Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Commoner

I don't really understand what words have to do with my point?

We use words to mold the world the way we want it to look, and communicate that to others. Explanation that keeps mystery intact says that we don't know all there is to know, and leaves room for spirit to writhe; explanation that removes mystery stands firm with all that it knows (like Atheologian ).

Originally Posted by Commoner

Anyway, do you feel that understanding something diminishes its value? Would you be "happier"* if you didn't know how stars are formed? Would you rather have the "mystery" of not knowing?

*couldn't think of a good word.

I believe that in understanding something we lend it value. Of course, that depends on whether you believe there is only one "correct" understanding (and if so, whose? ).

Originally Posted by Atheologian

So, what you are saying, is words have the power to... what?

Shape reality. I think you're a very good example of it (I know of one more, here where I work, who shines).

[Atheologian]

Originally Posted by Atheologian

I'm proud to be an atheist. It means we reject the absurdity of faith on ALL levels. The pond of ignorance is full of waders. Not that I'm saying you're one of the waders. I just think you're embarrassed to say your dry.

Originally Posted by PureX

But you don't know anything. You have no idea if God exists or not. So what knowledge do you have to offer anyone?

Proving the basis of any idea false, is as good as proving the idea itself false. If I prove to you that gravity exists, and can show you the equation, why would you believe in invisible strings that tether us to the earth? Even though they claim to explain the same phenomenon, one is real and one isn't. I can already see where you would take this argument. When I say, evolution, you say "intelligent design", or something similar. When I say big bang, you say "God did it". Is that a ball park assumption?

[Atheologian]

It seems to me everytime we prove religions false, the definition of God changes to something more convenient. He's now reduced to "an idea", right? A metaphor?
You'd be hard pressed to find a theist who admits "God" originated from the Judeo/Christian jahweh. If you live in America, or Europe for that matter, God was probably introduced to you by Jews or Christians, possibly Muslims. At any rate, when the basis of that God is proved false, the religious apologist keeps on truckin, and calls something else "God".

[themadhair]

Originally Posted by Atheologian

The blue is contradicted by the red?

Yes. You need a reality for you to exist in…..

presupposing reality exists is not the same thing as experiencing reality.

Never implied it was.

So, saying that I am presupposing reality does not exist, is hardly a contradiction.

It is a contradiction. It is like you trying to have a conversation with me where you presuppose I don’t exist. In order to have the discussion with me you have to assume I exist so you can have the conversation. Think about it.

Originally Posted by PureX

And as proof I offer the many millions of people who use the concept.

Argumentum ad populum.

True, people are nutty and superstitious, but you really can't expect THAT many of people to adopt a God that is nothing more than an imaginary being. God as an imaginary being just doesn't do much for anyone.

This has no bearing on its truth value. How many beliefs were widespread in history only to have been later disproven? Argumentum ad populum.

My point is that we can acknowledge our superstitions AS superstitions even as we practice them.

And my point in my previous post is that if looks like nothing more than superstition then…maybe is really isn’t anything more.

Originally Posted by PureX

Some concepts have to be experienced, to appreciate.

One of the reasons why I don’t buy this line of argumentation is because there was a point in my life where I had this experience. The problem is that the experience wasn’t any justification for what I had originally attributed it to, and it wasn’t until later that I realised this. This sounds like a really good argument, but given that the same experiences lead people to different conclusions it should become clear where the problem is.

Incidentally, I have to point out that there is a massive similarity to your style of argumentation and that which I have encountered with Scientologists. Those I have spoken too are extremely fond of the argument that I have to experience processing before I can comment.

Originally Posted by Willamena

I am not making that assumption, though. I realize you there.

??? Assumption or realise, in either case you have accepted the idea of my existence in order to have the discussion. Maybe the fault is mine here since I used the term ‘assumption’ to be synonymous with ‘premise’ in this discussion.

Originally Posted by autonomous1one1

You state in essence 'different people, similar experiences, with different conclusions' and my posts were meant to convey 'different people of broadly different backgrounds, similar experience, and similar essential conclusions.' The point is well documented and is significant towards evidence against conformational bias.

Given the myriad of people who write about their experiences, and that many of these do not reach the same conclusions as you do, I have to wonder why you seem so intent on discounting those alternative conclusions. By discounting/ignoring them you are helping to validate the charge of conformational bias.

I can even bring another dimension that you have also ignored – former theists who have had the experiences you describe who no longer hold to theism.

Doubt comes in because you are the one conveying the information in this case (and this is not meant to reflect negatively). The presupposition to the significance of any interpretation here is that the experiences are the same. You ask me to accept at face value your view that has come through your subjective filter and perspective based upon your discussions with Scientologists that the experiences are the same without any other evidence. This is given in the face of much written evidence offered about similar experience with similar conclusion included in my posts. One would desire to take another look at your point if you could direct me to some writings of Scientologists about this experience.

You can read the experiences from former members at these two excellent websites:
Ex-Scientology Kids
Ex Scientologist Message Board
If you want the accounts from current members you’ll have to do that face to face with them on account of the whole prohibition on verbal tech. Best bet would be to get talking to a FreeZoner. The FreeZoners are holding a conference in LA at the moment - Los Angeles Freezone Convention Oct 2009 - Ex Scientologist Message Board

There is also another factor at play here. When I was still a believer and did my first few sessions as alter boy I remember having what I consider at the time to be spiritual experiences. When people I talk to in real life describe to me experiences that remind me of my own past experiences I see tremendous similarities. The bit that bugs me is that, fundamentally, there is no evidence I can produce for the experiences of myself or others – but the very same criticism applies just as much to yourself.

We all recognize that one only can interpret and understand within one's own perspective. The Mystic Experience is extraordinary because it has the power to change the perspective within which it is interpreted.

Hence why I am putting the charge of conformational bias front and centre here. And I do feel that a point I raised earlier bear repeating:
” Think about what you are doing here. You are doubting the experiences of Scientologists solely because they interpreted their experiences differently than yours. It is worth noting that those experiences really did cause “dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality” for those Scientologists – they just reached a different conclusion than yours.

If your only reason for doubting those experiences is because of a differing conclusion, then doesn’t that lend weight to the charge of conformational bias?”

[Atheologian]

Yes. You need a reality for you to exist in…..
this IS saying presupposing is the same as experiencing, when you consider what I said was,
I can presuppose reality does not exist, at the same time I exist in reality.
How on Earth is that a contradiction?
Unless you are suggesting "presupposing reality" is the same thing as "existing" in, or "experiencing" reality.
The word "presuppose" means to believe in advance or to require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.
I can "imagine" I don't exist, and still exist, in other words, and I can imagine what it would be like If I did not exist.

[Atheologian]

Not sure why you're making a big deal about it though, I was only trying to avoid the fluffy stuff the theist's use to philosiphize their way into faith.

[Atheologian]

However, I must add that Scientology is no less harmful and misleading than other religions. It relies on bogus science to exploit people for money.

[themadhair]

Originally Posted by Atheologian

Yes. You need a reality for you to exist in…..
this IS saying presupposing is the same as experiencing, when you consider what I said was,

Not really. For you to attempt a discussion with me you have to accepted….
1) My existence.
2) Your existence.
3) That we both possess the ability to communicate.
Etc.
….in order to even start the discussion. You would have accepted the above, and demonstrated such, by starting such a discussion.

To presuppose reality doesn’t exist is a contradiction since assuming reality is needed to be able to present any presupposition….

I can presuppose reality does not exist, at the same time I exist in reality.
How on Earth is that a contradiction?

Because your presupposition is contradicted by your assumption that you exist, an assumption you have made in order to present the presupposition in the first place.

Unless you are suggesting "presupposing reality" is the same thing as "existing" in, or "experiencing" reality.

For any argument you need to have a set of founding premises. One of the premises required for almost any argument is reality.

[themadhair]

Originally Posted by Atheologian

However, I must add that Scientology is no less harmful and misleading than other religions.

Not so. Try talking to an ex-Christian and an ex-Scientologist and the difference will become very clear.

[Atheologian]

Originally Posted by themadhair

Not so. Try talking to an ex-Christian and an ex-Scientologist and the difference will become very clear.

No it's not at all actually.
and you really should look up the work presuppose. You're looking for the word, "assume" not presuppose.