I'm sorry, but there is no god.

[(Q)]

You and I aren't in disagreement that the average theist whose belief is based upon faith is a deluded being. I am merely pointing out that not all religion is based upon faith (which we both agree is a bad method for truth). Some relgion is actually based upon direct experience.

And, as I stated before, those so-called 'direct experiences' are little more than what was conjured from the imagination. Their "interpretation" of that experience was all in their heads. ALL religion is based on faith.

Whether you believe the claims that are made is another story - (but there is a high degree of consistency across time and culture to these claims which at least suggest some type of objectively obeserved phenomenon).

There is a myriad of mental ailments that cause people to have "direct experiences" with all kinds of things, yet we are to believe that those who make the claims for gods are any different from those how make claims for any other "direct experiences?"

In other words, you accept the claims from a madman, as long as he's talking about god.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

And, as I stated before, those so-called 'direct experiences' are little more than what was conjured from the imagination. Their "interpretation" of that experience was all in their heads.

That is just your interpretation, I´m sure you are happy by believing that. That´s why you are here after all.

ALL religion is based on faith.

I have to disagree, some religions are based on faith, some are based on hope, and some are based on experience.

There is a myriad of mental ailments that cause people to have "direct experiences" with all kinds of things, yet we are to believe that those who make the claims for gods are any different from those how make claims for any other "direct experiences?"

In other words, you accept the claims from a madman, as long as he's talking about god.

And you couldn´t recognize a Jesus, a Mohammed, or a Buddha even if he would be standing in front of you. What a loss.

 

[grover]

And, as I stated before, those so-called 'direct experiences' are little more than what was conjured from the imagination. Their "interpretation" of that experience was all in their heads. ALL religion is based on faith.

No, that's just your interpretation. Seeing as you haven't had the experience your interpretation doesn't mean that much. You have no idea what you are talking about.

There is a myriad of mental ailments that cause people to have "direct experiences" with all kinds of things, yet we are to believe that those who make the claims for gods are any different from those how make claims for any other "direct experiences?"

Stop being dense. No one is asking you to take anyones word for anything. I am pointing out that some people have these enlightenment experiences. It is the experiences which lead them to their beliefs. Not taking anyone else's word for it. Not fatih. Your argument at this point boils down to you saying: "their interpretation of their direct, ineffable experience is wrong and my interpretation is correct even though I have not had the experience." Your stance is ludicrous.

In other words, you accept the claims from a madman, as long as he's talking about god.

No, it doesn't have to do with accepting other peoples word for it. How many times am I going to have to say the same thing? It has to do with people seeing for themselves. In other words, lets say you do some actual reading about this subject and decide it makes sense to you - thats not the end of the road, you don't just then decide you are going to believe and that's it, you still would not have had the experience. The entire purpose is to know it for oneself (similar in this regard to science, in that you are not supposed to take anyones word for anything but you can prove to yourself what is being talked about).
------------------------------------
You appear to be entirely ignorant as to this aspect of religion. You should probably educate yourself on it a little bit before making your arrogant assertions based upon the superficial knowledge you do have.

 

[Sarkus]

It is the experiences which lead them to their beliefs. Not taking anyone else's word for it. Not fatih.

It is faith in their interpretation of their experience as being "religious" or whatever else they want to call it.

Unless they first rule out all other more rational interpretations then their interpretation is irrational.

No-one disputes that the person underwent an "experience" - but just because they underwent it - why does it make their interpretation correct?

Are they all so versed in brain activity and the effect on the senses that they can dismiss such possibilities?

No-one disputes that these experiences might lead people to believe in any number of things - but it doesn't make their belief any more or less rational.


Grover, what's your opinion on alien-abductees - people who claim to have undergone the direct experience of being abducted (and often probed) by aliens. Many describe the same experience. And it leads these people to their belief that not only does sentient life exist outside our planet but that it visits us and abducts us. What is your opinion?
Are we to accept that their interpretation of these experiences are accurate? Are rational? Are to be believed.

 

[grover]

It is faith in their interpretation of their experience as being "religious" or whatever else they want to call it.

Let's agree on a bare minumum of how we will define this experience. I suggest: "A mental event in which a person feels themself to have an insight into the nature of self and reality. This insight is ineffable, and accompanied by postive feelings. The person feels that the self is an illusion, and that all is one. Theres is also a feeling of timelessness or eternity." This is what I mean when I use the term "mystical experience" or "enlightenment experience."

Unless they first rule out all other more rational interpretations then their interpretation is irrational.

If you ever have this experience you are free to come up with whatever interpretations you want. I am merely pointing out that this experience happens, and is remarakably simlar across times and cultures. It is the basis of all religion - whether that religion be Buddhsim (atheistic) or Christianity (theistic).

No-one disputes that the person underwent an "experience" - but just because they underwent it - why does it make their interpretation correct?

Nor does it make it incorrect. ALso, what is under discussion is why people believe in religion. Some people bleive cause they read some book and arbitrarily decide that that book is infalliblew truth (this is faith). Some people believe because they have these mystical experiences (this is not faith, but what they consider to be direct insights into the nature of reality).

Are they all so versed in brain activity and the effect on the senses that they can dismiss such possibilities?

No-one disputes that these experiences might lead people to believe in any number of things - but it doesn't make their belief any more or less rational.

I have repeatedly said that no one expects you to simply believe in religion because people have these experiences. I am merely pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

Grover, what's your opinion on alien-abductees - people who claim to have undergone the direct experience of being abducted (and often probed) by aliens. Many describe the same experience. And it leads these people to their belief that not only does sentient life exist outside our planet but that it visits us and abducts us. What is your opinion?
Are we to accept that their interpretation of these experiences are accurate? Are rational? Are to be believed.

Let me put it to you this way - if you got abducted what would your opinion be?

 

[Sarkus]

Let's agree on a bare minumum of how we will define this experience. I suggest: "A mental event in which a person feels themself to have an insight into the nature of self and reality. This insight is ineffable, and accompanied by postive feelings. The person feels that the self is an illusion, and that all is one. Theres is also a feeling of timelessness or eternity." This is what I mean when I use the term "mystical experience" or "enlightenment experience."

Then the issue is why they interpret these experiences as "religious" / "mystical" when there is most likely a (more) rational explanation that the person has probably not explored or that is beyond current understanding (which in itself is NOT cause for jumping on the irrational).

I am merely pointing out that this experience happens, and is remarakably simlar across times and cultures.

I do not disagree with the claim that these experiences happen - only with the (ir)rationality of the interpretation.

Nor does it make it incorrect. ALso, what is under discussion is why people believe in religion. Some people bleive cause they read some book and arbitrarily decide that that book is infalliblew truth (this is faith).

Agreed.

Some people believe because they have these mystical experiences (this is not faith, but what they consider to be direct insights into the nature of reality).

This IS faith - faith in the truth of their irrational interpretation of their experience.

I have repeatedly said that no one expects you to simply believe in religion because people have these experiences. I am merely pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

Yes it is - it's just a matter of where that faith is applied: be it to a book from ages past or be it to the interpretation of an "experience". It is all faith.

Let me put it to you this way - if you got abducted what would your opinion be?

I'm asking you. Please do have the decency to answer and not reply with a question. To do so is discourteous, which I know was not your intention. So please, answer the question and then I shall answer yours.

 

[s0meguy]

Those things you are talking about are caused by humans.

And who designed humans?

 

[shichimenshyo]

humans were not designed, no one sat down with a pad and paper and drew up plans. its not who designed us its biological changes and developments that led to us being what we are.

 

[grover]

Then the issue is why they interpret these experiences as "religious" / "mystical"

Because by definition thats what they are. If you look at a religion like Buddhism it is plain to see that the experience itself is the foundation of the religion and that the entire purpose of the religin is to have the experience. Although, it's supposed to become ones normal mental state instead of some special experience.

when there is most likely a (more) rational explanation that the person has probably not explored or that is beyond current understanding (which in itself is NOT cause for jumping on the irrational).

Like I said, when you have the experience you are free to interpret it however you want. Let's say you do have this experince - wouldn't you start to get a little frustrated though listening to people that hven't had it telling you "what really happened"?

I do not disagree with the claim that these experiences happen - only with the (ir)rationality of the interpretation.

Why are you claiming their "interpretation" of the experience is irrational? Why are you making an assumption that there is any intepretation at all? How do you know they are not just reporting how it was?

This IS faith - faith in the truth of their irrational interpretation of their experience.

No it isn't. First of all you are making an assumption htat some kind of interpretation is taking place. Secondly, you are making an assumption that they are irrational. Are you honeslty saying there is no differnece between a Christian that believes the Bible is the literal word of God and mystical experience? Here's a Buddha quote: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha apparently believed there is a way to verify for oneself whether or not teachings are true. Can you not see the difference between this and believing that Jesus was born of a virgin? Come on.

I'm asking you. Please do have the decency to answer and not reply with a question. To do so is discourteous, which I know was not your intention. So please, answer the question and then I shall answer yours.

Okay, I believe its a possibility and I believe that they believe it. I also have not experienced it for myself so do not know. I did read a little excerpt from some journalist that attended an abductee convention. He went with a sceptical attitude and he did say that after listening to story after story, which were all remarkably similar, from people that seemed perfectly sane and had nothing to gain from making the stories up his conclusion was "if what they'e saying isn't going on, then what is going on?"

 

[(Q)]

No, that's just your interpretation. Seeing as you haven't had the experience your interpretation doesn't mean that much. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Is it because you theists are "special?" Seeing as I've not had the "experience" makes me less of a person than you high and mighty theists?

That's a mighty big shovel you're toting.

Stop being dense. No one is asking you to take anyones word for anything. I am pointing out that some people have these enlightenment experiences. It is the experiences which lead them to their beliefs. Not taking anyone else's word for it. Not fatih. Your argument at this point boils down to you saying: "their interpretation of their direct, ineffable experience is wrong and my interpretation is correct even though I have not had the experience." Your stance is ludicrous.

So again, these very "special" people who have those "enlightening experiences" know for a fact the experiences are of a divine nature?

Look pal, like I said before, every time I hear stories from theists about their experiences, I have to laugh. They can no more distinguish the experience from any other hallucination. It's complete bunk.

You appear to be entirely ignorant as to this aspect of religion. You should probably educate yourself on it a little bit before making your arrogant assertions based upon the superficial knowledge you do have.

There's nothing to read other than the myths and superstitions of scriptures. What would you suggest?

 

[(Q)]

And you couldn´t recognize a Jesus, a Mohammed, or a Buddha even if he would be standing in front of you. What a loss.

WOW! How many gods do YOU believe in, anyways?

Have they all stood in front of you?

Next time they do, send them over my way. I've got some serious ass-kicking to do.

 

[SnakeLord]

And you couldn´t recognize a Jesus, a Mohammed, or a Buddha even if he would be standing in front of you. What a loss

I generally do recognise jesus's, mohammeds, buddhas and david koresh's when I see them. They're usually locked up.

 

[grover]

Is it because you theists are "special?" Seeing as I've not had the "experience" makes me less of a person than you high and mighty theists?

I didn't say that. If you had read that link I posted you would see that many regular people claim to have them.

So again, these very "special" people who have those "enlightening experiences" know for a fact the experiences are of a divine nature?

Well by definition it can't be a fact. And I don't know how you mean divine. But, yes anyone that has it feels like they're seeing things as they truly are. Remember, I don't expect you to believe it per se, because you are a hairless monkey, and hairless monkeys genrally think they are the top of the food chain and know everyhting there is to know. I'm just pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

Look pal, like I said before, every time I hear stories from theists about their experiences, I have to laugh. They can no more distinguish the experience from any other hallucination. It's complete bunk.

Yes, you already stated your opinion. If a normal person has a psychotic episode and recovers they recognize the psychotic state as delusional and they had poor perception of reality. If a normal person has a mystic experience afterwards they will report that it was a more realistic perception of reality. People that have had psychotic states report worse well-being whereas people that have had mystic experiences report greater well-being. Lastly, there is a remarkable degree of similarity to this experience across cultures which is not found in psychotic states.

There's nothing to read other than the myths and superstitions of scriptures.

Then you're plain and simply ignorant.

Is it because you theists are "special?" Seeing as I've not had the "experience" makes me less of a person than you high and mighty theists?

I didn't say that. If you had read that link I posted you would see that many regular people claim to have them.

So again, these very "special" people who have those "enlightening experiences" know for a fact the experiences are of a divine nature?

Well by definition it can't be a fact. And I don't know how you mean divine. But, yes anyone that has it feels like they're seeing things as they truly are. Remember, I don't expect you to believe it per se, because you are a hairless monkey, and hairless monkeys genrally think they are the top of the food chain and know everyhting there is to know. I'm just pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

Look pal, like I said before, every time I hear stories from theists about their experiences, I have to laugh. They can no more distinguish the experience from any other hallucination. It's complete bunk.

Yes, you already stated your opinion. If a normal person has a psychotic episode and recovers they recognize the psychotic state as delusional and they had poor perception of reality. If a normal person has a mystic experience afterwards they will report that it was a more realistic perception of reality. People that have had psychotic states report worse well-being whereas people that have had mystic experiences report greater well-being. Lastly, there is a remarkable degree of similarity to this experience across cultures which is not found in psychotic states.

There's nothing to read other than the myths and superstitions of scriptures.

Then you're plain and simply ignorant.

What would you suggest?

-The Varieties of Religous Experience by William James. Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. Any good introduction to Buddhism. I haven't read it but The End of Faith by Sam Harris looks like it might be good - it's an attack on how stupid faith is but at the end he explains why meditation is a legitimate mode of inquiry. Choosing Reality or Contemplative Science by B. Alan Wallace.

.

 

[KennyJC]

Grover: "I'm just pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

What religion is fact based? Is it a fact that Buddhism makes you experience life better than an atheist? Far from it.

The confidence you state that people find proof of imaginary gods inside their head is laugh out loud funny. Skeptics experience every bit as much consciousness and emotions inside their head, but the difference is they are not so quick to interpret these subjective experiences as supernatural. Theists/new age hippies are, shall we say, more liberal with taking a bullshit line on things. The fact that theists have a bullshit line on things prior to these 'experiences' (that atheists apparently never have) certainly doesn't lend anymore weight to the fact that their bullshit beliefs are any less far fetched.

Have a read at the first couple of paragraphs of the God Delusion. Dawkins compares his 'quasi-mystical' experience with that of a priest he knew.

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion#firstChapter

Just give me a fucking break on this 'you have to have experienced it' bullshit.

 

[grover]

Grover: "I'm just pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

What religion is fact based? Is it a fact that Buddhism makes you experience life better than an atheist? Far from it.

Kenny, you don't know anything about buddhism.

The confidence you state that people find proof of imaginary gods inside their head is laugh out loud funny.

Total misrepresentation of my position.

Skeptics experience every bit as much consciousness and emotions inside their head, but the difference is they are not so quick to interpret these subjective experiences as supernatural.



Theists/new age hippies are, shall we say, more liberal with taking a bullshit line on things.

Just your opinion.

The fact that theists have a bullshit line on things prior to these 'experiences' (that atheists apparently never have) certainly doesn't lend anymore weight to the fact that their bullshit beliefs are any less far fetched.

What beleiefs are you talking about here?

Have a read at the first couple of paragraphs of the God Delusion. Dawkins compares his 'quasi-mystical' experience with that of a priest he knew.

http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion#firstChapter

Kenny, I did read it. Dawkins writes: "All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!" This is exactly why many say that Dawkins is really just a fundamentalist of a new religion. Everything Dawkins says is perfectly in line with Buddhism/Mystical religion (which is part of the reason he goes on to define God so narrowly and say that Einstein wasn't really talking about God when EInstein was taliking about God). All Dawkins really has is an interpretation and like the fundamentalist he is he loudly proclaims "my interpretation is correct." All it really boils down to is Dawkins has a personal distaste for the word God and gets uncomfortable when anyone (including Einstein) uses the word to mean anything other than Anthropomorphic superman in the Sky despite. What he is really trying to do is rewrite the history of theology, because the word has not strictly been used as narrowly as he is trying to define it.

Just give me a fucking break on this 'you have to have experienced it' bullshit.

Kenny, all I am doing is reporting the facts. The fact is that this enlightenment/mystical experience does exist and it is remarkably similar across cultures. When Christian mystics describe God their descriptions are the same as Buddhist descriptions of Buddha-nature (to confuse you Buddhism is atheistic). Now, how to explain this apparent contradiction? Simple. God is just a word. The meaning of this word varies depends upon who is using it. So, both Einstein and Jerry Falwell can use the word God and mean very different things by it. The point is that when a Christian Mystic is using the word they are using it in a way similar to how Einstein used it - and the way that Dawkins attempted to say it shouldn't be used (basically for no other reason than he just doesn't like it). The Christian mystic claims to have known God directly - this isn't to say that you as a hairless monkey have to believe them - it's only to report what they claim. There is a world of difference between their claims and Fundamentalist's faith-based claims.

All that Chapter really boils down to is that Dawkins doesn't like the word "God." Fine, get rid of it, it's just a word. But, just bear in mind the use of the word God throughout history has been used in more ways than the narrow definition Dawkins tries to give it - he can't just rewrite history.

Also, to be clear, Dawkins does not say he had a full-blown authentic mystical experience - he uses the phrase "quasi-mystical." Dawkins doesn't seem to have a problem with mystical experience - in fact he seems to validate it by stating that scientists and rationalists often have a "quasi-mystical response to nature." He then goes on to say that there is "nothing supernatural" about this which he can only do this by attempting to limit the way the word "God" has historically been used. At the end he says "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism." Again, he seems to affirm pantheism by comparing it to atheism - he just doesn't like the word God(which he has innaccurately stated only ever has a certain strict meaning).

 

[KennyJC]

Kenny, you don't know anything about buddhism.

I asked you if being a buddhist gives you a greater experience of life than an atheist.

Total misrepresentation of my position.

Your posts are vague enough to include all faiths and beliefs (mostly of a delusional nature) are validated purely by the power of thought.

What beleiefs are you talking about here?

The most common one; Experiencing evidence of afterlife, an intelligent creator, and other meaningless assertions.

Kenny, I did read it. Dawkins writes: "All Sagan's books touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder that religion monopolized in past centuries. My own books have the same aspiration. Consequently I hear myself often described as a deeply religious man. An American student wrote to me that she had asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is religion!" This is exactly why many say that Dawkins is really just a fundamentalist of a new religion. Everything Dawkins says is perfectly in line with Buddhism/Mystical religion (which is part of the reason he goes on to define God so narrowly and say that Einstein wasn't really talking about God when EInstein was taliking about God). All Dawkins really has is an interpretation and like the fundamentalist he is he loudly proclaims "my interpretation is correct." All it really boils down to is Dawkins has a personal distaste for the word God and gets uncomfortable when anyone (including Einstein) uses the word to mean anything other than Anthropomorphic superman in the Sky despite. What he is really trying to do is rewrite the history of theology, because the word has not strictly been used as narrowly as he is trying to define it.

Then you will have to dramatically alter the tone and language of your posts (of a supernatural nature), because your semantics could therefor describe me (along with Dawkins, Sagan & co) as a mystic. Except I, and I assume Dawkins would not care to describe ourselves as mystics or claim that such awe inspiring moments of clarity are immaterial/supernatural in anyway.

Dawkins has actually tried meditation and found that it did nothing for him. At least nothing supernatural. I expect me and him could try it till exhaustion and find nothing supernatural in it... but yet... people like you do? Your fondness for all things supernatural probably play a big role in that.

Kenny, all I am doing is reporting the facts. The fact is that this enlightenment/mystical experience does exist and it is remarkably similar across cultures.

No, you are continually jumping to the side of the supernatural and defending beliefs in god, reincarnation, alternative medicine based on unproven metaphysical claims, immaterial consciousness, outer body experiences... and that's just off the top of my head. How can a rational person give these examples any merit?

When Christian mystics describe God their descriptions are the same as Buddhist descriptions of Buddha-nature (to confuse you Buddhism is atheistic). Now, how to explain this apparent contradiction? Simple. God is just a word. The meaning of this word varies depends upon who is using it. So, both Einstein and Jerry Falwell can use the word God and mean very different things by it. The point is that when a Christian Mystic is using the word they are using it in a way similar to how Einstein used it - and the way that Dawkins attempted to say it shouldn't be used (basically for no other reason than he just doesn't like it). The Christian mystic claims to have known God directly - this isn't to say that you as a hairless monkey have to believe them - it's only to report what they claim. There is a world of difference between their claims and Fundamentalist's faith-based claims.

If a christian 'mystic' claims to know god directly simply because of what Dawkins and I have experienced by having clarity of nature, means nothing other than we have had a moment of clarity regarding our surroundings. Again , I am missing where is the supernatural here?

All that Chapter really boils down to is that Dawkins doesn't like the word "God." Fine, get rid of it, it's just a word. But, just bear in mind the use of the word God throughout history has been used in more ways than the narrow definition Dawkins tries to give it - he can't just rewrite history.

I think his problems with the word god are not just the word, but with the way people like you try to use it with supernatural connotations.

Also, to be clear, Dawkins does not say he had a full-blown authentic mystical experience - he uses the phrase "quasi-mystical."

Of course he never had claimed to have a mystical experience, but his point was that people who shared his experience often turn to the supernatural when he did not. His point was that it is all about interpretation. If people want to interpret it as supernatural then fine, but does it mean anything? No.

Dawkins doesn't seem to have a problem with mystical experience - in fact he seems to validate it by stating that scientists and rationalists often have a "quasi-mystical response to nature."

Yes, note 'quasi' here. I don't think Dawkins would ever endorse full blown mysticism as displayed by people like you. He recognizes that people just take beyond what can be rationally tolerated.

He then goes on to say that there is "nothing supernatural" about this which he can only do this by attempting to limit the way the word "God" has historically been used. At the end he says "Pantheism is just sexed up atheism." Again, he seems to affirm pantheism by comparing it to atheism - he just doesn't like the word God(which he has innaccurately stated only ever has a certain strict meaning).

It's got nothing to do with words, it's all about attitude, and the attitude of a mystic like you is something that all skeptics see as needlessly irrational.

 

[(Q)]

I didn't say that. If you had read that link I posted you would see that many regular people claim to have them.

But, they HAVE to be "special" in that they are apparently seeing things others cannot see. In fact, it is only those who are already fanatical about their religions who allegedly see things.

Well by definition it can't be a fact. And I don't know how you mean divine. But, yes anyone that has it feels like they're seeing things as they truly are. Remember, I don't expect you to believe it per se, because you are a hairless monkey, and hairless monkeys genrally think they are the top of the food chain and know everyhting there is to know. I'm just pointing out that not all religion is faith-based.

Then, lets get into what they are seeing that would lead them to believe in gods? What exactly does it mean that "they're seeing things as they truly are?" What exactly do they see that others cannot? Do they see gods?

Enlighten us.

Yes, you already stated your opinion. If a normal person has a psychotic episode and recovers they recognize the psychotic state as delusional and they had poor perception of reality. If a normal person has a mystic experience afterwards they will report that it was a more realistic perception of reality. People that have had psychotic states report worse well-being whereas people that have had mystic experiences report greater well-being. Lastly, there is a remarkable degree of similarity to this experience across cultures which is not found in psychotic states.

So, when people have "happy" psychotic episodes, this is supposed to evidence that gods exist?

Yes, psychotic episodes are similar across cultures and people.

And, while your at it, please explain what exactly is a "more realistic perception of reality?" Again, do they see gods? Where is the connection here where they conclude beyond a shadow of doubt that gods exist?

Then you're plain and simply ignorant.

That is true, I've never had psychotic episodes. Is that a prerequisite to becoming a theist?

-The Varieties of Religous Experience by William James. Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. Any good introduction to Buddhism. I haven't read it but The End of Faith by Sam Harris looks like it might be good - it's an attack on how stupid faith is but at the end he explains why meditation is a legitimate mode of inquiry. Choosing Reality or Contemplative Science by B. Alan Wallace.

Thanks.

 

[Yorda]

If you don't believe in God, try to use some drugs and you might connect to God for a moment.

 

[Oli]

Or just have hallucinations.

 

[grover]

I asked you if being a buddhist gives you a greater experience of life than an atheist.

ANd its a preposterous question since Buddhism is atheist.

Your posts are vague enough to include all faiths and beliefs (mostly of a delusional nature) are validated purely by the power of thought.

WEll, seeing as I'm trying to make a point about the similarities between religions I'm sure you'll allow me to talk about more than one.

The most common one; Experiencing evidence of afterlife, an intelligent creator, and other meaningless assertions.

Thats jsut it though, they don't have bullshit lines on it prior to the experience. Sceptics and atheistshave these experiences as well and find them meaningful, and convinced that there is more to relaity than they had previously thought.

Then you will have to dramatically alter the tone and language of your posts (of a supernatural nature), because your semantics could therefor describe me (along with Dawkins, Sagan & co) as a mystic.

No, because you have not had a mystic experience. Even if someone reads all the books in the world on mysticism and believes it whole-heartedly they are not a mystic without direct experience.

Except I, and I assume Dawkins would not care to describe ourselves as mystics or claim that such awe inspiring moments of clarity are immaterial/supernatural in anyway.

No he wouldn't because he never had he mystic experience (even though you previoulsy tried to say he did).

Dawkins has actually tried meditation and found that it did nothing for him.

Well, that it's then riight? Meditastion does nothing. Dawkins say so. You believe him. Case closed.

At least nothing supernatural. I expect me and him could try it till exhaustion and find nothing supernatural in it... but yet... people like you do? Your fondness for all things supernatural probably play a big role in that.

No, is that people do. What if you started meditating and it found that it did this or that for you, would you really give a shit what someone else says it does or doesn't do? Now imagine if its someone thats never done it telling you what it does, that'd be kind of irritating right?

No, you are continually jumping to the side of the supernatural and defending beliefs in god, reincarnation, alternative medicine based on unproven metaphysical claims, immaterial consciousness, outer body experiences... and that's just off the top of my head. How can a rational person give these examples any merit?

-With God and NDEs I am merely reporting that rational people sometimes experience these things and don't believe them to be simply hallucinations. I am merely reporting that not all religion is faith-based, there is a whole other aspect of it based on direct experience. No one is expecting you to believe it, but at the same time I think its naive to dismiss it just because you personally haven't expereinced it. For with NDEs - if it is simply what happens becasue the brain is being starved of oxygen, then this is a biological process, and as such it should happen to sceptics and believers equally - how come no sceptic has every had one and said they are total bullshit? Never happens. But I've read plenty of case by people that said they were sceptics, had an NDE and became convinced.
-With reincarnation and acupuncture you're making it sound like there is no scientifc evidence. That's plain and simply not true.
-Immaterial consciousness: There are serious philosophical difficulties with claiming mind is just material. There is no science that shows this (not a drop), and it is hard to conceive how science ever can show this.

If a christian 'mystic' claims to know god directly simply because of what Dawkins and I have experienced by having clarity of nature, means nothing other than we have had a moment of clarity regarding our surroundings. Again , I am missing where is the supernatural here?

Dawkins didn't claim to have a mystical experience.

I think his problems with the word god are not just the word, but with the way people like you try to use it with supernatural connotations.

No, what Dawkins did was try to rewrite the history of Theology and say that God only ever means what a fundamentalist thinks it means.

Of course he never had claimed to have a mystical experience, but his point was that people who shared his experience

But, I am not talking about his experience. Secondly, Dawkins doesn't seem to think that there is anything wrong with feelings of awe in regard to the universe based upon experience.

often turn to the supernatural when he did not. His point was that it is all about interpretation. If people want to interpret it as supernatural then fine, but does it mean anything? No.

But Dawkins did not have a mystic experience.

Yes, note 'quasi' here. I don't think Dawkins would ever endorse full blown mysticism as displayed by people like you. He recognizes that people just take beyond what can be rationally tolerated.

No, his point was that scientists and rationalists share the feelings of awe towards the universe that mystics report. Again, he doesn't seem to be saying that beliefs about the universe based on experience are wrong. Dude, take a close look at this quote from the God Delusion: "'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." He is really saying that science can replace religion with an even bigger, better thing, more subtle, more elegant than conventional religions "little god." Mysticism is the religion that stresses "the magnificence of the universe." Just do a tiny bit of reading into this subject and you will see this is the case. Dawkins specifically says his books aspire to "touch the nerve-endings of transcendent wonder." If "transcendent wonder" isn't religion I don't know what is. It's kind of funny but Dawkins isn't getting rid of religion - he is turning science into religion.