Ninteeth century Features in Atheist Thinking

discussion on tweb Me vs Psychic Missile. Noteworthy because this person is arguing like a 19th century structural functioanist. It's indicative of a lot of atheist thinking..

Originally posted by Psychic Missile Why don't all religious people have this experience? they probably do to some extent. But the benefits are probably in proportion to the extent of the experince. Some estimates are as high as one in four have some version of it. But the one's who get the benefits are more open to it. Are more religious people more likely to get it than less religious people? Many times it results in conversion. So a large portion or not religious when they have it then become so. The percentage of atheists who have this kind of experience is very small. We are talking like 3% of RE people remain atheists. Larger percentage are atheists when they have it and then find God as a result. Does on religion have more followers who have had this experience? I don't expect you to answer these questions (if you can that'd be great) just think about what their answers could be. all of those are answerable in the data. I haven't seen a break down of which tradition has the most mystics, but it would be possible to do the research. they all have them. All religious traditions have some. I thought researchers were well aware that you can't depend upon your subject telling the whole truth. not the same thing, they can control for margin of error. In fact I think this is known by all statisticians When I say they're self-reported, I meant done by survey or questionaire. Nobody followed these people around to see if the claims were true or the people just thought they were but they weren't or people want others to think it's true, etc. In some they follow them around in a sense, they didn't' really but they did it under controlled conditions and watched. How do you think it would be possible to observe if someone senses the numinous? that's a silly idea. why would people lie about it, and how would they know to make their lies conform to the M scale? how many people are going to research the M scale and then get in a study so they can fake it? You misunderstand, I mean the feelings could be felt by a person recovering from mental illness, not that that's an explanation for the study. but the characteristics of experiences don't match those of the mentally lill. Several studies have addressed this and all of them conclude mystical experince is not mental illness. there are not a bunch of instances where people get over mental illness and then get their lives on tack and are transformed. Mental illness is debilitating not transformative. It's not all that common that people over it at all. No surprise there, mental illnesses tend to take up a lot of a person's time. mental illness makes up people's teeth? what? But there's no evidence of the divine being involved rather than it being purely psychological. Noooooo, try listening. There evidence that it invovles the divine. (1) the content is about the divine (2) the effects are what we expect from the divine (3) this kind of thing is why religion exists to begin with, thsi is how they got the idea of religion (4) the experince is real. since its real and the content is about God we should assume God is in it. Just as if I wake up with memories of a car wreck and the car is wrecked that's a good indication that i had a car wreck. Did the studies conclude that the source of the feeling is divine? Not their job as shrinks to do that. privately some of them do feel that way. I've had extensive email correspondence with some of the major researchers. they believe it does prove God. I fully accept that religion can make people feel a sense of belonging, purpose, etc. and that religion can give people some sort of really happy feeling or whatever you claim it is, but there is no evidence that it's based in the divine. Psychology is a hobby of mine, and anyone who has studied it knows what amazing feats it's capable of. Religious experience is no more evidence of God than sleep paralysis is evidence of ghosts or succubi. No, you can't show me another example with studies where people get self actualized from must one experince. again, how many times? (1) content o the experince involves God (2) the reason religion exists in the first place is becasue of this kind of experience (3) the experince is real so it's logical to assume the cause relates to the content. that is a logical assumption. [red]that was my only claim, that it is logical to assume based upon the effects of the experince. It conforms to the basic criteria by which we make epistemic judgements. that means we can and should trust it.[/color] If you think I'm wrong and you do care about facts and stuff then kindly start listening and take account of what i say. Originally posted by Metacrock I made it pretty clear that these are studies of people who have had certain kinds of experinces, not just any old believer! Why don't all religious people have this experience? Are more religious people more likely to get it than less religious people? Does on religion have more followers who have had this experience? I don't expect you to answer these questions (if you can that'd be great) just think about what their answers could be. NO! they are not self reported. why don't you try reading it? they the resut of many many studies, so they have lots of different kinds of methodologies. But taking a survey or answering a questionaire is a standard social practice and its' considered a valid research tool. why don't you go read smoething about how social science is done? I thought researchers were well aware that you can't depend upon your subject telling the whole truth. In fact I think this is known by all statisticians When I say they're self-reported, I meant done by survey or questionaire. Nobody followed these people around to see if the claims were true or the people just thought they were but they weren't or people want others to think it's true, etc. They compare the eperiences of those who have experienced with those who have not. they show that those who have don't have mental illness, or that its not a prevalent among them. You misunderstand, I mean the feelings could be felt by a person recovering from mental illness, not that that's an explanation for the study. they did study that. they did check that. you are wrong you are totally wrong. they found a much smaller incidence of mental illness among religious believers. No surprise there, mental illnesses tend to take up a lot of a person's time. hu? The argument is that it is rational to assume its divine because nothing else in life has this kind of effect. the content is about the divine, the experince is real. so no reason to assume it. when we find that content is real and experinces are real we usually decide the content is true. If I have a memory of a car wreck and my wark is banged up I can assume I did have a car wreck. But there's no evidence of the divine being involved rather than it being purely psychological. NO the specificity point of the studies is compare the two groups, the RE people come out ahead, 350 studies to 0. Did the studies conclude that the source of the feeling is divine? You are merely playing a game: gainsay the evidence. that is not a proper debate procedure. you cannot merely decide to doubt the evidence because you don't like it. I documented my clamis. you are just out gunned and you can't accept it. I fully accept that religion can make people feel a sense of belonging, purpose, etc. and that religion can give people some sort of really happy feeling or whatever you claim it is, but there is no evidence that it's based in the divine. Psychology is a hobby of mine, and anyone who has studied it knows what amazing feats it's capable of. Religious experience is no more evidence of God than sleep paralysis is evidence of ghosts or succubi. It's not the job of shrinks to say if it is of God. But the argument is that God can be inferred by the content of the experinces and the consequences of having the experience.