Atheism

[SteveII]

I disagree. A dream can be dismissed by the "dreamer" very quickly as additional facts become available. The human mind, when functioning correctly, is capable of distinguishing what is a dream and what a Christian claims: that the presence of God is felt daily, evidenced by strength, support, peace, hope, and gentle guidance on living one's life. 

Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.

Why do you think that propaganda works?

This is religious binary thinking again. This time assuming True and False exist. When in reality no one is omnipotent. We are all given a subset of facts and perspectives and this can be manipulated in corectly functioning minds. No one is 100% correct or incorrect.

There is no reason to doubt the vast majority of any enduring experiences or intuitions. You want this to be true so you can dismiss religion. This is circular reasoning. 

Then there are the brains which are not working properly. These are more suspectible to religious experience.

If all you know is religion then you will see the world through the eyes of the religious. But it's not as effective as relying on the minds and written and reproducible impartial observations of hundreds of thousands of scientists who are each looking out for the flaws in their own hypotheses and those of others.

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.

[LastPoet]

Gods, the thing every human wants to be.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.

[Amarok]

Science does not need to disprove that which is proposed  with no evidence period

[Ravenshire]

Then I apologize for the sarcasm. 

My "books have been written" line was meant to show that all of these topics have been given a lot of thought and can be expounded on. Note the comment I was replying to.

Books have been written about false things all the time

There is a whole series of books written by various authors about Anne McCaffrey's Pern novels. Handbooks and guides galore.

[SteveII]

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.

Science has not come close to proving those experiences are supernatural, involve contact with disembodied minds, or are actually divine. Not a little, not at all. This is asking for disproof of something not in evidence in the first place.

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.

[The Valkyrie]

Gods, the thing every human wants to be.

Wants?

[LadyForCamus]

[RoadRunner79]

I’m sorry, I’ll get to the rest later (may be delayed with the holiday). However, I have a quick question. A catagory error is an ontological error, where a property is inappropriately applied where it doesn’t belong, judging a painting’s worth by how much it weighs would be a category mistake. The worth of a painting is not valued in that way. So what is the category that you are saying is being misused here? A category error is ontological, and therefore objective. So it cannot be based on your knowledge or a priori belief. Your subjective experience doesn’t change the nature of anything. I don’t understand how you are applying this category error.

[Amarok]

Holy hell Roads reasoning is awful