Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Immanuel Can]

Same question: is your decision to be a Not-Theist based on evidence, or something else, like indifference, lack of exposure, or hostility to the idea?

My being a "non-a-theist" is based on rational arguments after being a theist for a very long time.

Great. What are those "rational arguments"?

I have argued 'it is impossible for God to exists as real' because the root cause of theism is purely psychological.

What's your evidence that that is true?

You need to note those with the most intense experiences of a God are those who are mental cases, has brain damage, took drugs, and the likes, plus those who are long time meditators.

"Most intense"? How do you judge the "intensity" of a religious "experience," or its worth, since you believe that even the most "intense" experience is a delusion anyway? That would rather imply that the people with the most moderate and cognitive grasp of the "religious" would be your best exemplars, not those who have "intense experiences."

You would be assuming that a person who claims to have seen angels floating above his head, after taking LSD, was an exemplar of "religious" things, and a cool-headed philosopher of religion was the least religious person. I see no reason to assume that, and ever reason to doubt the alleged "experiences" of the LSD taker.

...they have no choice given their circumstance they have to believe in a God.

That claim also doesn't work.

If people have no choice, then you can't blame them for believing a thing. It's not wrong for them to be Theists, then.

But the truth is that we all have a choice; in fact, if you didn't think we did, you wouldn't even be arguing...since a person who has no choice cannot change his mind, and neither can you, if that's the case.

It is so common for theists to label those who do not believe in a god as 'atheists'.

It's not. It's actually very rare. As I say, most seem to assume that people are at least potentially interested in their belief system until that person declares himself an Atheist....which they often do, in the case of Atheists.

The bottom line is I will always provide rational argument for my stance as the above.

Well, you have given something that may be compelling to you, for which I say "Thanks." It's good you tried...sincerely. That being said, it's not a very good rationalization of disbelief. It looks more like a prejudicial choice to believe that "intense experience" loonies are the truly "religious," and on that assumption, to gratuitously dismiss all rational Theists and all evidentiary arguments for Theism. And that strategy is actually neither fair nor rational.

However, if it works for you, I guess it works for what you want it to work for.

Nope, Dawkins never said, there IS evidence for God but rather 'there MAY be evidence for God'

You still don't know what "evidence" means.
But I already pointed that out, so I won't do so again here. Still, you should find out.

Point is the difference between 'there IS" and 'there may be .."

The point is that ALL evidence is "may be" evidence. It's what "evidence" means.

If you don't mean "evidence," then what you mean is "conclusive proof"; but empirical science has no such ironclad certainties, but deals entirely in inductive claims, meaning "claims based on good or sufficient evidence, not absolute certainty," or "probabilistic arguments."

..any scientific fact can be discarded upon new evidences and many scientific facts has been discarded since science emerged. As such there is a degree to tentativeness to any scientific fact

This is the point. We agree, so far.

But to call that mere "polished conjecture" is a reductio-ad-absurdum, and an insult to the integrity of science. Science proceeds on high-probability hypotheses tested by method, not on wild guesses that are never tested, or are merely "polished."

What is 'real' is evidently real

This is not so.

Bacteriology was not "evident" or discovered anywhere in the ancient world. This did not mean bacteria were not real. The fact is that there are many "real" things that some, or even all people, do not yet know about.

God is a psychological derivative

This is a very basic logical mistake, a basic fallacy. It's known as the Causal Fallacy. It assumes that if two things happen together, one must be the cause or explanation of the other. But it's often wrong, which is what makes it a fallacy.

It might be true that "religious experience" is attended by some kind of psychological events. But these "events" are different for different "religions," and different for different persons. And in some religions, "experience " is not considered determinative of the religion at all.

So to say that "religion" is involved with "the psychological" is only to say that religion is a thing that must be "believed." But that's true of the scientific, as well; the scientist who does not "believe" in his hypothesis will never test it at all: why waste time? And the scientist who refused to "believe" his results are sufficient will never venture a conclusion at all; why embarass oneself by declaring to one's colleagues something one simply does not "believe"?

So science requires "belief." Does that imply that science is merely "psychological" or "experiential"? Of course not.

And a bad thought-process about science doesn't become a good thought-process when applied to other phenomena, like religion. So your conclusion that religion is psychological falls because of the Causal Fallacy.

You can test me...

That's exactly what I'm doing.
Quotation and page, please.

Asking me for Quotation and page that I don't agree with is not a test.

It's the perfect test to see whether or not you've read it at all. In fact, it's ideal.

You don't have to "agree with" something to quote it. I quote Marx, Nietzsche and Freud all the time, and I think they're loons. I quote them to show their errors...which is exactly what I'm asking you to do. So let's see it.

But my conclusion from your evasiveness and lack of ability to do it is that you have not read the book.

You're better not to try to bluff somebody who knows the material.

[bahman]

Re 'time'.
Theists will argue God being the Greatest is not conditioned by time.
Thus God exists independent of time.

God might exist independent of time but any action requires time.

I believe I have a very secure argument against the impossibility of God as real.

However, I agree there is also room to argue God must be conditioned to time and space with the need to connect with its creations, thus contradict its absolutely independent claim.
However the exception is it is not applicable to the Spinoza's God which is indifferent to all.

And what is your argument?

[seeds]

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

My claim is that each human mind (including yours, Veritas) is imbued with the "seed-like" potential of evolving into a literal universe just like the one we are presently held within.

My claim is that the universe we are presently held within is the fully-evolved (fully-fruitioned) "adult" version of that which we are the "seeds" (embryos) of.

My claim is that we humans are the "familial" members (offspring/progeny) of the highest "species of being" in all of reality.

Now, of course, I may be wrong, but if you know of a claim that is more "profound" than that, then describe it for me, and site its source.

Your above is only in fantasy land, it cannot be realistic.

Define the meaning of "real" for me.

In other words, what does it mean for something to be "real"?

'Seed' wise, I have used the 'seed' metaphor for the moral potential which have not sprouted in many and for some it is merely a seedling.

And is that supposed to be more "profound" than my claiming that you are the literal (that's LITERAL) "seed" of the universe, imbued with the potential of creating your own universe out of the fabric of your very own being?

Earlier you stated...

...there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

I then asked you to describe the profound claims to which you are referring and site their sources.

I'm still waiting.

Note your 'eye' thingy is related the very common term 'Third EYE'.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye
This is why the 'eye' thingy is so common within spirituality, the psychedelic and the mental-cases world.

From the Wiki article:

Buddhists regard the third eye as the "eye of consciousness", representing the vantage point from which enlightenment beyond one's physical sight is achieved...

The Wiki article seems to be validating my use of the "eye thingy." So, I'm not sure why you seem to be offering it up as some kind of argument against my theory.

Furthermore, when you upload images such as this...



...you're back to your old habit of using strawman arguments, in that just because other people utilized the image of an "eye" in their art, you seem to be implying that it therefore somehow negates the point I am making by using an "eye" in my art.

You make no sense, V, and it is quite obvious to me that you still do not understand what the "eye thingy" actually represents in my theory.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours but they know they had those altered states of consciousness from taking drugs, hallucinogens, had mental illness, brain damages, etc.

Do you not read my posts?

I already suggested to you that "altered states of consciousness" (whatever the cause may be) are part of the reason why humans are able to escape the "fixed" level of consciousness they were born with.

Indeed, as was suggested by Terrence McKenna, the ingestion of psychoactive plants such as psilocybin mushrooms, for example, may have played a pivotal role in the evolution of ape brains, thus facilitating their awakening into higher levels of consciousness, which eventually led to human consciousness.

And the point is, that hallucinogenic substances are still, to this day, helping us apes evolve to even higher levels yet.

Like I said earlier, "I wish I could wake you up."

But as the old proverb goes:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

_______

"Wake me up"???
Note I have been meditating regularly for a very long time.
So I understand and have had experiences of altered states of consciousness...

Trust me, V, it is highly unlikely that your safe and wholesome little meditation sessions have ever put you in a situation where you wondered if you were still on planet earth, such as in the case of experimenting with LSD.

So don't even try to compare the two.

Re psychedelics, I stated we need to find fool proof safe ones that do not have addictive properties.

You clearly have had no actual experience with psychedelic substances such as LSD, for example, for there is nothing addictive about it (again, trust me).

Furthermore, one of the most dangerous things about using such substances is the possibility of being arrested and put in prison because the low conscious idiots in charge of things have declared them illegal.

I would prefer to recommend regular meditation [proper and effective] and complementing it with safe-psychedelics.

Am I to assume that you, yourself, have complemented your meditation sessions with "safe-psychedelics"?

Have you ever experimented with any psychedelics whatsoever?

Btw, you focus so much on this 'seed' and 'eye' thingy and worst identifying it with the existence of a God, but what is your point. How can you translate this for the well being of humanity in the future?

If you truly understood my theory then you would understand the point of it all, and how it translates for the well being of humanity. But you don't, so you can't.

OTOH, I believe in the moral 'seed' potential which humanity should facilitates its sprouting in all [if not the majority] to strive to eliminate and prevent evil acts which to the extreme could exterminate the human species.

Let me ask you again what I asked you in an alternate thread (of which you never adequately answered my specific questions, btw)...

...aside from your nihilistic vision of reality that implies that there is no ultimate and eternal purpose for humans as individuals,...

...what exactly are you offering to humans that might give them a glimmer of "hope" that there might be more to life than what meets the eye?

For example, what words of comfort and solace do you have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to a disease?



Or what specific words or vital aspect of your philosophy would be useful for this little girl to recall...



...in the few remaining moments before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on now, Veritas, give me the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help these humans endure their darkest hours on earth.

_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

Same question: is your decision to be a Not-Theist based on evidence, or something else, like indifference, lack of exposure, or hostility to the idea?

My being a "non-a-theist" is based on rational arguments after being a theist for a very long time.

Great. What are those "rational arguments"?

I have argued 'it is impossible for God to exists as real' because the root cause of theism is purely psychological.

What's your evidence that that is true?

You need to note those with the most intense experiences of a God are those who are mental cases, has brain damage, took drugs, and the likes, plus those who are long time meditators.

"Most intense"? How do you judge the "intensity" of a religious "experience," or its worth, since you believe that even the most "intense" experience is a delusion anyway? That would rather imply that the people with the most moderate and cognitive grasp of the "religious" would be your best exemplars, not those who have "intense experiences."

You would be assuming that a person who claims to have seen angels floating above his head, after taking LSD, was an exemplar of "religious" things, and a cool-headed philosopher of religion was the least religious person. I see no reason to assume that, and ever reason to doubt the alleged "experiences" of the LSD taker.

...they have no choice given their circumstance they have to believe in a God.

That claim also doesn't work.

If people have no choice, then you can't blame them for believing a thing. It's not wrong for them to be Theists, then.

But the truth is that we all have a choice; in fact, if you didn't think we did, you wouldn't even be arguing...since a person who has no choice cannot change his mind, and neither can you, if that's the case.

It is so common for theists to label those who do not believe in a god as 'atheists'.

It's not. It's actually very rare. As I say, most seem to assume that people are at least potentially interested in their belief system until that person declares himself an Atheist....which they often do, in the case of Atheists.

The bottom line is I will always provide rational argument for my stance as the above.

Well, you have given something that may be compelling to you, for which I say "Thanks." It's good you tried...sincerely. That being said, it's not a very good rationalization of disbelief. It looks more like a prejudicial choice to believe that "intense experience" loonies are the truly "religious," and on that assumption, to gratuitously dismiss all rational Theists and all evidentiary arguments for Theism. And that strategy is actually neither fair nor rational.

However, if it works for you, I guess it works for what you want it to work for.

You still don't know what "evidence" means.
But I already pointed that out, so I won't do so again here. Still, you should find out.

Point is the difference between 'there IS" and 'there may be .."

The point is that ALL evidence is "may be" evidence. It's what "evidence" means.

If you don't mean "evidence," then what you mean is "conclusive proof"; but empirical science has no such ironclad certainties, but deals entirely in inductive claims, meaning "claims based on good or sufficient evidence, not absolute certainty," or "probabilistic arguments."

..any scientific fact can be discarded upon new evidences and many scientific facts has been discarded since science emerged. As such there is a degree to tentativeness to any scientific fact

This is the point. We agree, so far.

But to call that mere "polished conjecture" is a reductio-ad-absurdum, and an insult to the integrity of science. Science proceeds on high-probability hypotheses tested by method, not on wild guesses that are never tested, or are merely "polished."

What is 'real' is evidently real

This is not so.

Bacteriology was not "evident" or discovered anywhere in the ancient world. This did not mean bacteria were not real. The fact is that there are many "real" things that some, or even all people, do not yet know about.

God is a psychological derivative

This is a very basic logical mistake, a basic fallacy. It's known as the Causal Fallacy. It assumes that if two things happen together, one must be the cause or explanation of the other. But it's often wrong, which is what makes it a fallacy.

It might be true that "religious experience" is attended by some kind of psychological events. But these "events" are different for different "religions," and different for different persons. And in some religions, "experience " is not considered determinative of the religion at all.

So to say that "religion" is involved with "the psychological" is only to say that religion is a thing that must be "believed." But that's true of the scientific, as well; the scientist who does not "believe" in his hypothesis will never test it at all: why waste time? And the scientist who refused to "believe" his results are sufficient will never venture a conclusion at all; why embarass oneself by declaring to one's colleagues something one simply does not "believe"?

So science requires "belief." Does that imply that science is merely "psychological" or "experiential"? Of course not.

And a bad thought-process about science doesn't become a good thought-process when applied to other phenomena, like religion. So your conclusion that religion is psychological falls because of the Causal Fallacy.

That's exactly what I'm doing.
Quotation and page, please.

Asking me for Quotation and page that I don't agree with is not a test.

It's the perfect test to see whether or not you've read it at all. In fact, it's ideal.

You don't have to "agree with" something to quote it. I quote Marx, Nietzsche and Freud all the time, and I think they're loons. I quote them to show their errors...which is exactly what I'm asking you to do. So let's see it.

But my conclusion from your evasiveness and lack of ability to do it is that you have not read the book.

You're better not to try to bluff somebody who knows the material.

If I am not mistaken, earlier you admitted you have not read the Blackwell Guide?
I told you, I have read chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide which is relevant to this discussion. If you don't believe, then just let it be.

As for intense experience of 'God' you are ignorant because you have not done in depth and sufficient research on this topic. I have had spent years researching on this topic.
Herein this thread, "Seed" is one classic example.
Btw, these intense experience are not caused by LSD, but many other elements such as drugs, hallucinogens, mental cases, brain damage, out-of-the-blue, regular meditation, etc. The most intense experience claimed they are 'prophet' or 'messengers' of God, e.g. Muhammad. Note St. Paul who have a sudden experience of God which is due to neural defect. You need to do the relevant research.

One classic case is from those who suffer from Temporal Epilepsy who are prone to experience God very intensely.
I have linked this a 000 times already,
Ramachandran, the Temporal Lobes [Epilepsy] and God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiIsDIkDtg
This guy have had 'direct' experience of God but prefer to take medicines to avoid them.

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time. But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

God might exist independent of time but any action requires time.

I believe I have a very secure argument against the impossibility of God as real.

However, I agree there is also room to argue God must be conditioned to time and space with the need to connect with its creations, thus contradict its absolutely independent claim.
However the exception is it is not applicable to the Spinoza's God which is indifferent to all.

And what is your argument?

God is an Impossibility [to be Real]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Veritas Aequitas]

My claim is that each human mind (including yours, Veritas) is imbued with the "seed-like" potential of evolving into a literal universe just like the one we are presently held within.

My claim is that the universe we are presently held within is the fully-evolved (fully-fruitioned) "adult" version of that which we are the "seeds" (embryos) of.

My claim is that we humans are the "familial" members (offspring/progeny) of the highest "species of being" in all of reality.

Now, of course, I may be wrong, but if you know of a claim that is more "profound" than that, then describe it for me, and site its source.

Your above is only in fantasy land, it cannot be realistic.

Define the meaning of "real" for me.

In other words, what does it mean for something to be "real"?

I have already done this many times.

• What is real are facts, truth and real knowledge.
  All facts are conditioned by a specific Framework and System [FSK].
  Scientific facts from the scientific FSK [& mathematical FKS] are the most credible and reliable in revelation of reality.
  As such for any revelation to be realistic it has to have near equivalence to the scientific FSK or the mathematic FSK.

Your personal FSK of claiming what is realistic is no where near to the above realistic scientific or mathematical FSK. It is only from the own personal subjective experiences.
Else prove what you are claiming herein is realistic.

'Seed' wise, I have used the 'seed' metaphor for the moral potential which have not sprouted in many and for some it is merely a seedling.

And is that supposed to be more "profound" than my claiming that you are the literal (that's LITERAL) "seed" of the universe, imbued with the potential of creating your own universe out of the fabric of your very own being?

Earlier you stated...

...there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours...

I then asked you to describe the profound claims to which you are referring and site their sources.

I'm still waiting.

I had mentioned Jill Bolte's experience but you claim yours is more intense than hers is merely an opinion. What about Muhammad whose experiences translated to 1.5 billion followers, also note St, Paul's, how many follower has you converted?

Note your 'eye' thingy is related the very common term 'Third EYE'.
Read this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_eye
This is why the 'eye' thingy is so common within spirituality, the psychedelic and the mental-cases world.

From the Wiki article:

Buddhists regard the third eye as the "eye of consciousness", representing the vantage point from which enlightenment beyond one's physical sight is achieved...

The Wiki article seems to be validating my use of the "eye thingy." So, I'm not sure why you seem to be offering it up as some kind of argument against my theory.

Point is the Buddhists [non-theistic] will never claim such "eye of consciousness" is any other thing than merely a psychological derivative in contrast to your claim 'therefore God exists'.

Furthermore, when you upload images such as this...

...you're back to your old habit of using strawman arguments, in that just because other people utilized the image of an "eye" in their art, you seem to be implying that it therefore somehow negates the point I am making by using an "eye" in my art.

You make no sense, V, and it is quite obvious to me that you still do not understand what the "eye thingy" actually represents in my theory.

(Continued in next post)
_______

Those who use the 'eye' thing in their image are reflecting from their internal experiences and subjective opinions.

This is very common in Nepal;

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

As I had stated before,
there are many who made similar claims which are more profound than yours but they know they had those altered states of consciousness from taking drugs, hallucinogens, had mental illness, brain damages, etc.

Do you not read my posts?

I already suggested to you that "altered states of consciousness" (whatever the cause may be) are part of the reason why humans are able to escape the "fixed" level of consciousness they were born with.

Indeed, as was suggested by Terrence McKenna, the ingestion of psychoactive plants such as psilocybin mushrooms, for example, may have played a pivotal role in the evolution of ape brains, thus facilitating their awakening into higher levels of consciousness, which eventually led to human consciousness.

And the point is, that hallucinogenic substances are still, to this day, helping us apes evolve to even higher levels yet.

Like I said earlier, "I wish I could wake you up."

But as the old proverb goes:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

_______

"Wake me up"???
Note I have been meditating regularly for a very long time.
So I understand and have had experiences of altered states of consciousness...

Trust me, V, it is highly unlikely that your safe and wholesome little meditation sessions have ever put you in a situation where you wondered if you were still on planet earth, such as in the case of experimenting with LSD.

So don't even try to compare the two.

Re psychedelics, I stated we need to find fool proof safe ones that do not have addictive properties.

You clearly have had no actual experience with psychedelic substances such as LSD, for example, for there is nothing addictive about it (again, trust me).

Furthermore, one of the most dangerous things about using such substances is the possibility of being arrested and put in prison because the low conscious idiots in charge of things have declared them illegal.

I would prefer to recommend regular meditation [proper and effective] and complementing it with safe-psychedelics.

Am I to assume that you, yourself, have complemented your meditation sessions with "safe-psychedelics"?

Have you ever experimented with any psychedelics whatsoever?

Btw, you focus so much on this 'seed' and 'eye' thingy and worst identifying it with the existence of a God, but what is your point. How can you translate this for the well being of humanity in the future?

If you truly understood my theory then you would understand the point of it all, and how it translates for the well being of humanity. But you don't, so you can't.

OTOH, I believe in the moral 'seed' potential which humanity should facilitates its sprouting in all [if not the majority] to strive to eliminate and prevent evil acts which to the extreme could exterminate the human species.

Let me ask you again what I asked you in an alternate thread (of which you never adequately answered my specific questions, btw)...

...aside from your nihilistic vision of reality that implies that there is no ultimate and eternal purpose for humans as individuals,...

...what exactly are you offering to humans that might give them a glimmer of "hope" that there might be more to life than what meets the eye?

For example, what words of comfort and solace do you have to offer to grieving parents who just lost their young child to a disease?

Or what specific words or vital aspect of your philosophy would be useful for this little girl to recall...

...in the few remaining moments before the vulture comes in to devour her flesh?

Come on now, Veritas, give me the best and most memorable lines from your materialistic philosophy that will help these humans endure their darkest hours on earth.

_______

I agree it is possible that humanity has evolved with greater knowledge due to some people who may have accidentally eaten hallucinogenic mushrooms and other food.

But it could possible by other reasons as well, e.g. the unfolding of the 'seed' of potential expansion of knowledge which is very evident in the notable scientists who did not take drugs, e.g. Newton, Einstein, and the likes.

Note I have been promoting Kant vision for humanity, i.e. his vision of perpetual peace achievable via his Epistemology and Moral System, i.e. his famous 3 visions;

• 1. What can I know? epistemology and metaphysics
  2. What can I do? Kantian Morality based on Freedom and Necessity
  3. What can I hope for? -perpetual peace.

Kant had presented a model [Moral Framework and System] on how the achieve the above efficiently.
Kant's model is already partially executed in practice albeit inefficiently at present due to humanity's current 'beastly' psychological state which is continually evolving.
BUT Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, it will be possible to realize that 'hope' of perpetual peace in the future [not now] where all the terrible evils [like you presented above] will not exists anymore.

What model and plans you have to plan for humanity with your subjective experience?
All you have is a psychological derivative to soothe your current cognitive dissonances.

[Immanuel Can]

You're better not to try to bluff somebody who knows the material.

If I am not mistaken, earlier you admitted you have not read the Blackwell Guide?

Heh. You're mistaken, alright. I've got it right here, and have read it cover to cover.

You want to test me? Please do. Give me a passage with which you have an issue, and say what you want to interrogate. I'll find your page, and tell you exactly what I think.

I told you, I have read chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide

Yeah, I'm not buying that. You'll have to convince me.

Quotation and page, please?

It's not coming because you don't have it. That's the easiest conclusion. Because if you did, you'd have offered it long ago, if only to show me wrong.

As for intense experience of 'God' you are ignorant because you have not done in depth and sufficient research on this topic. I have had spent years researching on this topic.

Hilarious.

You have no idea...but that's fair, because I've not told you anything about my own identity, history or activities, so you have no way of knowing any better. Still, it does really amuse me to see you say it. It reminds me of just how little any of us knows about each other on this forum.

But I'll bite: what "research" have you done?

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time.

Tell me about that. I'm sincerely interested.

What was your "spiritual experience," and why did it incline you to think you were special? (I want to ask that non-cynically, if I may be so understood.)

But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

That may have been true in your own case: if you say it was, I have no reason to doubt it was. But there's zero reason in that to suppose it was true for anybody else -- your experiences were your own, were they not? Do you have any reason to think they are typical of all "religious" persons? Are they all "experiential," and are all their "experiences" as inauthentic or disappointing as you decided your own was?

It's one heck of a jump to say, "Because I had a bad 'spiritual experience,' all such things must be nothing but 'experiences,' and all must be as bad as the one I had." There's no logic or reason I can see that would warrant that supposition.

[seeds]

_______

In this thread, V.A. said to I.C.:

After a long time of research, I understand the neuroscientific and psychological basis why the majority of people has to be theists, thus my acceptance that they have no choice given their circumstance they have to believe in a God...

...As for intense experience of 'God' you are ignorant because you have not done in depth and sufficient research on this topic. I have had spent years researching on this topic.
Herein this thread, "Seed" is one classic example.

My ongoing project of trying to keep track of V.A.'s self-aggrandizing statements about his achievements and abilities has, once again, been updated...

• 1. Note I have martial arts background.
  
  2. Note I have done extensive research into the spirituality of human nature.
  
  3. I am inclined with one-upping knowledge.
  
  4. My struggle to be understood is on a par with the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Socrates, Einstein, and Kant.
  
  5. I am an expert on Islam.
  
  6. I am an expert on Buddhism.
  
  7. I am an expert on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
  
  8. I am an expert on "What is Philosophy."
  
  10. I've done extensive research into "altered states of consciousness" leaving no stones unturned.
  
  11. One of my specialty is problem solving techniques.
  
  12. (new): After a long time of research, I understand the neuroscientific and psychological basis why the majority of people has to be theists.
  
  13. Soon to be announced...

Again, I am wondering if we're reaching a point where some sort of shrine or statue is in order?
_______

[popeye1945]

LOL!!! Seeds, Nietzsche said modesty was not a virtue!!! Do you not think that the continued dialogue on the existence of gods makes us all fools?

[FlashDangerpants]

13. Soon to be announced...

Well surely that's this...

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time. But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

Although $50 says that he is just prone to delusional disorder of the grandiose type, that his 'extraordinary' spiritual encounter was a message from God telling him to draw even more diagrams, and the episode just ended one day as these things usually do rather than having anything to do with his imaginary analytical talents.

Such grandiose tendencies would help explain why he stops to tell us how fast he can swim and how many bees he can fit up his nose at least once per day.

[seeds]

LOL!!! Seeds, Nietzsche said modesty was not a virtue!!!

Ha!

I don't want to sully the thread by mentioning his name, but the U.S. president just prior to the present one should have that emblazoned on his family's coat of arms.

Other possibilities for that same coat of arms are...

• 2. "Honesty" is not a virtue.
  3. "Intelligence" is not a virtue.
  4. "Fidelity" is not a virtue.
  5. "Empathy" is not a virtue.
  6. "Virtue" is not a virtue.
  7. Etc., etc., - ad infinitum.

Do you not think that the continued dialogue on the existence of gods makes us all fools?

Sure, but only if that continued dialogue is with the tiny minds of those who are still stuck visualizing the nonsense handed down to us from the past.
_______

[seeds]

13. Soon to be announced...

Well surely that's this...

While I was a theist I have had 'extraordinary' spiritual experience and thought I was VERY special for a long time. But fortunately being very rational and analytical, and the more research I did, the more I understood those experiences were psychological derivatives.

Yeah, that's pretty good, but we need to par it down into something a little more succinct and "snappy" sounding by extracting the essence of what he's implying about himself.

How about this:

• 13. My infallible wisdom derived from my extensive research has allowed me to unequivocally conclude that because my own "extraordinary spiritual experience" (ESE) turned out to be a dud (DUD), it therefore means that all spiritual experiences are duds.

Whaddya think? Still too long?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

How about this:

• 13. My infallible wisdom derived from my extensive research has allowed me to unequivocally conclude that because my own "extraordinary spiritual experience" (ESE) turned out to be a dud (DUD), it therefore means that all spiritual experiences are duds.