Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2015, 02:28 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 02:18 PM)Mr. Boston Wrote:  I think people selectively (and perhaps not entirely consciously) shape their recollections of events over time to reflect what they like to think occurred.

There is very good evidence that that happens; we appear to reconstruct memories every time we retrieve them.
Or, to put it another way, the act of retrieval is the act of constructing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-04-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Regardless of him believing he heard a voice or not, his reporting that he heard a voice does not qualify as evidence of it because its truth cannot be confirmed.

For you to confirm it, but not for him. Him hearing that voice was confirmation for him, the voice qualified as evidence for him to believe it.

I'll try and expand on this.

Let's say I ran across Rev. King, what would I say here? That he has no evidence that it was an actual voice?

And he responds, that he heard it quite clearly, telling him exactly what it said. And it was a clear voice, encouraging him, and solidifying his conviction in the worthiness of his cause.

Now, I might try and tell him he needs to get checked out, that he likely suffered from an auditory hallucinations. But he might not find my particular explanation all that convincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 02:36 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 02:32 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 02:14 PM)Chas Wrote:  Regardless of him believing he heard a voice or not, his reporting that he heard a voice does not qualify as evidence of it because its truth cannot be confirmed.

For you to confirm it, but not for him. Him hearing that voice was confirmation for him, the voice qualified as evidence for him to believe it.

I'll try and expand on this.

Let's say I ran across Rev. King, what would I say here? That he has no evidence that it was an actual voice?

And he responds, that he heard it quite clearly, telling him exactly what it said. And it was a clear voice, encouraging him, and solidifying his conviction in the worthiness of his cause.

Now, I might try and tell him he needs to get checked out, that he likely suffered from an auditory hallucinations. But he might not find my particular explanation all that convincing.

There is no need for you to even try to convince him as his report is not evidence to anyone else - not you, not me, not anyone.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-04-2015, 03:02 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He said FIRST, "rationality left me". Anything he says AFTER that is irrational.
He admitted it.

SO it's clear to you now that he wasn't speaking of a metaphorical voice? That he in fact heard a voice, even if you want to explain that away as some auditory hallucination?

Quote:It is YOU who are dishonest. There IS no evidence that people who claim an immaginary being talks to them actually "hear" anything.

Except of course, to those individuals who actually hear something, that you might explain away as some auditory hallucination, or something of the sort.

Yes I would, and it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. If anyone actually does "hear" something from an immaginary being, that would be an auditory hallucination. I give King the benefit of the doubt, (since he appeared to be fairly rational in other respects) that he was trying to say that what he thought was his "god" (or what he interpreted that to mean) had formed some sort of mental idea for him), and he came to understand what he thought he should do was in line with his perception of his deity's will. The way he expressed that was to say "he heard the voice". Do I actually think he said he heard a "voice" ? No. Is there any reason to "dumb" this down to a literal level, and by doing so, basically invalidate it, (as you are doing). No. I don't think so. He used words that made sense to him to express something he thought he experienced, in a way he could, in his tradition. Not everyone is as childishly literal as fundie religionists.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 05:55 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 03:02 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Yes I would, and it would be perfectly reasonable to do so. If anyone actually does "hear" something from an immaginary being, that would be an auditory hallucination. I give King the benefit of the doubt, (since he appeared to be fairly rational in other respects) that he was trying to say that what he thought was his "god" (or what he interpreted that to mean) had formed some sort of mental idea for him), and he came to understand what he thought he should do was in line with his perception of his deity's will. The way he expressed that was to say "he heard the voice". Do I actually think he said he heard a "voice" ? No. Is there any reason to "dumb" this down to a literal level, and by doing so, basically invalidate it, (as you are doing). No. I don't think so. He used words that made sense to him to express something he thought he experienced, in a way he could, in his tradition.


Let's follow this a bit. You say he was fairly rational in other respects, so what would this mean, that he would be unlikely to have an auditory hallucination as a result? That he likely would have recognized the voice he heard, as an auditory hallucination?

What would the affect of his rationality be here?

Quote:Not everyone is as childishly literal as fundie religionists.

No, you're just desperately trying to interpret it away as a metaphor, which I think is kind of funny, rather than saying he likely had an auditory hallucination.

He quite obviously meant it literally, hence why he said his "rationality left him", to describe a seemingly miraculous, unexplainable event. I'm not sure why you choose to adamantly deny the obvious here. I've seen cherry picking theist less desperate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 02:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is no need for you to even try to convince him as his report is not evidence to anyone else - not you, not me, not anyone.

Yet, here we are, arguing if he meant it metaphorically, or if it was an auditory hallucination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 06:10 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
No we are not arguing it. YOU are claiming it. No one else puts any credence in it at all.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-04-2015, 06:12 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No we are not arguing it. YOU are claiming it. No one else puts any credence in it at all.

I thought you were arguing he meant it metaphorically? Is that not the case now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 06:49 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No we are not arguing it. YOU are claiming it. No one else puts any credence in it at all.

Don't say that, he's going to bring up the definition of "arguing" now and soon after bicker about how you define voice.

Tomasia you are either being dishonest, or you are massively overly confident to proclaim knowledge that you can definitively define what a person actually thinks and feels based on a slim selection of words about a single subject. If you're standing that it's not in any way possible to be metaphorical or a spiritual feeling over physical sounds than you're sure of some great levels of knowledge.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: Unexplained "spiritual" experiences
(22-04-2015 06:12 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-04-2015 06:10 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No we are not arguing it. YOU are claiming it. No one else puts any credence in it at all.

I thought you were arguing he meant it metaphorically? Is that not the case now?

I'm playing with you dear. I know all you care about is pretending you have the smarts to tell yourself you can play with the big kids. You like to hear yourself blab. Blab away. The question is irrelevant. Argue about how many angels can dance on a pin. It would make more sense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: