation or even 1 or 1 which is what my
> training is for. It allows you to spot others using similar
> techniques and most preachers use these. I am to cynical from my
> work, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they
> may not be always doing it deliberately.
>
> But I ask you. 2 people having the same reactions and emotional
> response, why do you believe 1 is religious and the other not?
>
I'm just wondering how exactly you managed to establish that you both had
>>original
>>assumption. Say he did now agree with you, his 'knowledge' of what you
>>were
>>experiencing is as dubious as yours of his internal state.
>>
> The difference is that I am trained to raise such emotional responses
> and could do it in the same situation or even 1 or 1 which is what my
> training is for. It allows you to spot others using similar
> techniques and most preachers use these. I am to cynical from my
> work, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept they
> may not be always doing it deliberately.
>
> But I ask you. 2 people having the same reactions and emotional
> response, why do you believe 1 is religious and the other not?
>
the same reaction? It sounds like projection to me.
Giga
May 11, 2012, 3:52:09 PM5/11/12
to
news:4fad59de$0$294$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Usenet is not IM you know!
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 3:18:38 PM5/11/12
to
one wouldn't be mentally ill; they both would. Now, you're not claiming that
everyone who has a religious experience is mentally ill, are you? Of course
not; that would be absurd. So, while there are similarities, there are also
important differences. What those are would depend on the exact
circumstances.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 11, 2012, 4:29:41 PM5/11/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:00:09 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:14:59 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
I have always been a person who believes true love and friendship is
unconditional and is based on loving the person for who they are. I
suppose we are friends because despite our differences we accept each
other as we are. I have also found that those strongest in their
faith are not worried by those who do not.
>> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
>> Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
>> religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
>>
>> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>> it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>> hopeful of converting me.
>>
>> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
>> for a ride to Budapest.
>
>Vacation or business? Have a great trip either way.
Business/Pleasure. Meeting with other government officials, just
managed to make my manager accept me riding their as this is cheaper
than flying. So I get to enjoy the roads of Europe there and back as
well as some nicely chosen rest stops.
unconditional and is based on loving the person for who they are. I
suppose we are friends because despite our differences we accept each
other as we are. I have also found that those strongest in their
faith are not worried by those who do not.
>> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He left
>> Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me to abandon
>> religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic version.
>>
>> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>> it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>> hopeful of converting me.
>>
>> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving tomorrow
>> for a ride to Budapest.
>
>Vacation or business? Have a great trip either way.
managed to make my manager accept me riding their as this is cheaper
than flying. So I get to enjoy the roads of Europe there and back as
well as some nicely chosen rest stops.
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:03:02 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:46:39 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>>it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>>hopeful of converting me.
>
>I try to avoid doing this.
>
>It's the easiest way to lose friends because they have no idea how to
>talk with an atheist no matter how often you point out that the
>presumptions behind their fallacious arguments aren't granted.
>
>When you seem to be getting this rather obvious pointy through to them
>they seem to reboot and star again as if you hadn't spent the last
>half hour explaining this.
Sorry if I did not make it clear. We mainly talk about the history of
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I call
>>it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is ever
>>hopeful of converting me.
>
>I try to avoid doing this.
>
>It's the easiest way to lose friends because they have no idea how to
>talk with an atheist no matter how often you point out that the
>presumptions behind their fallacious arguments aren't granted.
>
>When you seem to be getting this rather obvious pointy through to them
>they seem to reboot and star again as if you hadn't spent the last
>half hour explaining this.
faith and religion and normally most of it is historical. He never
tries to preach to me or argue me into believing, he knows that is
pointless. But he does hope, just as I hope the beer and good company
will make him see sense :)
Alan Ferris
May 11, 2012, 5:05:24 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:13:55 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
Sorry, reading it again I realise I should have said I was asked to
assist. One of my hobbies is photography and at the time had my own
processing lab.
assist. One of my hobbies is photography and at the time had my own
processing lab.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 7:37:55 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:00:09 +0100
That's excellent.
The world would do better with less intolerance.
> >> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He
> >> left Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me
> >> to abandon religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic
> >> version.
> >>
> >> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I
> >> call it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is
> >> ever hopeful of converting me.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving
> >> tomorrow for a ride to Budapest.
> >
> >Vacation or business? Have a great trip either way.
>
> Business/Pleasure. Meeting with other government officials, just
> managed to make my manager accept me riding their as this is cheaper
> than flying. So I get to enjoy the roads of Europe there and back as
> well as some nicely chosen rest stops.
Airports are always a hassle. It seems that the lower cost option has
worked very nicely for you. Three cheers for management?
--
and constant."
-- Socrates of Athens
The world would do better with less intolerance.
> >> The fact is we were friends from attending the same school. He
> >> left Catholicism like me and whereas my study of religion led me
> >> to abandon religion, he found he had faith but not the catholic
> >> version.
> >>
> >> We even now have long nights of debating religion and faith. I
> >> call it a good excuse for a drink with a friend, I am sure he is
> >> ever hopeful of converting me.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately I will not see him for a week as I am leaving
> >> tomorrow for a ride to Budapest.
> >
> >Vacation or business? Have a great trip either way.
>
> Business/Pleasure. Meeting with other government officials, just
> managed to make my manager accept me riding their as this is cheaper
> than flying. So I get to enjoy the roads of Europe there and back as
> well as some nicely chosen rest stops.
worked very nicely for you. Three cheers for management?
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Be slow to fall into friendship; but when thou art in, continue firm
and constant."
-- Socrates of Athens
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 11, 2012, 8:29:25 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:43:05 +0100
The common causes of hallucinations include:
* Drug/alcohol overuse
* Mental/neurological problems (epilepsy, dementia, schizophrenia,
psychotic depression, delirium, blindness, deafness, etc.)
* Health problems (fever, high blood pressure, liver failure, kidney
failure, brain cancer, certain severe learning disabilities, etc.)
* Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
* Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
* Psychosomatic effects
All of these causes seem to provide reasonable explanations for
hallucinations that people have otherwise claimed as real experiences.
Those people very likely have competent psychiatric help as a normal
part of their lives. Unfortunately there are many people suffering
from mental illnesses who don't realize it, and then it also comes in
degrees of seriousness in which the mental illnesses can make it even
more difficult to detect.
> >>>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it.
> >>>>>> IOW it has profound affects on them just like other intense
> >>>>>> life experiences (this doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies
> >>>>>> or halucinations normally).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
> >>>>
> >>>> At least not for me AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real
> >>> religious experiences and had some objective way to judge between
> >>> them?
> >>
> >> Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced
> >> very mild visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I
> >> was fully aware at the time or shortly afterwards that they were
> >> probably self-generated. As opposed to everyday experience or
> >> occasional 'spiritual' experiences I have had. There is nothing
> >> objective here. We are talking about personal subjective
> >> experiences.
> >
> > And obviously you know that people have delusions that they
> > completely believe in. People who think they are Napoleon for
> > example or people who think they have magical powers. Why pretend
> > that you do not?
>
> I must admit I'm not entirely sure whether these are myths. I have no
> information on this. Is it a very unusual phenomenon?
This is not mythology, for there are people who really believe they are
living someone else's life. If you visit the local insame asylum you'll
probably see many people coping with these delusions.
> >>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that
> >>> their experiences are real, and such experiences have had
> >>> profound consequences on their lives.
> >>
> >> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making
> >> the point that whatever experiences I have had could be mental
> >> aberations or chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the
> >> other they may not have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is
> >> that they were not.
> >
> > You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they
> > were not the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional
> > people have said exactly the same thing.
>
> Quite right. I'm not attempting to offer any evidence. I hope my
> posts are evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying!
> There is no way for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do
> is assure you I often doubt what they really were, so there would be
> ample room for scepticism even if I could share them.
This is Usenet -- it doesn't matter whether people are mentally ill so
long as they can engage in social intercourse. People suffering from a
mental illness(es) can still be brilliant.
> >> Also they may not have been what they appeared to be. This is even
> >> a better objection to any conclusions from their content I would
> >> say. Then they are open to interpretation and false memory as
> >> well. So for myself they are not great evidence for anything but
> >> more of starting point, like a glimpse of what might be true. For
> >> anyone else they would present very little evidence if any even if
> >> they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
> >
> > There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who
> > have exactly the same conviction that you have. They are
> > subjective feelings, and subjective feelings are notoriously
> > unreliable.
>
> Of course.
These wise words further exemplify this:
"Science does not rely on the highly unreliable eyewitness accounts, it
relies on testable evidence."
-- Free Lunch (April 7, 2012)
> > The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true;
> > such feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced
> > profound changes in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique
> > about what you claim.
>
> I can well imagine that is true. I was not claiming that this is
> *only* true of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature.
> And for most normal people is a difference between experience and
> fantasy.
How does one determine that their experiences are "spiritual?"
[snip]
independently on-the-fly.
> And you deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what
> suits them, just some have already realised the truth is the most
> suitable in the long-run.
Actually, many people believe what doesn't suit them (often because
they were coerced or indoctrinated into it).
One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
not having an explanation for something. Instead of resorting to a
fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
* Drug/alcohol overuse
* Mental/neurological problems (epilepsy, dementia, schizophrenia,
psychotic depression, delirium, blindness, deafness, etc.)
* Health problems (fever, high blood pressure, liver failure, kidney
failure, brain cancer, certain severe learning disabilities, etc.)
* Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
* Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
* Psychosomatic effects
All of these causes seem to provide reasonable explanations for
hallucinations that people have otherwise claimed as real experiences.
part of their lives. Unfortunately there are many people suffering
from mental illnesses who don't realize it, and then it also comes in
degrees of seriousness in which the mental illnesses can make it even
more difficult to detect.
> >>>>>>> What are some other aspects of religious feeling?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It changes a persons view of life and what may be beyond it.
> >>>>>> IOW it has profound affects on them just like other intense
> >>>>>> life experiences (this doesn't happen with dreams, fantasies
> >>>>>> or halucinations normally).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It doesn't? Because you say so?
> >>>>
> >>>> At least not for me AFAIK.
> >>>
> >>> What does that mean? Have you had both halucinations and real
> >>> religious experiences and had some objective way to judge between
> >>> them?
> >>
> >> Obviously I have had dreams and daydreams. Also I have experienced
> >> very mild visual illusions before from smoking. In those cases I
> >> was fully aware at the time or shortly afterwards that they were
> >> probably self-generated. As opposed to everyday experience or
> >> occasional 'spiritual' experiences I have had. There is nothing
> >> objective here. We are talking about personal subjective
> >> experiences.
> >
> > And obviously you know that people have delusions that they
> > completely believe in. People who think they are Napoleon for
> > example or people who think they have magical powers. Why pretend
> > that you do not?
>
> I must admit I'm not entirely sure whether these are myths. I have no
> information on this. Is it a very unusual phenomenon?
living someone else's life. If you visit the local insame asylum you'll
probably see many people coping with these delusions.
> >>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that
> >>> their experiences are real, and such experiences have had
> >>> profound consequences on their lives.
> >>
> >> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making
> >> the point that whatever experiences I have had could be mental
> >> aberations or chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the
> >> other they may not have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is
> >> that they were not.
> >
> > You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they
> > were not the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional
> > people have said exactly the same thing.
>
> Quite right. I'm not attempting to offer any evidence. I hope my
> posts are evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying!
> There is no way for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do
> is assure you I often doubt what they really were, so there would be
> ample room for scepticism even if I could share them.
long as they can engage in social intercourse. People suffering from a
mental illness(es) can still be brilliant.
> >> Also they may not have been what they appeared to be. This is even
> >> a better objection to any conclusions from their content I would
> >> say. Then they are open to interpretation and false memory as
> >> well. So for myself they are not great evidence for anything but
> >> more of starting point, like a glimpse of what might be true. For
> >> anyone else they would present very little evidence if any even if
> >> they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
> >
> > There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who
> > have exactly the same conviction that you have. They are
> > subjective feelings, and subjective feelings are notoriously
> > unreliable.
>
> Of course.
"Science does not rely on the highly unreliable eyewitness accounts, it
relies on testable evidence."
-- Free Lunch (April 7, 2012)
> > The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true;
> > such feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced
> > profound changes in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique
> > about what you claim.
>
> I can well imagine that is true. I was not claiming that this is
> *only* true of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature.
> And for most normal people is a difference between experience and
> fantasy.
[snip]
> >>>>>>> Can a religious experience ever
> >>>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
> >>>>>>> interpreted in terms of those beliefs?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation
> >>>>>> in personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and
> >>>>>> would be severly challenged by any such experience even if it
> >>>>>> were compatible with them. This is because these ideas would
> >>>>>> only be accepted on a very shallow basis and not really
> >>>>>> believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
> >>>>>> convenient and comforting etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any
> >>>>> objective basis in reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> For sure.
> >>>
> >>> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest
> >>> game.
> >>
> >> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be
> >> that in the long run.
> >
> > I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
> > objective evidence. You are denying it.
>
> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not.
We all have access to subjective evidence, even if it must be fabricated
> >>>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
> >>>>>>> interpreted in terms of those beliefs?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation
> >>>>>> in personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and
> >>>>>> would be severly challenged by any such experience even if it
> >>>>>> were compatible with them. This is because these ideas would
> >>>>>> only be accepted on a very shallow basis and not really
> >>>>>> believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
> >>>>>> convenient and comforting etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any
> >>>>> objective basis in reality.
> >>>>
> >>>> For sure.
> >>>
> >>> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest
> >>> game.
> >>
> >> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be
> >> that in the long run.
> >
> > I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
> > objective evidence. You are denying it.
>
> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not.
independently on-the-fly.
> And you deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what
> suits them, just some have already realised the truth is the most
> suitable in the long-run.
they were coerced or indoctrinated into it).
One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
not having an explanation for something. Instead of resorting to a
fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig
Giga
May 12, 2012, 4:37:47 AM5/12/12
to
wrote in message news:20120511172925....@fidemturbare.com...
Of course you would like to believe that is an exhaustive list.
I suspect there are few people that *don't* have some minor symptoms that in
a more extreme form could be classified as mental illness. Certainly these
people were aware they had problems and were receiving some treatment
(mainly pills I'm afraid) but other than some study of psychology this is
the only evidence I can draw on here. In my experience this idea of mental
illness being there permanently is wrong. It tends to come and go I think
with periods of greater severity and relative normality. The human condition
is like that isn't it?
'Probably', put up some evidence for these claims if there is any. Why rely
on prejudice and assumption when you have the internet at your fingertips?
>
>> >>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that
>> >>> their experiences are real, and such experiences have had
>> >>> profound consequences on their lives.
>> >>
>> >> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making
>> >> the point that whatever experiences I have had could be mental
>> >> aberations or chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the
>> >> other they may not have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is
>> >> that they were not.
>> >
>> > You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they
>> > were not the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional
>> > people have said exactly the same thing.
>>
>> Quite right. I'm not attempting to offer any evidence. I hope my
>> posts are evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying!
>> There is no way for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do
>> is assure you I often doubt what they really were, so there would be
>> ample room for scepticism even if I could share them.
>
> This is Usenet -- it doesn't matter whether people are mentally ill so
> long as they can engage in social intercourse. People suffering from a
> mental illness(es) can still be brilliant.
I think I'll take that as a compliment : ). And of course it is possible
that I am suffering from some kind of mental illness and not aware of it, as
it is for anyone (except those who are aware of it, in which case they may
be saner than they think :)).
>
>> >> Also they may not have been what they appeared to be. This is even
>> >> a better objection to any conclusions from their content I would
>> >> say. Then they are open to interpretation and false memory as
>> >> well. So for myself they are not great evidence for anything but
>> >> more of starting point, like a glimpse of what might be true. For
>> >> anyone else they would present very little evidence if any even if
>> >> they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>> >
>> > There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who
>> > have exactly the same conviction that you have. They are
>> > subjective feelings, and subjective feelings are notoriously
>> > unreliable.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> These wise words further exemplify this:
>
> "Science does not rely on the highly unreliable eyewitness accounts, it
> relies on testable evidence."
> -- Free Lunch (April 7, 2012)
>
Hume wrote a book on this called On Miracles I think which argues against
supernatural testimony better than most people could. I tend to agree. Why
should anyone else believe me? I hardly believe myself and I experienced it.
Also I find the miracles of Jesus, say, very hard to believe. Walking on
water, turning water to wine, healing leprosy instantly, bringing someone
back from the dead? Surely, as I'm sure Hume would argue, the more rational
explanation is that people have exaggerated or there has been a kind of
'Chinese Whisper' effect etc.
>> > The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true;
>> > such feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced
>> > profound changes in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique
>> > about what you claim.
>>
>> I can well imagine that is true. I was not claiming that this is
>> *only* true of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature.
>> And for most normal people is a difference between experience and
>> fantasy.
>
> How does one determine that their experiences are "spiritual?"
Personal for me it is the emotional content that I find very 'real'. In a
way more 'real' than much of life generally. Say if you experience an
intense feeling of being loved unconditionally it is difficult to dismiss
that as unreal.
>
> [snip]
>> >>>>>>> Can a religious experience ever
>> >>>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>> >>>>>>> interpreted in terms of those beliefs?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation
>> >>>>>> in personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and
>> >>>>>> would be severly challenged by any such experience even if it
>> >>>>>> were compatible with them. This is because these ideas would
>> >>>>>> only be accepted on a very shallow basis and not really
>> >>>>>> believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
>> >>>>>> convenient and comforting etc.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any
>> >>>>> objective basis in reality.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For sure.
>> >>>
>> >>> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest
>> >>> game.
>> >>
>> >> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be
>> >> that in the long run.
>> >
>> > I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>> > objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>
>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not.
>
> We all have access to subjective evidence, even if it must be fabricated
> independently on-the-fly.
Lie to ourselves?
>
>> And you deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what
>> suits them, just some have already realised the truth is the most
>> suitable in the long-run.
>
> Actually, many people believe what doesn't suit them (often because
> they were coerced or indoctrinated into it).
Then it does suit them because they have been taught to fear challenging it
or leaving it behind.
>
> One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
> not having an explanation for something.
Agnostics also don't need an explanation.
> Instead of resorting to a
> fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
> truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
> despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
>
How you can claim objectivity....hahahaha
a more extreme form could be classified as mental illness. Certainly these
people were aware they had problems and were receiving some treatment
(mainly pills I'm afraid) but other than some study of psychology this is
the only evidence I can draw on here. In my experience this idea of mental
illness being there permanently is wrong. It tends to come and go I think
with periods of greater severity and relative normality. The human condition
is like that isn't it?
on prejudice and assumption when you have the internet at your fingertips?
>
>> >>> In any event delusional people are ususally very convinced that
>> >>> their experiences are real, and such experiences have had
>> >>> profound consequences on their lives.
>> >>
>> >> The former is true, not sure about the later. If you are making
>> >> the point that whatever experiences I have had could be mental
>> >> aberations or chemical induced etc of course you are right. On the
>> >> other they may not have been, and the weight of evidence IMO is
>> >> that they were not.
>> >
>> > You have yet to provide any objective evidence. Saying that they
>> > were not the same as delusions is not evidence, and many delusional
>> > people have said exactly the same thing.
>>
>> Quite right. I'm not attempting to offer any evidence. I hope my
>> posts are evidence enough that I am lucid. However I could be lying!
>> There is no way for me to show the actual experiences. All I can do
>> is assure you I often doubt what they really were, so there would be
>> ample room for scepticism even if I could share them.
>
> This is Usenet -- it doesn't matter whether people are mentally ill so
> long as they can engage in social intercourse. People suffering from a
> mental illness(es) can still be brilliant.
that I am suffering from some kind of mental illness and not aware of it, as
it is for anyone (except those who are aware of it, in which case they may
be saner than they think :)).
>
>> >> Also they may not have been what they appeared to be. This is even
>> >> a better objection to any conclusions from their content I would
>> >> say. Then they are open to interpretation and false memory as
>> >> well. So for myself they are not great evidence for anything but
>> >> more of starting point, like a glimpse of what might be true. For
>> >> anyone else they would present very little evidence if any even if
>> >> they believed me and thought I was not halucinating etc.
>> >
>> > There are literally millions of people (probably many more) who
>> > have exactly the same conviction that you have. They are
>> > subjective feelings, and subjective feelings are notoriously
>> > unreliable.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> These wise words further exemplify this:
>
> "Science does not rely on the highly unreliable eyewitness accounts, it
> relies on testable evidence."
> -- Free Lunch (April 7, 2012)
>
supernatural testimony better than most people could. I tend to agree. Why
should anyone else believe me? I hardly believe myself and I experienced it.
Also I find the miracles of Jesus, say, very hard to believe. Walking on
water, turning water to wine, healing leprosy instantly, bringing someone
back from the dead? Surely, as I'm sure Hume would argue, the more rational
explanation is that people have exaggerated or there has been a kind of
'Chinese Whisper' effect etc.
>> > The one objective claim that you have made is clearly not true;
>> > such feelings, even when obviously delusional, have produced
>> > profound changes in people's lives. There simply is nothing unique
>> > about what you claim.
>>
>> I can well imagine that is true. I was not claiming that this is
>> *only* true of spiritual expriences but that it *is* often a feature.
>> And for most normal people is a difference between experience and
>> fantasy.
>
> How does one determine that their experiences are "spiritual?"
way more 'real' than much of life generally. Say if you experience an
intense feeling of being loved unconditionally it is difficult to dismiss
that as unreal.
>
> [snip]
>> >>>>>>> Can a religious experience ever
>> >>>>>>> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be
>> >>>>>>> interpreted in terms of those beliefs?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I suspect that religious ideas that do not have a foundation
>> >>>>>> in personal mystic experiences are probably quite shallow and
>> >>>>>> would be severly challenged by any such experience even if it
>> >>>>>> were compatible with them. This is because these ideas would
>> >>>>>> only be accepted on a very shallow basis and not really
>> >>>>>> believed fully. A kind of cheap beleif, that is just there and
>> >>>>>> convenient and comforting etc.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I suspect that one can say or suspect many things without any
>> >>>>> objective basis in reality.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For sure.
>> >>>
>> >>> And, no doubt, you will continue to play your silly, dishonest
>> >>> game.
>> >>
>> >> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be
>> >> that in the long run.
>> >
>> > I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>> > objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>
>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not.
>
> We all have access to subjective evidence, even if it must be fabricated
> independently on-the-fly.
>
>> And you deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what
>> suits them, just some have already realised the truth is the most
>> suitable in the long-run.
>
> Actually, many people believe what doesn't suit them (often because
> they were coerced or indoctrinated into it).
or leaving it behind.
>
> One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
> not having an explanation for something.
> Instead of resorting to a
> fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
> truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
> despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
>
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 4:45:13 AM5/12/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqqpge.goa....@badass.edu...
do not both have to be mentally ill; it is not only the mentally ill who
experience delusions including strong ones.
Now, you're not claiming that
> everyone who has a religious experience is mentally ill, are you? Of
> course
> not; that would be absurd. So, while there are similarities, there are
> also
> important differences. What those are would depend on the exact
> circumstances.
instead, you assume those differences. And no I am not saying that everyone
who has had such an experience is mentally ill; the question is what
evidence do you have that any particular experience is not a delusion.
>
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:04:30 AM5/12/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:jojq56$eij$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
>>Do you think you have scored a point?
>
> Did not realise we were playing darts!?
>
>>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would
>>be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is
>>hard to believe).
>>
>
> No link then?
providing links to document the existence of such a common experience as
being deluded. You, as a matter of fact, have already indicated that you
know delusions exist, since you have claimed experiences that are like them
but somehow unique. You are playing very silly and obviously evasive games.
snip
>>> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that in
>>> the long run.
>>>
>>
>> I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>> objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>
> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
> deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them,
> just some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the
> long-run.
>
can be demonstrated and tested, and believing what suits you is a very silly
thing to do; no matter how many people do it. It is a very common human
characteristic, but that does not make it reasonable.
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:07:58 AM5/12/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:jol7ht$oul$1...@news.albasani.net...
also know atheists who are not. If belief in god is based on the gift of
faith (as traditional doctrine says) Christians would be agnostic.
>
>> Instead of resorting to a
>> fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
>> truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
>> despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
>>
>
> How you can claim objectivity....hahahaha
>
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:18:04 AM5/12/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqqlo4.dhi....@badass.edu...
>
> I agree that fear of the unknown is one of the greatest fears. However I
> disagree with your assessment of religion as 'little stories and fairy
> tails.' We have stories, fables, and fairy tales; they are distinct from
> religion.
>
> Your understanding of religion betrays a lack of appreciation for the
> variety of religious expression out there. Sure, there are fairy tales and
> made up stories to convey profound ideas to less sophisticated types of
> people; but there are also lengthy theological tracts, impressive poems
> and
> prayers, some of the greatest literature ever written, magnificent hymns,
> communities, public works, etc. The list of religious expressions is
> practically endless. To dismiss it all with one stroke seems to me unjust.
That does not mean they are any more than stories, fables and fairy tales.
>
>
>> So why should we trust the modern Christianity to be any different
>> from the old in its ability to get things right?
>
> Well, each manifestation of faith is appropriate to the age in which it
> occurs. That is because religion is people centered - it is performed
> primarily for an audience, and that audience is always a contemporary
> audience.
>
> That is why interpreting the Bible without understanding the historical,
> religious, cultural and literary contexts that surround it leads to
> ludicrous results.
>
> So, the short answer is that we should trust modern Christianity more than
> ancient Christianity because it is to the modern man that it is addressed.
> That means you and I. And you shouldn't 'trust' it; you should investigate
> it with an open mind, like you would any other deep, thoughtful,
> intellectual thing. HTH. :)
>
>>
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:19:14 AM5/12/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:jojqm7$fhp$1...@news.albasani.net...
voluntarily taking part in?
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:19:56 AM5/12/12
to
"Rockinghorse Winner" <badass....@gmx.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:slrnjqqtll.ifq....@badass.edu...
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
thomas p.
May 12, 2012, 5:20:59 AM5/12/12
to
"Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> skrev i
meddelelsen news:jojqkh$fg1$1...@news.albasani.net...
evasion to me.
Petra
May 12, 2012, 5:28:46 AM5/12/12
to
On May 10, 5:55 am, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:
> It is a fact of human experience that most people experience something that
> they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
> experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
> William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
> <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
> numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
> this type.
>
> What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
> identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
> knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
> experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
> am not completely in control of the experience.
>
> With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
> the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
> religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
> are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
> someplace 'outside' me.
experiences have caused the effect then to be described as
'religious'? or are all human emotions minus the events that lead up
to the description, either via observation of behaviours by others, or
by the individuals own description (self expression) caused by the
devils work?
It is as easy to dismiss all the events that culminate as an emotional
event and then describe that feeling or expression as work of 'the
devil' or 'one of our angels', as telling people that they have good
or bad chemicals that cause good behaviour or, worse, bad genes.
wrote:
> It is a fact of human experience that most people experience something that
> they recognize at the time or in hindsight as a religious feeling or
> experience. Those who have these experiences are often not religious.
> William James in his classic study, Varieties of Religious Experience
> <http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Jamvari.html>, includes
> numerous anecdotes of nonbelievers, even atheists, having had experiences of
> this type.
>
> What is it about these experiences that set them apart, and make them
> identifiable as religious, even by people who have no or very limited
> knowledge of religion? One of the elements that distinguish a religious
> experience from a 'fantasy' or a 'daydream,' is the uncanny feeling that one
> am not completely in control of the experience.
>
> With a fantasy or daydream, I am all the time aware that I am the author of
> the images or ideas that flit before my mind's eye. With experiences of a
> religious type, I have the uncomfortable feeling that the ideas and images
> are at least partially outside of my control. IOW, they seem to come from
> someplace 'outside' me.
>
> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested in
> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
> have such an experience.
>
> I am not interested in whether the experiences do ultimately issue from an
> exterior source, even if it were possible to determine. I am interested in
> what makes them unique. One of these marks as I've said is a sense of having
> come to us in spite of ourselves - that is, without a conscious intention to
> have such an experience.
>
> What are some other hallmarks of religious feelings? Another element of all
> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
> What are some other aspects of religious feeling? What are some of the
> religious feeling is it's captivating aspect. It for a moment at least is
> transfixing, and we are struck by it, by it's uniqueness from all other
> types of experience we may have had. It may not be interpreted in religious
> terms, but there is no denying the powerful pull it exerts on the person who
> has it, such that he is able to recall it even many years later.
>
> differences between the religious experiences of people already steeped in
> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
> experience in?
>
> religion and those of people without the terminology or schema to wrap their
> experience in?
>
> Does religious feeling have to include an experience of 'God?' Is religious
> feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
> feeling incompatible with atheism? Can a religious experience ever
> contradict previously held religious beliefs rather than be interpreted in
> terms of those beliefs? Thoughts? Ideas?
>
> Terry
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
Can you separate the human feelings from the experiences? what
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
experiences have caused the effect then to be described as
'religious'? or are all human emotions minus the events that lead up
to the description, either via observation of behaviours by others, or
by the individuals own description (self expression) caused by the
devils work?
It is as easy to dismiss all the events that culminate as an emotional
event and then describe that feeling or expression as work of 'the
devil' or 'one of our angels', as telling people that they have good
or bad chemicals that cause good behaviour or, worse, bad genes.
Giga
May 12, 2012, 10:40:02 AM5/12/12
to
news:4fae288f$0$279$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
certainly cannot be an atheist or a theist IMO.
> I know atheists who are agnostic; I also know atheists who are not. If
> belief in god is based on the gift of faith (as traditional doctrine says)
> Christians would be agnostic.
So you are into this twisting the meanings of words thing.
>
>>
>>> Instead of resorting to a
>>> fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
>>> truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
>>> despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
>>>
>>
>> How you can claim objectivity....hahahaha
>>
>
> How you evade points.
>
What are all these 'points' you seem to think are being scored or missed!?
>>> One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
>>> not having an explanation for something.
>>
>> Agnostics also don't need an explanation.
>
> Agnostics can be theists or atheists.
That is untrue. They may have leanings to one side or the other but they
>>> not having an explanation for something.
>>
>> Agnostics also don't need an explanation.
>
> Agnostics can be theists or atheists.
certainly cannot be an atheist or a theist IMO.
> I know atheists who are agnostic; I also know atheists who are not. If
> belief in god is based on the gift of faith (as traditional doctrine says)
> Christians would be agnostic.
>
>>
>>> Instead of resorting to a
>>> fallacy, using tools like scientific methodologies to discover objective
>>> truth, then progressing from there, has proven to be wildly successful
>>> despite best efforts from religious authorities to interfere.
>>>
>>
>> How you can claim objectivity....hahahaha
>>
>
> How you evade points.
>
Giga
May 12, 2012, 10:43:28 AM5/12/12
to
news:4fae27bf$0$293$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>>>> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that
>>>> in the long run.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>>> objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>>
>
>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
>> deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them,
>> just some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the
>> long-run.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
There is for the individual. Ever heard the phrase 'I think therefore I am'?
lol
> Evidence is something that can be demonstrated and tested, and believing
> what suits you is a very silly thing to do; no matter how many people do
> it. It is a very common human characteristic, but that does not make it
> reasonable.
From your lips to your ears.
>>>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would
>>>be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is
>>>hard to believe).
>>>
>>
>> No link then?
>
> No honesty then? I would not waste my time or insult my opponent by
> providing links to document the existence of such a common experience as
> being deluded. You, as a matter of fact, have already indicated that you
> know delusions exist, since you have claimed experiences that are like
> them but somehow unique. You are playing very silly and obviously evasive
> games.
>
No link then. So you just made it up huh?
>>>be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is
>>>hard to believe).
>>>
>>
>> No link then?
>
> No honesty then? I would not waste my time or insult my opponent by
> providing links to document the existence of such a common experience as
> being deluded. You, as a matter of fact, have already indicated that you
> know delusions exist, since you have claimed experiences that are like
> them but somehow unique. You are playing very silly and obviously evasive
> games.
>
>
>>>> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that
>>>> in the long run.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>>> objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>>
>
>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
>> deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them,
>> just some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the
>> long-run.
>>
>
> There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
lol
> Evidence is something that can be demonstrated and tested, and believing
> what suits you is a very silly thing to do; no matter how many people do
> it. It is a very common human characteristic, but that does not make it
> reasonable.
Giga
May 12, 2012, 10:46:51 AM5/12/12
to
news:4fae2b34$0$300$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Yep, if they are too dumb to be worthy of an answer. Don't hold your breath
in the future. I tire of your obsession with point scoring rather than
investigation of the truth.
in the future. I tire of your obsession with point scoring rather than
investigation of the truth.
Giga
May 12, 2012, 10:47:55 AM5/12/12
to
news:4fae2b9d$0$298$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
Evasion of what? : )
Rockinghorse Winner
May 12, 2012, 10:49:39 AM5/12/12
to
me. How can one be deluded about a qualia? If someone closes their eyes and
says, I see red circles, how can he possibly be deluded? If he says, I felt
a sense of universal warmth and an uncanny connection with all around me,
how can he be deluded about that? If he says, I felt a presence in the room
and I seemed to know that it was God - how can he be deluded? He really
didn't have those experiences, but thought he did? :)
Rockinghorse Winner
May 12, 2012, 10:22:14 AM5/12/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>> > The point is that if two people have the same symptoms on what
>> > objective basis do you determine that one of them is not
>> > delusional? Your argument assumes your conclusion.
>>
>> You have to take it in context. Of course there are people who are
>> mentally ill but it is ridiculous to claim everyone who has unusual
>> experiences is mentally ill!
>
> The common causes of hallucinations include:
>
> * Drug/alcohol overuse
> * Mental/neurological problems (epilepsy, dementia, schizophrenia,
> psychotic depression, delirium, blindness, deafness, etc.)
> * Health problems (fever, high blood pressure, liver failure, kidney
> failure, brain cancer, certain severe learning disabilities, etc.)
> * Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
> * Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
> * Psychosomatic effect
>
>> > The point is that if two people have the same symptoms on what
>> > objective basis do you determine that one of them is not
>> > delusional? Your argument assumes your conclusion.
>>
>> You have to take it in context. Of course there are people who are
>> mentally ill but it is ridiculous to claim everyone who has unusual
>> experiences is mentally ill!
>
> The common causes of hallucinations include:
>
> * Drug/alcohol overuse
> * Mental/neurological problems (epilepsy, dementia, schizophrenia,
> psychotic depression, delirium, blindness, deafness, etc.)
> * Health problems (fever, high blood pressure, liver failure, kidney
> failure, brain cancer, certain severe learning disabilities, etc.)
> * Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
> * Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
> * Psychosomatic effect
>
of 'symptoms of mental illness,' or are there some you would put into the
class of 'don't have an explanation for - spiritual, physical or otherwise?'
Christopher A. Lee
May 12, 2012, 11:28:44 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 15:40:02 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4fae288f$0$279$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>>> One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
>>>> not having an explanation for something.
>>>
>>> Agnostics also don't need an explanation.
>>
>> Agnostics can be theists or atheists.
>
>That is untrue. They may have leanings to one side or the other but they
>certainly cannot be an atheist or a theist IMO.
You're wrong here, because by their accurate meanings atheism is about
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4fae288f$0$279$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>>> One of the key aspects of being an atheist is that there's no shame in
>>>> not having an explanation for something.
>>>
>>> Agnostics also don't need an explanation.
>>
>> Agnostics can be theists or atheists.
>
>That is untrue. They may have leanings to one side or the other but they
>certainly cannot be an atheist or a theist IMO.
whether or not one is theist, and the other about knowledge of
something irrelevant that is only important to theists.
So they're about different things - agnosticism isn't a halfway house
between theism and atheism.
Popular usage gets both atheists and (most) agnostics wrong because it
tries to "define" them as if theistic presumptions even applied
outside theistic religion.
>> I know atheists who are agnostic; I also know atheists who are not. If
>> belief in god is based on the gift of faith (as traditional doctrine says)
>> Christians would be agnostic.
>
>So you are into this twisting the meanings of words thing.
Honest theists are agnostic because they admit they only believe, they
don't know.
Most atheists have nothing to be agnostic about.
Although many atheists describe themselves as agnostics because they
have fallen for the common usage misrepresentation of an atheist as
someone who "believes god doesn't exist" and don't actually believe
that.
And many other atheists call themselves agnostic to avoid the general
feeling against atheists, especially if their family and friends are
theist.
Free Lunch
May 12, 2012, 11:57:16 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 15:43:28 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4fae27bf$0$293$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>>>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would
>>>>be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is
>>>>hard to believe).
>>>>
>>>
>>> No link then?
>>
>> No honesty then? I would not waste my time or insult my opponent by
>> providing links to document the existence of such a common experience as
>> being deluded. You, as a matter of fact, have already indicated that you
>> know delusions exist, since you have claimed experiences that are like
>> them but somehow unique. You are playing very silly and obviously evasive
>> games.
>>
>
>No link then. So you just made it up huh?
>
>>
>>>>> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that
>>>>> in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>>>> objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>>>
>>
>>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
>>> deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them,
>>> just some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the
>>> long-run.
>>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
>
>There is for the individual. Ever heard the phrase 'I think therefore I am'?
That was a rhetorical statement. He was not claiming that this was
evidence of his existence.
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4fae27bf$0$293$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>>>You do not even need to ask a psychologist, a general practitioner would
>>>>be able to tell you if you are seriously in doubt (which, by the way, is
>>>>hard to believe).
>>>>
>>>
>>> No link then?
>>
>> No honesty then? I would not waste my time or insult my opponent by
>> providing links to document the existence of such a common experience as
>> being deluded. You, as a matter of fact, have already indicated that you
>> know delusions exist, since you have claimed experiences that are like
>> them but somehow unique. You are playing very silly and obviously evasive
>> games.
>>
>
>No link then. So you just made it up huh?
>
>>
>>>>> Believe whatever suits you, however I suspect the truth would be that
>>>>> in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not the one who believes what suits me. I am looking at the
>>>> objective evidence. You are denying it.
>>>>
>>
>>> Not at all, but I have access to subjective evidence you do not. And you
>>> deny that it seems to me. BTW nearly everyone believes what suits them,
>>> just some have already realised the truth is the most suitable in the
>>> long-run.
>>>
>>
>> There is no such thing as subjective evidence.
>
>There is for the individual. Ever heard the phrase 'I think therefore I am'?
evidence of his existence.
Rockinghorse Winner
May 12, 2012, 11:23:03 AM5/12/12
to
* It may have been the liquor talking, but
discussion is like a life and death struggle to him. Why anyone would have
all their self worth wrapped up in each and every philosophical discussion I
don't know. It must be very wearying at times....
Free Lunch
May 12, 2012, 12:00:01 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 07:49:39 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
That's the whole point of certain kinds of meditation or taking certain
sorts of drugs -- feeling experiences that you don't really have.
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
sorts of drugs -- feeling experiences that you don't really have.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
May 12, 2012, 12:07:51 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 07:22:14 -0700
Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
(Ha ha! That's a clever quoting introduction.)
Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
> * It may have been the liquor talking, but
> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
> <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
illnesses since that could be classified as dogmatic. Here's that list
again of most (if not all) of the known causes of hallucinations (which
I already included above) that supports why I don't classify it thusly:
* Drug/alcohol overuse
* Mental/neurological problems (epilepsy, dementia, chizophrenia,
psychotic depression, delirium, blindness, deafness, etc.)
* Health problems (fever, high blood pressure, liver failure, idney
failure, brain cancer, certain severe learning disabilities, etc.)
* Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
* Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
* Psychosomatic effect
As you can see, "mental/neurological problems" are only one of the six
* Ethics (lying to people about the hallucination)
* Dreaming (while sleeping or dozing)
* Psychosomatic effect
of the possibilities I suggested as the most likely causes.
> or are there some you would put into the class of 'don't have an
> explanation for - spiritual, physical or otherwise?'
escaped it by specifying "physical or otherwise." Whew! To me, the
"otherwise" option includes "assumptions" wherein many people prefer to
give credit to something they don't really know is real instead of
simply admitting objectively that the answer simply isn't known.
The impartiality characteristic of "not knowing" is, in my opinion, the
profoundly clearer realization because it doesn't put one on the
defensive (of having to defend an assumption which often equates to a
challenge of confidence in the illogical), and manifests clarity and
sanity due to not inhibiting the search for objective truth.
Here are three quotations that seem to address this (the first one
recommends a solution, and the other two are observations):
"When you simply cannot provide rational explanations for some things,
[just] say "I don't know." It's true, it's humble, [and] it leaves you
open to new information. "I don't know" is great! Use it today!"
-- Mark Richardson (February 22, 2012)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to
think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps
because of, the lack of evidence."
-- Richard Dawkins
"Faith [is] what you fall back on when you've lost the argument."
-- Bill Taylor (March 15, 2012)
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against
knowledge."
-- Adolf Hitler
Christopher A. Lee
May 12, 2012, 12:15:22 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 08:23:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>Thomas P, as you've discovered, Giga, can be very exasperating. Every
>discussion is like a life and death struggle to him. Why anyone would have
>all their self worth wrapped up in each and every philosophical discussion I
>don't know. It must be very wearying at times....
Project much, serial liar?
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>Thomas P, as you've discovered, Giga, can be very exasperating. Every
>discussion is like a life and death struggle to him. Why anyone would have
>all their self worth wrapped up in each and every philosophical discussion I
>don't know. It must be very wearying at times....
Perhaps if you didn't insist on talking as if your presumptions were
universally granted, and were prepared to back them up using shared
understanding you might be able to hold some sort of discussion.
You've been doing this for years, ignoring every explanation that
they're not automatically granted.
Which is both rude and stupid on your part.
And why you earn the treatment you get.
Especially when we didn't come looking for you for "philosophical
discussion" let alone any other kind, you came to atheists insisting
they discuss your bullshit on your terms.
But being a pathological narcissist you don't understand this because
it's all about you.
>Terry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages