(December 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: ...But do you accept he had an actual experience caused by the Hindu god?

I guess I'd need to talk to him first to understand what exactly he experienced. At the same time, I don't doubt that the content of exceptional states of consciousness passes through many personal and cultural filters (including Christian ones). Is there really much difference between a Marian apparition and a similar experience with some pagan Goddess? Intellectually both seem to fall into the idea of the Divine Feminine, but not having had such an experience, I cannot say. The very people I know who have had profound encounters with the Divine usually do not report the outward appearance of the entity they encounter; but rather, focus almost entirely on the affect said entity produced in them - intense feelings of transcendent unity and being immersed in love, etc.

Yes, there's a difference, lol.  Ask the church.  Ones real and the other either isn't, or...more colorfully, is "demons", lol.

So, cultural appropriation it is.  Unsurprising.

(December 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The very people I know who have had profound encounters with the Divine usually do not report the outward appearance of the entity they encounter; but rather, focus almost entirely on the affect said entity produced in them - intense feelings of transcendent unity and being immersed in love, etc.

(December 7, 2016 at 4:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, cultural appropriation it is.  Unsurprising.

It strikes me as a bit of one and a bit of the other. If I had to guess, I'd say the experiences that I've heard or read about are much like what Chad said-- the person who had this sudden revelation from the divine often doesn't specify which god or spirit spoke to them; sometimes the description only implies the hand of a higher power.

But the God that most of those people wind up serving is almost always a convenient and/or local one or linked to something that was part of the experience (such as having it when in a Hindu temple). For others, it's the start of a longer search (like Cat Stevens, who eventually determined that it was Allah who saved him from drowning in Malibu).

I think the scattered nature of these experiences speaks against the idea that it's the One True God doing it. It could imply that all of those gods exist and that their holy texts are just part of the game they're playing. Or maybe only one of them is real and he's having a tough time keeping all of those pesky demons from roleplaying as Jesus or Gabriel or Moroni or from spiking the incense bowl.

(December 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: ...But do you accept he had an actual experience caused by the Hindu god?

I guess I'd need to talk to him first to understand what exactly he experienced. At the same time, I don't doubt that the content of exceptional states of consciousness passes through many personal and cultural filters (including Christian ones).

So, Christians and Hindus (or other religions) are all experiencing the same 'divine' but through different filters, is that correct? Even the mutually exclusive aspects?

How does that square with your god's commandment to 'not have any gods before me'?

Quote:Is there really much difference between a Marian apparition and a similar experience with some pagan Goddess? Intellectually both seem to fall into the idea of the Divine Feminine, but not having had such an experience, I cannot say.

No, there is no difference. The both seem to fall into the idea of a misinterpretation of a non-normal, but natural brain states. Including Paul's, yours or anyone else who has claimed such an experience.

Quote:The very people I know who have had profound encounters with the Divine usually do not report the outward appearance of the entity they encounter; but rather, focus almost entirely on the affect said entity produced in them - intense feelings of transcendent unity and being immersed in love, etc.

That is similar to my friend's alleged encounter with a Hindu deity.

If you cannot define something, it does not exist.
You cannot define God.
Therefore God does not exist.

Pretty simple really.  Something that is undefinable is non-existant.  Much like you can't define a square circle because a square circle cannot exist, you cannot define god because god does not exist.

There.  Just disproved god using your logic.  Where do I collect my nobel peace prize?

(December 7, 2016 at 6:12 pm)Cecelia Wrote: If you cannot define something, it does not exist.
You cannot define God.
Therefore God does not exist.

Pretty simple really.  Something that is undefinable is non-existant.  Much like you can't define a square circle because a square circle cannot exist, you cannot define god because god does not exist.

There.  Just disproved god using your logic.  Where do I collect my nobel peace prize?

Sorry, but I will have to disagree with you here.

If something can not be defined, then it can not be PROVED to exist.

Black holes could not be defined for a long time. They still can't be completely defined. Does not mean that some phenomena that equates to black holes does not exist.

(December 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 10:47 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Your post verges on deceptive editing since each phrase refers to completely different issues.

Be that as it may, the key distinction is that miracles affect the external environment. Theophany falls into the same category as dreams, visions, epiphanies, and even peak experiences, all of which are subjective internal experiences.

No, it doesn't.  I quoted the part where you accused atheists of playing with semantics followed by the part I perceived as you playing with semantics.  I was not editing or censoring you, merely pointing out the parts to which I was responding.  You have to admit, there is a bit of irony there.

Wooters has three modes, 1) bullshit as much as possible, 2) play with semantics until he's convinced himself he's won and finally 3) run away with tail tucked between his legs when he's been disabused of his notions.

(December 7, 2016 at 8:32 pm)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Asmodee Wrote: No, it doesn't.  I quoted the part where you accused atheists of playing with semantics followed by the part I perceived as you playing with semantics.  I was not editing or censoring you, merely pointing out the parts to which I was responding.  You have to admit, there is a bit of irony there.

Wooters has three modes, 1) bullshit as much as possible, 2) play with semantics until he's convinced himself he's won and finally 3) run away with tail tucked between his legs when he's been disabused of his notions.

It is The Christian Way ©. Default to faith doesn't work in the real world, except by chance. It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

(December 7, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 7, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Asmodee Wrote: No, it doesn't.  I quoted the part where you accused atheists of playing with semantics followed by the part I perceived as you playing with semantics.  I was not editing or censoring you, merely pointing out the parts to which I was responding.  You have to admit, there is a bit of irony there.

That's why I said it was on the verge. There is no irony if I did not engage in deceptive wordplay. With respect to the definition of atheism, I have conceded that "simple disbelief" seems to have become a contemporary usage; however, I feel the strong insistence, that the definition be strictly limited to exclude equally valid senses and specifically those with negative connotations, betrays a censorious intent by some vocal atheists to avoid owning up to their obvious incredulity.

In the same way, the broadest sense of the word 'miracle' as any kind of divine intervention could, I suppose could include an uncanny dream. To my mind, that expansive sense didn't apply in the context of the thread. Instead, the discussion revolved around apparent violations of the natural order. I have already explained my position such inexplicable events and the criteria for excepting them as actual divine interventions.

No such criteria would apply to an epiphany, like Paul's encounter with the risen Christ. One defining feature of an epiphany is the certainty it engenders in the person who had the experience. People who have them do not question whether or not they had a divine encounter; they know with absolute certainty that they have. The OP asks if I, or any other believer, upon going back in time and observing purported miraculous events would change our minds about the veracity of those events. The question of the OP only applies to events open to dispute. With respect to an epiphany, there would not even the possibility of doubt.

The real question is whether I could be justified in accepting the veracity of another's epiphany. That could only ever be a personal judgment about the character of the person making the claim and witnessing the affect on their life. To my mind that entails a whole 'nother set of criteria and not really worth either the believer or the skeptic's time to debate. The gulf is too great.

I think you need to ask for a dictionary for Christmas.  First, "deception" is intentional.  I cannot "verge on deception" if I made no attempt to "deceive" in any way.  Omitting text not in the least bit relevant to the reply I am making is not "deceptive".  There was no context omitted as my reply was concerning only those two lines.  Had I quoted the rest it would have added confusion as I was addressing only those two lines.  And your post was still right there, unchanged.  There was no deception.  There was no attempt at deception.  It did not "verge on deception".

Next, irony has nothing to do with deception.  You do not have to actively engage in deception to be ironic.  It's like rain on your wedding day.  It's the free ride when you've already paid.  There's an entire damned song about it and not one deception listed.

Next, the definition of "atheist" as "simple disbelief" is accurate, and here is why.  When you group people together based on a label that label has to describe THE ENTIRE GROUP.  You cannot assign meaning to that label based on what a few, some, half or even most of them are like because IT MUST DESCRIBE ALL of them.  That is how labels work.  I cannot include in the definition of "Christian" the term "snake handler" because only a few Christians are snake handlers.  I cannot include "less intelligent" because that is a generalization and, again, is not true of all Christians.  That is why the definition of atheist is "simple disbelief".  As atheists our beliefs and opinions vary greatly.  While one may say, "I don't believe there are any gods, but I'm not sure" another may say, "There are no gods".  They are both atheists and the ONE thing they have in common, the thing that makes them "atheist", is that they "do not believe".  Any more specific than that and you get into a subset of atheists, such as soft atheist, hard atheist, agnostic atheist, militant atheist, new atheist, etc.

I can understand that next part, but it doesn't make the statement not ironic.  I wasn't saying it was deceptive, I wasn't saying it was in any way wrong, just that it was ironic.

For the last to paragraphs...ok, I guess?  They don't really seem to require a response from me.

Whatever is rational utilizes either the senses, the intellect or both.

--I love this, because in my monkey brain I'm feeling all of these things.......but as a daddy I have to know rationality beyond our senses.

Our rational sux, but it's THIS irrationality that drives my monkey urge to do right by my son. No fucking God to corrupt my purity.

(Atheist that vows the right things by my son and information theory)

---

Atheists have primal feelings that scientists haven't divulged on yet....