Atheism

[SteveII]

Go ahead, summarize her argument about why Christian experiences are not real.

No one is maintaining that the experiences aren't real. They're real experiences. It's their nature that we're disputing. Because religious experiences differ depending on culture, different people interpret similar experiences differently, and the experiences can be simulated with drugs and/or electronics, religious experiences fit the profile of a neuro-cultural phenomenon. Evidence that there is more going on would be advisable before concluding that there's more going on. That is, the null hypothesis has not been defeated.

This is the part I am challenging. If you take the step of saying that the person's experiences are not a result of the supernatural, that is a simple assertion. Any attempt to justify that assertion becomes question begging. Your attempt to introduce a null hypothesis is simply an attempt to sneak in the assertion; since the only way to know of a person's inner experience is to ask them, the concept does not apply. 

And if religious experiences are an argument for Christianity being true, they are equally an argument for Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and Jainism being true. That is incoherent.

For this argument to work, you have to show that the religious experiences are the same (or largely the same).  A few points:

1. Picture the world of the first/second/third centuries. Christianity was spreading across the Roman empire to India. There were no 'cultural' Christians. The converts were not atheist. They had their religion and religious experiences yet they chose Christianity. Even today, we have millions per year changing religions. We can infer from this that religious experiences are not all created equal.
2. Concepts of those experience are objectively different:
     a. My understanding is that Muslims are not big on inner ongoing religious experiences. They believe in an authoritative God that is too holy and distant to developing a personal relationship that is a constant resource helping you navigate your daily life. 
     b. Hindus pursue a feeling of a divine presence as a result of meditation. 
     c. Buddhists pursue states of being and enlightenment through various practices. Not sure what is considered divine or not. 
     d. Christians believe that God (Holy Spirit) is actually present with you and is a catalyst for such things as the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. There is an actual causal connection between God and us on a daily basis--not a search for something that can be achieved with enough effort. 
3. A base level of religious experiences throughout history is evidence that the human mind recognizes the supernatural. Methods of pursuit can be different, incomplete, and wrong. 
4. All religions have some version of religious experience. All religions are exclusive. One or none are correct. Assuming they are all incorrect because they all cannot be right is a composition fallacy.

Therefore a conclusion that religious experience is not evidence for Christianity is an assertion. Is may not be proof, but it is evidence for a cumulative case.

---

2. What do you think that "hundreds of thousands of brains spread across different cultures with a method to reliably investigate reality in an impartial way" has indicated? It seems you are just asserting some observation that disproves people's religious experiences. How is that NOT: religious experiences are not true, therefore their must be a scientific reason for them, therefore there is a scientific reason for them. If you are not going to put up some recognized proof, you are asserting your conclusion, you are question begging.

It's so obvious what you are doing. When faced with something you can't refute, you respond with word salad. Like when I pointed out that the Bible was both the claim and the evidence you responded with word salad, that when finally parsed, said that the Bible was indeed both the claim and the evidence.

And then you try to derail the thread to avoid what the person is saying. It's a tactic typical of theists who don't like the arguments they are presented with but don't know how to refute them.

FACT: The brain interprets sensory information. What you perceive is not reality but your brain's response to reality.
FACT: How the brain interprets sensory information is influenced by previous experience.
FACT: Normal brains can be fooled.
FACT: Some brains can be delusional and not realise it.

The scientific method is successful precisely because it is an objective way to investigate reality that relies on measurements, reproducibility, falsifiability and unambiguous definitions rather than subjective experience.

Yes or no...are the personal experiences of Christians supernaturally caused?

---

@steve, would you be saying then, that the natural and the supernatural are two seperate and distinct categories?  If so, then you and your Christian counterpart in this discussion are in disagreement.  Also, what difference does it make how many centuries were between the OT and the NT?  If passage of time isn’t considered a problem for the legitimacy of NT according to most Christians, why should it be a problem for the OT?  Other than because it’s inconvenient, Ofc.

The natural and supernatural are different. A proposition becomes a category error when the nature of the proposition does not apply to both categories. There a tons of things that can be said of BOTH the natural and supernatural and are not category errors. I will give my opinion if you tell me exactly what proposition you are talking about.

Many atheist blur all the 66 books of the Bible together. Christianity is primarily concerned about the NT. I can't remember where I made the distinction and why. If you want me to comment on something I said, quote it or relate something specific.