Atheism

[Simon Moon]

Religious experiences are a supernatural phenomenon.

So, back on my post number 184 of this thread, I responded to you, and posed a question (which you conveniently ignored).

Here it is again,

I have a friend (an old surfing buddy) that became addicted to alcohol and drugs, was living on the street and doing petty crimes.

One day he walked into a Hindu temple in Los Angeles, and he claims he had a religious experience where he saw Hindu gods, and they communicated with him (the god told him to clean up his life, and that he was hurting his loved ones).

He literally quit alcohol and drugs that day. Cleaned up his life, and now owns a small business, and has a great family. He is still Hindu.

So, what do you think is more likely, he had a real experience with the Hindu god, that caused him to clean up his life, or, he had a real experience, like a change in mental states, that he misinterpreted as communication with Hindu gods?

I'd still like to get your take on this.

[Amarok]

Religious experiences are a supernatural phenomenon.

And your accusing us of question begging

[RoadRunner79]

Also it is not energy to separate supernatural from natural to say that they are separate categories or that they are different. A category error is About imposing a category incorrectly.  

@Lady The question still remains about what you are indicating is a category error

I’m a stay at home mom with 4 year old and 18 month old boys; give me a break, will ya? 😛  I’m gettin’ to it, just as soon as I have a few minutes to be alone with my brain. 😉

Ok no problem.... I just wanted to clarify that their is the issue of what the category error is, and why it’s wrong. Or if you want to change your mind on that statement that’s fine too.

Edit: didn’t mean to sound like I was rushing you.

[Angrboda]

I think this would be a good place to introduce Richard Carrier's definition of the supernatural, at least as a starting point. If you disagree with the way Carrier frames it, how would you differ from it and why?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/...tural.html

[Amarok]

I think this would be a good place to introduce Richard Carrier's definition of the supernatural, at least as a starting point.  If you disagree with the way Carrier frames it, how would you differ from it and why?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/...tural.html

I like his definition

[I_am_not_mafia]

False analogy. Lightening is a natural phenomenon. Religious experiences are a supernatural phenomenon.

You don't know that.

How about I state:

'Lightening is a natural phenomenon. Religious experiences are also a natural phenomenon.'

How do we determine who is correct? I already have an advantage because you don't even know what supernatural means yet we know what natural means. And this enables us to test whether there are natural and scientifically rigorous explanations for religious like experiences (there are).

And here you are talking about begging the question while making unwarranted assumptions that the supernatural exists when there is no evidence for it (and can't be if you don't even accept natural evidence to determine if it exists or not). So your whole argument is begging the question. No wonder you are so keen to project your own failings onto others.

I am aware of no progress on the mind/body dualism question. In fact, I think that stating that we are purely mechanistic is a belief that stems from metaphysical naturalism (philosophy) rather than actual science.

Your ignorance does not determine reality. I stated that the more scientific evidence we have, the more it looks like the brain works in a purely mechanistic way. And as I keep repeating, at no point have we found anything to suggest otherwise.

[Crossless2.0]

Experience --------> Interpretation ---------> Claim


For some reason, the second part keeps getting glossed over. I can't imagine why.

[Succubus]

I think this would be a good place to introduce Richard Carrier's definition of the supernatural, at least as a starting point.  If you disagree with the way Carrier frames it, how would you differ from it and why?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/...tural.html

...Thus, for example, if Biblical Creationism were true, by now we should have accumulated tons of scientific evidence that the entire universe is less than six light days across and the earth is at the center of it, all fossils and rocks radiologically and stratigraphically date no older than six thousand years, the fossil and DNA records confirm that all species appeared simultaneously six thousand years ago and have not substantially changed since, and much more. For further examples of how the evidence should have turned out if creationism were true,... But alas, the data didn't come out that way. But if it had, supernaturalism would have been as scientifically established as naturalism is now.

What he said.

My bold.

[Minimalist]

Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus should be required reading for atheists and agnostics.  It would be wasted on religitards like Stevie.

I just really despise the Bayes Theorem shit but that's probably just me and math.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Carrier's On The Historicity of Jesus should be required reading for atheists and agnostics.  It would be wasted on religitards like Stevie.

I just really despise the Bayes Theorem shit but that's probably just me and math.

Thanks. I was recently wondering what to read about the historicity of Jesus. I had to stay away from subject when arguing with my religionist brother.