Atheism

[Amarok]

I wasn't asking anything at all. I was pointing out Mathilda's mis-step as she relies on her underlying scientism/logical positivism philosophy sprinkled with a healthy dose of circular reasoning.

No. You were deflecting from the original point that people's religious experiences mirror the culture that they are immersed in and that rather than rely on a single brain that interprets reality, it's better to rely on hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way.

For any of this to be valid, you would have to show that science has disproved/called into question religious experiences. It has not come even close, not a little, at all. You are repeating a theory that you backed into: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. This is question begging.

And indeed science is that way .There simply is no serious alternative.And The accusation that Mat is relying on circular reasoning is absurd .But theists love to attack " scientist ism "