Cris
Cris
The difference of course between Gates, Jobs etc, and good ol Mohammed is that they aren’t claiming personal and very direct communication with a god
I could consider this relevant if I drew a certain line and said, "It's okay to be delusional and deceptive to a certain degree, but not beyond that." And making $100 billion dollars, as Gates has, building infrastructure is a fine thing, but should we not question the basis of the vision of a delusional man with that much influence?
Jobs I worry less about because he's not poised to take over the world with his technology.
Bush ... okay, so there's one we can leave aside.
Yet I wonder what they would have said in the light of the new knowledge we have now acquired through modern science.
I wonder the same about Jesus and Mohammed. Religious revelation is always attuned to its period.
I think you have oversimplified and lost the message, but there are two parts though – see later
I'm also accounting for your neurotheology topic which, despite being interesting, you've littered with accretions and pride. Consider the part you didn't address:
However, by its very definition, neurotheology dares to assert concerning the highest of human irrationalities; the counterpoint to the neurotheological is simply the nature of God, a sincerely irrational proposition.
Sure but I don’t think the issue of potential unknown external influences are of any concern here.
That's the inquisitive scientifically objective mind at work.
No I disagree, the experience as measured appears to be entirely internal.
Yes, and what is apparent is always the whole of reality? Should I give you the credit of not believing that things don't exist until we see them? (e.g. bacteria, atoms, &c.)
Because that was part of what you said you disagree with, and that would be deviant for you.
The first is the experience itself which is the activation of that specific part of the brain that has now been identified, i.e. there is no external influence; it is simple brain function.
Tell me,
Cris, is "rational" an accident of circumstance that must occur in nature from time to time, or is it something more substantive?
What is the basis of rational inquiry, if not to pursue what we do not see? Again, I come back to bacteria. Or perhaps a little formula describing the gravitational interaction between bodies in the Universe?
Now you could argue that a god could be another type of trigger but that is a rather foolish idea since it is the experience itself that is being claimed as a godlike experience.
True, it
is indeed foolish to expect that what we see right now is not all there is to see.
The evidence shows that to have a godlike or spiritual experience there is no need for anything godlike or spiritual to exist.
And the evidence shows that you need not have sexual activity to achieve an orgasm.
Unless of course one wants to argue that drug addicts are in constant contact with God.
Where does this come from,
Cris? It seems just a little narrow minded for the scope of vision you seem to want us to respect.
I see it as just another nail in the coffin of major religions.
Well and fine. In the meantime, try learning the difference between the idea of God itself and the religions people build around it.
Your lack of understanding sticks out like a sore thumb right now,
Cris. You're letting the religious folks set too many of the terms of your inquiry.
Woo-hoo. You've found some comfort against strange religion. Don't fool yourself into believing you've found any conclusive reality, though.
Of course, I see now why atheists like to cling to the idea of God being religion. You might be godless, but you're clinging to your faith as desperately as many of those you criticize.
I'd just like to see this kind of information do some good. And your religious campaign against religion is one of those occasions when such information is rendered useless by your vicious and sweeping rhetoric.
- Person A perceives Phemomenon 1
- Person A describes Phenomenon 1 to Person B
- Person C shows the errors in Person A's perception and therefore description of Phenomenon 1
- Should we, then, conclude that Phenomenon 1 never took place at all?
When you stop letting Abramic monotheists write your dictionary,
Cris, you'll find that the neurotheological aspects will be helpful to many religious thinkers.
The Sufis and the Buddhists, for instance, would probably congratulate people on this "objective discovery". And they probably wouldn't bother asking what people will do with it, since history so clearly describes that they'll exploit the idea and get it wrong. But there are many who have known that the God experience must occur in the mind at least in part; just as there are many who knew that sticks and stones can break your bones and words really
do hurt. Of course, how different does the idea of verbal and psychological abuse become once we have objective evidence showing the legitimacy of the resulting distress?
It's too bad atheism itself is of such a narrow mind. You see, if you combine your neurotheological issues with some issues you presently refuse to deal with--e.g. "atheism is just a small assertion" vs. "what else disappears when one converts away from God"--you might be able to build yourself a working platform toward real progress. In the meantime, your refusal to deal with certain issues leaves a six-mile gap to sail the "atheism equals unmitigated hedonism and sin" fleet through.
And at that point, it's a question of what you really want, the illusion of feeling superior, or the opportunity to put your ideas to some positive use in society.
And though it's your decision, I will campaign insofar as to say that I hope you someday come to realize the merits of the latter.
