Rejection of All that is Holy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

atheism will always be a positive act of rejection of spiritual experiences as divine.

I'm good with that.

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

Atheism… It's about disbelief in a single claim, …there's three states; acceptance and rejection, and suspension of judgment. The last is still disagreement in that it maintains that so far sufficient evidence hasn't been given to justify acceptance right now, but it's not rejection in that it allows for additional evidence to be presented that would lead to acceptance.

I’m not disputing your position so much as trying to fully understand the distinctions you make. From many, I hear statements like this, “I disbelieve in god(s) because there is no evidence” and it sounds very much like “I disbelieve in god(s) because I reject what theists present as evidence.” Regardless of who is correct, you and I disagree on the merits of the unmoved mover argument. In this instance, there is no suspended judgment. We have both weighted in; you reject the argument and I accept it.

I take you at your word when you say that you remain open to the possibility of God’s existence if presented proper evidence. At the same time I’m quite certain that you have evaluated the bulk of theistic claims and by your criteria reject all of them. Can you understand how I find it difficult to reconcile your stated position with your previous judgments?

We'd accept a mystical experience if only it'd conform to some simple, reasonable conditions…[not] entirely subjective… recorded or verified such that we can actually see for ourselves.

What you consider simple and reasonable may be considered neither simple nor reasonable by others individuals or within other cultures. Many personal mystical experiences depend upon practices that prepare people for them: fervent prayer, highly disciplined meditation, fasting, physically demanding rites, austerities, etc. If someone is unwilling to engage is these practices, then they must as the very least give those who do a fair hearing, one that does not presuppose Western 20th century naturalism.

The personal experiences of others aren't justification for belief myself, and I live in a world where I've never had such an experience; what else am I supposed to think, other than that there's another explanation?

I cannot tell you what you are supposed to think. What I hear you saying is that you will dismiss the personal experiences of others so long as there is a plausible natural explanation. To me that does not sound like suspending judgment. Nevertheless, are you saying that you would not accept another’s subjective experience even from a trusted and respected person? I do not think it is unreasonable to consider the judgment of such a person(s) as credible.

… I'd try to rule out natural causes before accepting supernatural ones is that natural causes have explained every other phenomena I've ever encountered, and any potential supernatural phenomena would be the first one for me.

Whereas, I do not automatically rule out the supernatural, because because when I reflect on the whole of reality it is clear to that something much more fundamental is going on that what natural science presents. That does not make me any less rational, nor gullible, nor sane. For example, semiotic meaning is an essential part of the human experience and it takes a special effort to attribute it to purely material and efficient causes.

[Minimalist]

Also such experiences have been reported for as recorded history and presumably go back much further back.

Mental illness is not a new phenomenon.