Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 6, 2020 at 1:11 pm
You can refute any proposition that has ever been posited but changing convincing the person that holds the position is no easy feat and most likely you won't do it in one sitting.
Largely you start a process and at some other time the person might change their mind.
My advice would be to stay calm, have your conversations with people and try to keep them enjoyable. Stop when you aren't having fun anymore and go do something else.
Posts: 28409
Threads: 524
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
90
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 6, 2020 at 1:18 pm
Consciousness will survive death is just silly. It's not worth even trying to refute.
My retort to them would be "this is your assertion, you need to provide concrete evidence".
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 3637
Threads: 20
Joined: July 20, 2011
Reputation:
47
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 7, 2020 at 2:55 pm
(This post was last modified: October 7, 2020 at 2:56 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm)Osopatata Wrote: This is a tactic that some have used when discussing religion with me: They say they have had a meditative experience and realized all is one, or otherwise postulate that all is one for some other reason. That oneness for no logical reason is extrapolated to be a magical, mystical thing that validates religious views.
It becomes a stone wall when one may try to question the validity of a religious view, but it is explained by something beyond normal understanding like "all is one." So the conversation is blocked off completely unless one can refute this position and demonstrate that it is utterly untenable, and so the opponent must then defend their religious views in terms that do not go into realms of illogical postulations.
Seems to me there are some seriously fatal flaws in the logic of such a position as "all is one". However I am far from a logician. Could anyone offer some refutations that invalidate such a view?
There is no need to refute an unsupported claim. It seems like, they aren't offering any evidence that their claim that, 'all is one' based on their entirely, personal experience, is actually true.
Without evidence, or even valid and sound logic, to support their claim, you have nothing to refute.
Hitchen's razor - What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
Listen, I've been meditating for decades, several times a week. I have had the exact experience of feeling all is one. But here's the thing, I've also had the experience, just as strongly, that I am floating alone in the universe. Strong experiences do not equal truth.
Why should my (or your friend's) experiences while experiencing an altered, non-normal, but completely natural mental state, be accepted as more reliable, than when our normal logical and analytical minds are working at their maximum?
Listen, I've taken large doses of hallucinogenic mushrooms and smoked DMT. Those substances create experiences of oneness that dwarf the ones cause by meditation. Should I put any credence in those experiences?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Posts: 2692
Threads: 11
Joined: May 13, 2013
Reputation:
17
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 7, 2020 at 6:11 pm
I've never done shrooms or DMT, but I have practiced mindfulness since 2008.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of psychobabble baggage in mindfulness - it's actually simple and easy to follow - and its "rewards" is a more centered mind and being "in the moment". I'm making a shit job explaining it; there are good resources around on the Internet that go in-depth on it by mental health clinics.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard P. Feynman
Posts: 4503
Threads: 13
Joined: September 27, 2018
Reputation:
17
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 8, 2020 at 8:17 am
When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world.
-- John Muir
Posts: 67287
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 8, 2020 at 9:06 am
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2020 at 9:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
That is an expression of connectedness, not one-ness. The notion that all is one is flatly incogent on it's face. A thing cannot be itself and not itself - identity. If all is one, then john and not john are one.
As far as connectedness, the sense of the numinous which informs us so deeply in our religious convictions, that's not actually a religious argument. We do feel that way, it would be an argument (and a poor argument) that....because we feel this way, we know that our superstitious convictions are true. Truth isn't determined by feeling any particular way.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
October 28, 2020 at 6:52 pm
"...according to the unanimous testimony of the great Christian mystics, even on this highest level of the mystical experience, in the "mystical union," the human soul retains its substantial independence: what takes place is not a union of human and Divine substances or natures, but a union of wills or a union of love. In this state the bodily senses re-enter into their rightful natural functions, and the union thus continues amidst the ordinary tasks and activities of daily life. In this highest mystical state there occurs finally also the fusion of understanding and love, or intellect and will, which are one in God." - Kurt F. Reinhardt, Stanford University, from his introduction to St. John of the Cross' The Dark Night of the Soul
<insert profound quote here>
Posts: 125
Threads: 0
Joined: November 13, 2019
Reputation:
0
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
December 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm
(October 5, 2020 at 6:07 pm)Osopatata Wrote: This is a tactic that some have used when discussing religion with me: They say they have had a meditative experience and realized all is one, or otherwise postulate that all is one for some other reason. That oneness for no logical reason is extrapolated to be a magical, mystical thing that validates religious views.
It becomes a stone wall when one may try to question the validity of a religious view, but it is explained by something beyond normal understanding like "all is one." So the conversation is blocked off completely unless one can refute this position and demonstrate that it is utterly untenable, and so the opponent must then defend their religious views in terms that do not go into realms of illogical postulations.
Seems to me there are some seriously fatal flaws in the logic of such a position as "all is one". However I am far from a logician. Could anyone offer some refutations that invalidate such a view?
An agnostic is a God believing atheist. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the statement. I believe in God, everything else is practically the same, i even got atheists that called God a s***head, to pray for me. They cursed and swore at God but said "Joshua i prayed for you last night"
I do not need to defend anything, its all clockwork and interpretation is incredibly easy to see and understand. It all depends on what we choose to look out for, and how hardened our hearts are, and how the persons mind thinks and understands. I always say the land of Israel is there today with all the sites.
Posts: 2755
Threads: 8
Joined: November 28, 2014
Reputation:
22
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
December 21, 2020 at 3:50 pm
(This post was last modified: December 21, 2020 at 3:59 pm by Peebothuhlu.)
(December 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm)Prycejosh1987 Wrote: An agnostic is a God believing atheist. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the statement. I believe in God, everything else is practically the same, i even got atheists that called God a s***head, to pray for me. They cursed and swore at God but said "Joshua i prayed for you last night"
I do not need to defend anything, its all clockwork and interpretation is incredibly easy to see and understand. It all depends on what we choose to look out for, and how hardened our hearts are, and how the persons mind thinks and understands. I always say the land of Israel is there today with all the sites.
Hello Prycejosh1987! 
So, what would you reply to some one who identified as a 'Non-theist'?
As in I see nothing to indicate anything in or about the world/reality to indicate anything supernatural.
Cheers.
Not at work.
Posts: 1664
Threads: 5
Joined: September 26, 2018
Reputation:
12
RE: How may one refute the religious stonewall argument "all is one"?
December 21, 2020 at 4:05 pm
(December 21, 2020 at 3:33 pm)Prycejosh1987 Wrote: An agnostic is a God believing atheist. The difference between an agnostic and an atheist is the statement. I believe in God, everything else is practically the same, i even got atheists that called God a s***head, to pray for me. They cursed and swore at God but said "Joshua i prayed for you last night"
I do not need to defend anything, its all clockwork and interpretation is incredibly easy to see and understand. It all depends on what we choose to look out for, and how hardened our hearts are, and how the persons mind thinks and understands. I always say the land of Israel is there today with all the sites.
That is so contradictory, it isn't even wrong.
Theist - believes in one or more gods
Atheist - does not believe in any gods
Agnostic - claims that (s)he or mankind as a whole does NOT have knowledge (about the existence or non-existence of gods)
Gnostic - claims that (s)he or mankind as a whole does have knowledge (about the existence or non-existence of gods)
One is a statement of belief, the other is a statement about personal or collective knowledge.
I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any gods. I also don't think mankind has the capability of knowing anything about the only possible type of god - a deistic god. Now, as for the Christian God, I am a gnostic atheist. I believe we have ample evidence that such an entity does not exist.
|
