Atheism

[Crossless2.0]

Aside from your claim that Christians 'really' encounter the Holy Spirit (as opposed to interpreting their experiences through a NT lens), I don't see where you provided Simon Moon's friend any reason to doubt his experience of Krishna or whatever. "You don't need to meditate or perform any particular discipline (or concern yourself with strict observance of the Law, in Paul's view)" is a good marketing gimmick, but it makes for a lousy measure if we're concerned about the truth or falsehood of one's interpretation of experience.

The doubt of Simon's friend should arise from the overall worldview. 

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

In ALL cases, religion has to be a cumulative case.

1. Hindu "theology" strikes me as having pretty much the same internal consistency as Parmenides, with some added mythical bells and whistles.

2. I'm sure there are plenty of scientifically literate Hindus who can square the mythical circle with the best of the Abrahamists.

3. I wouldn't know.

4. I can say without hesitation that, no, the alleged facts of Krishna's life are not believable. You, on the other hand, are on much shakier ground on that point.

What do you mean, "In ALL cases, religion has to be a cumulative case"? When one seeks to provide justification for the beliefs after their adoption, or prior to adopting those beliefs? I ask because I've never met one believer who came to their faith by way of a cumulative inferential case. Not one. But I've encountered plenty of apologists who concoct their philosophical cases after already having made an emotional commitment that cries out for a rationale.