Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Beth]

This just sounds like speculation. Your trivializing a real human experience to make your point, and I am afraid it doesn't hold water. The origins of spiritual idea's are unknown for the most. What is known is that peak experiences are a real phenomenon that produces congruent results in many different people at many different times in history. The idea that it can be reduced to pattern finding is ridiculous in my view...but that just my view.

You are not alone in that opinion though it is certainly a minority viewpoint here. I just wanted to say that I concur with you on this point.

 

[Beth]

Ridiculous why?

Ridiculous because it's not feasible or ridiculous because it denies any special explanation?

Ridiculous because it denies the existance of an independent causal factor in the consistent reports by many different people across different cultures. Instead, it attributes all such reports to a propensity for pattern finding. This explanation does not satisfactorily explain the commonalities of what is reported regarding "peak experiences" as thesyntax era termed them.

 

[cyborg]

Ridiculous because it denies the existance of an independent causal factor in the consistent reports by many different people across different cultures.

Uh no. See below.

Instead, it attributes all such reports to a propensity for pattern finding.

That would be an "independent causal factor".

This explanation does not satisfactorily explain the commonalities of what is reported regarding "peak experiences" as thesyntax era termed them.

Similar brains - similar experiences.

 

[thesyntaxera]

To put it simply the dictionary is using a biased definition.

How did you determine this?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Uh no. See below. That would be an "independent causal factor". Similar brains - similar experiences.

That hardly explains anything. People have similar brains structurally, but they are anything but alike. Every person carries with them different habits, and memories that define how they will respond to different patterns around them. If the mechanistic point of view were true then all peak experiences would be nearly identical, and humans would be biomechanical automatons running on programs acquired through experience.

Ridiculous because it's not feasible or ridiculous because it denies any special explanation?

Ridiculous because it doesn't match what is already known. It is too simplistic of an explanation to account for anything. Of course humans match patterns, but they also are able to discriminate them as well. Part of the explanation of peak experiences involves them matching no patterns, and are thus unexplainable.

 

[cyborg]

How did you determine this?

It's how dictionaries work.

Now if you broadened your search you would find a wider range of definitions that fit more closely to what you are being told.

But basically you can decide one of two things here:

1) Insist that if one calls themselves an atheist they must adhere to what you interpret as being the definition as gleamed from your particular source
2) Listen to what people are telling you they describe themselves as

 

[cyborg]

That hardly explains anything. People have similar brains structurally, but they are anything but alike.

Hmmm, really?

Every person carries with them different habits, and memories that define how they will respond to different patterns around them.

Yes.

And they also have a wide range of similar habits that define how they respond to similar patterns around them.

For example sexual differences - certain typical differences between male and female brain types such increased spatial acuity in men and language skills in women which are thought to be caused by hormonal influences in the womb.

If the mechanistic point of view were true then all peak experiences would be nearly identical, and humans would be biomechanical automatons running on programs acquired through experience.

Yes.

That's basically what we are.

Ridiculous because it doesn't match what is already known.

Not really - unless you ignore what is currently known about brain function.

It is too simplistic of an explanation to account for anything.

Not really - the simplest explanations are often the best.

Of course humans match patterns, but they also are able to discriminate them as well.

That would kinda be how the discrimination bit works.

Part of the explanation of peak experiences involves them matching no patterns, and are thus unexplainable.

Eh?

 

[Irony]

How did you determine this?

From the fact that the vast majority of atheists I know do not use that definition. I'm not saying the definition is "wrong". I'm saying it is biased in that it defines the word exclusively from the perspective of a theist, and doesn't give the most common definition used by atheists even as an alternate.

 

[Beth]

Ridiculous because it denies the existance of an independent causal factor in the consistent reports by many different people across different cultures.

Uh no. See below.

Instead, it attributes all such reports to a propensity for pattern finding.

That would be an "independent causal factor".

okay, I suppose you could term it as such. Personally, I find it as about as satisfying an explanation as saying that the experience of seeing the color 'red' is due to the fact that our brains are similar without acknowledging that our brains are responding to an external stimulus (different wavelengths of light) in similar ways. It's valid and does well at explaining such conditions as colorblindness and synethsia, but most people would consider an explanation of the experience of color that was limited to an internal neural experience to be incomplete to the point of absurdity. There is, after all, an external stimulus that triggers the neural activity in our brains that correlates with seeing colors.

This explanation does not satisfactorily explain the commonalities of what is reported regarding "peak experiences" as thesyntax era termed them.

Similar brains - similar experiences.

Okay - but what is it they are experiencing? That is the problem with the 'pattern recognition' explanation. It ignores the idea that there is some stimulus external to the brain that is causing the experience. I don't know what that might be, but I don't feel comfortable dismissing the idea that there exists some stimulus from outside the individual that triggers those similar experiences.

 

[cyborg]

Personally, I find it as about as satisfying an explanation as saying that the experience of seeing the color 'red' is due to the fact that our brains are similar without acknowledging that our brains are responding to an external stimulus (different wavelengths of light) in similar ways.

Except, of course, that such a thing can be induced without the need for the normal external stimulus associated with it.

That would rather be the point.

It's valid and does well at explaining such conditions as colorblindness and synethsia, but most people would consider an explanation of the experience of color that was limited to an internal neural experience to be incomplete to the point of absurdity. There is, after all, an external stimulus that triggers the neural activity in our brains that correlates with seeing colors.

So... when I dream where does the colour come from?

The brain can generate its own internal events based on previous experience.

It's commonly known as "imagining".

Like, I have just decided to imagine "Shoot that Poison Arrow" by ABC being played in my head without it being on my stereo.

Okay - but what is it they are experiencing? That is the problem with the 'pattern recognition' explanation. It ignores the idea that there is some stimulus external to the brain that is causing the experience.

The brain is not a contiguous thing - it is a collection of independently acting parts that are all "external" to one another.

I don't know what that might be, but I don't feel comfortable dismissing the idea that there exists some stimulus from outside the individual that triggers those similar experiences.

Your comfort or satisfaction is rather irrelevant.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It's how dictionaries work.

Now if you broadened your search you would find a wider range of definitions that fit more closely to what you are being told.

But basically you can decide one of two things here:

1) Insist that if one calls themselves an atheist they must adhere to what you interpret as being the definition as gleamed from your particular source
2) Listen to what people are telling you they describe themselves as

I really don't have to do anything here actually. I was merely pointing out that the definitions are confusing because both say very similar things...especially if your definition of athiesm includes the possiblity that there could be higher intelligences or some type of omnipotent force in the universe.

Not really - the simplest explanations are often the best.

Perhaps. This tends to work for conspiracy theories and new age healers, however it is not in line with what we already know about the mind. If it were that simple the source of consciousness would easy to determine. It is not so, however.

That's basically what we are.

Basically, yes. It is also possible that consciousness is greater than the sum of the parts, and as a result not attributable to mere mechanistic activity.

Not really - unless you ignore what is currently known about brain function.

Your just repeating my sentence back to me here.

That would kinda be how the discrimination bit works.

Did you understand what I wrote? Or is this just another way to repeat my sentence back to me? The point was that humans aren't just digesting information, they are able to reasonably tell the difference between related patterns and unrelated ones...unless they are mentally ill perhaps.

Eh?

Allow me to rephrase. The reason peak experiences are important here is because they defy any known pattern that occurs normally. It is an independent experience that no amount of cultural programming can generate to the best of my knowledge.

Okay - but what is it they are experiencing? That is the problem with the 'pattern recognition' explanation. It ignores the idea that there is some stimulus external to the brain that is causing the experience. I don't know what that might be, but I don't feel comfortable dismissing the idea that there exists some stimulus from outside the individual that triggers those similar experiences.

I wouldn't even say that one needs to invoke an external stimulus..it could be a stimulus that exists within all matter and thus is already within you. If one can increase the rate of perception perhaps one becomes aware of this interconnection at an emotional level?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Except, of course, that such a thing can be induced without the need for the normal external stimulus associated with it.

That would rather be the point.

Is it? Can you verify that a induced experience is the same as a non-induced one?

The brain is not a contiguous thing - it is a collection of independently acting parts that are all "external" to one another.

...that create a contiguous thing called consciousness, that is non-existant in any physical sense.

Your comfort or satisfaction is rather irrelevant.

To you perhaps, being a cyborg and all.

 

[edge]

Okay - but what is it they are experiencing? That is the problem with the 'pattern recognition' explanation. It ignores the idea that there is some stimulus external to the brain that is causing the experience. I don't know what that might be, but I don't feel comfortable dismissing the idea that there exists some stimulus from outside the individual that triggers those similar experiences.

That would be recognized as a miracle or a sign, something out side the person that's related to the person before the sign that actually changes patterns in matter after said revelation to coincide with the message that is corroborated with the phenomena and possibly before the event happens.
Out come is change in the pyhisical evidence that was different before the sign.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Allow me to rephrase. The reason peak experiences are important here is because they defy any known pattern that occurs normally. It is an independent experience that no amount of cultural programming can generate to the best of my knowledge.

If you are talking about mystical religious experiences, then it’s pretty common that the experiences actually have some kind of commonality with the religious framework the person is familiar with. So, we often have a Muslim experiencing Allah (Rumi or other Sufis), Christians experiencing God or Jesus (e.g. John Yepes), Hindus experiences some Hindu gods, Buddhist or Vedanta proponents experiencing “onness” or “emptyness” etc. This is not always the case, of course, but it’s often so that experience and interpretation is hard to distinguish from each other. Many such experiences are not that independent from the cultural framework they are experienced in.

Also, we shouldn’t forget the fact that mystical states have been produced in the lab and with certain psychotropic drugs (psilocybin, LSD, DMT etc.), in controlled settings. Perhaps the most famous one is the Good Friday experiment where almost all members taking psilocybin experienced profound religious experiences, whereas the “niacin-group” didn’t. Finally, temporal lobe epilepsy seems to produce mystical experiences as well. It’s also interesting that many psychotropic drugs affect the temporal lobes in particular.

 

[thesyntaxera]

If you are talking about mystical religious experiences, then it’s pretty common that the experiences actually have some kind of commonality with the religious framework the person is familiar with. So, we often have a Muslim experiencing Allah (Rumi or other Sufis), Christians experiencing God or Jesus (e.g. John Yepes), Hindus experiences some Hindu gods, Buddhist or Vedanta proponents experiencing “onness” or “emptyness” etc. This is not always the case, of course, but it’s often so that experience and interpretation is hard to distinguish from each other. Many such experiences are not that independent from the cultural framework they are experienced in.

I think it depends on how you want to interpret it. Is it a experience that is christian, or muslim in content, or is the experience just interpreted against that frame work?

Using drugs as an example. Certain ritually used subtances can induce visual imagery that is uniform no matter who is taking it. It is also possible for people to have experiences that are not based on their religious upbringing, but the cultures of others. For instance, a north american male having a visual hallucinatory experience of an african war goddess.

Also, we shouldn’t forget the fact that mystical states have been produced in the lab and with certain psychotropic drugs (psilocybin, LSD, DMT etc.), in controlled settings. Perhaps the most famous one is the Good Friday experiment where almost all members taking psilocybin experienced profound religious experiences, whereas the “niacin-group” didn’t. Finally, temporal lobe epilepsy seems to produce mystical experiences as well. It’s also interesting that many psychotropic drugs affect the temporal lobes in particular.

This has been mentioned before I think.... A good book on it is Rick Strassmans "DMT: The spirit molecule".

 

[Beth]

Except, of course, that such a thing can be induced without the need for the normal external stimulus associated with it.

That would rather be the point.

So... when I dream where does the colour come from?

The brain can generate its own internal events based on previous experience.

It's commonly known as "imagining".

Like, I have just decided to imagine "Shoot that Poison Arrow" by ABC being played in my head without it being on my stereo.

I don't disagree with any of this, but it doesn't negate my point. The experience of seeing a color may be indistinguishable from imagining seeing the color if you define it solely by neural activity, but that doesn't imply that there is no external stimuli that created the original experience. Would you ever imagine "Shoot that Poison Arrow" if you had never heard it originally via soundwaves striking your ears? Would you presume that everyone who ever hummed it to themselves had independently imagined it without ever having heard it?

The brain is not a contiguous thing - it is a collection of independently acting parts that are all "external" to one another.

Care to provide some evidence for this? My impression is that the parts of the brain are well integrated with each other and the rest of the body.

Your comfort or satisfaction is rather irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? Certainly not to me.

If you want to persuade me that your arguments are superior to mine, you'll have to take my evaluation of your argument into account. If I don't find your explanation satisfactory, I'm not going to think you are correct and I am wrong. On the other hand, if you can provide an explanation I find better, then I will switch to yours.

 

[Beth]

Also, we shouldn’t forget the fact that mystical states have been produced in the lab and with certain psychotropic drugs (psilocybin, LSD, DMT etc.), in controlled settings. Perhaps the most famous one is the Good Friday experiment where almost all members taking psilocybin experienced profound religious experiences, whereas the “niacin-group” didn’t. Finally, temporal lobe epilepsy seems to produce mystical experiences as well. It’s also interesting that many psychotropic drugs affect the temporal lobes in particular.

I find this stuff fairly fascinating, but don't see it as evidence negating the possibility of a stimulus causing such experiences isn't a drug or lab apparatus. I've also heard that stimulating certain neurons can produce very vivid sensory experiences in the absense of the normal stimuli, but there's no reason to interpret such results as implying there is no need to assume there is no involvement of external stimuli when someone experiences such sensations normally.

 

[Beth]

I wouldn't even say that one needs to invoke an external stimulus..it could be a stimulus that exists within all matter and thus is already within you. If one can increase the rate of perception perhaps one becomes aware of this interconnection at an emotional level?

Okay. That's as plausible as any other explanation I've heard, none of which I consider to be very good. External or outside stimulus is rather a poor way of expressing what I meant. External in the sense of not being part of what is normally identified as the self. Self is a rather tricky concept to pin down and isn't helped by the fact that what we perceive as 'self' is so illusive that it is considered an illusion by some.

 

[cyborg]

I really don't have to do anything here actually. I was merely pointing out that the definitions are confusing because both say very similar things...especially if your definition of athiesm includes the possiblity that there could be higher intelligences or some type of omnipotent force in the universe.

It's really not that hard.

Perhaps. This tends to work for conspiracy theories and new age healers,

Not really. They tend to spin ever increasingly complex explanations.

however it is not in line with what we already know about the mind.

Yeah, it is.

If it were that simple the source of consciousness would easy to determine. It is not so, however.

That really depends on what you mean by "consciousness". There have been myriad topics on that.

Basically, yes. It is also possible that consciousness is greater than the sum of the parts, and as a result not attributable to mere mechanistic activity.

You say "mere mechanistic" as if that were a bad thing.

Sounds like you want it to be something "greater".

The point was that humans aren't just digesting information, they are able to reasonably tell the difference between related patterns and unrelated ones...

Or they are not.

This tends not to work for conspiracy theorists and new age healers.

Allow me to rephrase. The reason peak experiences are important here is because they defy any known pattern that occurs normally. It is an independent experience that no amount of cultural programming can generate to the best of my knowledge.

Drugs.

Is it? Can you verify that a induced experience is the same as a non-induced one?

We generally say when one cannot tell the difference it is the "same" experience.

...that create a contiguous thing called consciousness, that is non-existant in any physical sense.

Electrons spinning around pieces of copper create a thing called "Internet" that is non-existent in any physical sense.

To you perhaps, being a cyborg and all.

You may desire the Universe cares about you. It may very well not give a crap.

Does that worry you? Is the truth of the matter dependant on your emotional satisfaction as to the conclusion gained?

The experience of seeing a color may be indistinguishable from imagining seeing the color if you define it solely by neural activity, but that doesn't imply that there is no external stimuli that created the original experience.

Yes Beth. Which is why you need to show one to distinguish the difference.

If you posit something that cannot be used to distinguish the difference as the distinguishing factor then that's solely your issue and I don't have to humour whatever X it is you're positing with that property.

Would you ever imagine "Shoot that Poison Arrow" if you had never heard it originally via soundwaves striking your ears?

If I were to compose it.

Would you presume that everyone who ever hummed it to themselves had independently imagined it without ever having heard it?

Not that specific tune. But then I see people humming little tunes to themselves all the time. And they all seem rather culturally similar.

Care to provide some evidence for this?

You are familiar with this biological notion of the cell right?

My impression is that the parts of the brain are well integrated with each other and the rest of the body.

Right until your arm is cut off.

Irrelevant to what? Certainly not to me.

Then continue satisfying yourself by believing whatever it is you want to believe.

If you want to persuade me that your arguments are superior to mine, you'll have to take my evaluation of your argument into account. If I don't find your explanation satisfactory, I'm not going to think you are correct and I am wrong. On the other hand, if you can provide an explanation I find better, then I will switch to yours.

That seems unlikely - previous indications are that you are unwilling to detach from your holistic attitudes.

You continue to perceive yourself as a single thing despite that being a totally ludicrous attitude to have given what we know of your construct.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It's really not that hard.

What's not really that hard? Distinguishing the two? Or being open to the idea that there could be greater intelligences in the universe than yours?

Not really. They tend to spin ever increasingly complex explanations.

You misinterpreted here, a conspiracy theory can be debunked with a simple explanation. The topic we are discussing cannot be.

Yeah, it is.

No. It's not. If it were there would be answers to the problems that arise when we examine consciousness. There are none, yet.

That really depends on what you mean by "consciousness". There have been myriad topics on that.

What do you think I mean by consciousness?

You say "mere mechanistic" as if that were a bad thing.

Since you don't know me, nor could you hear any inflection in my voice since I am typing, you have no grounds to assume to know what I think about the mechanisms of the body. Since you are apparently the smartest person posting to this thread you should have known what I was indicating: That a purely mechanistic approach doesn't answer all the questions being raised.

Sounds like you want it to be something "greater".

Sounds like you want it to be something "lesser".

Or they are not.

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Drugs.

What about them? The variety of peak experiences a human is capable of are not all reducible to drugs alone.

We generally say when one cannot tell the difference it is the "same" experience.

Who is we? Who said you couldn't tell the difference?

Electrons spinning around pieces of copper create a thing called "Internet" that is non-existent in any physical sense.

Likening the internet to human consciousness is a poor comparison. The internet cannot think, or generate emotion, or act on it's own in anyway consciously. Besides that, it doesn't even begin to approach the complexity of the human brain.

You may desire the Universe cares about you. It may very well not give a crap.

I never said the universe should care about me, nor did I express any desire for it to. My guess is that it is busy doing other more important things.

Does that worry you? Is the truth of the matter dependant on your emotional satisfaction as to the conclusion gained?

Does what worry me? You being smug little cyborg, or my emotional satisfaction as to the conclusion gained?

The first one doesn't worry me so much, you will mellow with age. The other doesn't really matter.