Religions have succeeded

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Christianity is the dominant form of religion in the world...

No it isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Davey and Hillside seem to suggest a 'dangerous' level of exposure to religion at which conversion is almost sure and also exaggerate my exposure so their methodology isn't that sound.

“Hillside” (and, I suspect, the Prof) suggest no such thing. What I/we do suggest though is that any conversion event from any faith tradition will almost certainly light on the god with which the convertee is already most (or solely) familiar. Yours is one such.

This should give you pause at least.   

[Dicky Underpants]

I can't recall Vlad's accounts of his conversion experience other than the post I responded to, where it seemed more of a gradual experience. Vlad said he was a god-denier so it sounded like he had been thinking about it for a while before he converted. He said the presence he felt was in his consciousness and not in the sense of a physical presence. Not my idea of a massive conversion where I would expect at the very least some yelling of a few "Hallelujahs" but it seems we differ in our interpretation of the word "massive". 

ETA: I don't know how similar the flavour of Christianity he professes is to the one he was brought up with, but I don't think it's curious that there are some similar themes. He's not claiming to be a prophet or messiah with a whole new message. He just made sense of his experience in response to the information his brain had. I come from a country where lots of people converted from their religion to Christianity after Christian missionaries arrived and set up schools. They couldn't have done so if the missionaries and the surrounding environment from birth had not presented their brains with some information for the brain to work with to make sense of their experience and emotions.

Since he said his experience was of God as Judge, and that the only responses were submission to him as Lord - or flight, that doesn't sound quite as cosy as you'd like to make it. Of course conversion experiences of all kinds begin with some kind of intellectual cogitation, but the experience itself is often recorded as overwhelming. Trouble is, you can read accounts of the religious experience of Lakota Indians which are themselves Shakespearean in grandeur, but telling a completely different narrative from any of the dominant world religions. Doesn't make any of them objectively true.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

I have no idea. As I’m not proposing a supernatural entity though that’s not my problem (though it is for a proponent of such a thing who wants her claim to be taken seriously).

If reality is defined as something established through objectively testable evidence, I haven't made a claim of reality.

But Vlad is, which is what this about. He thinks an objectively real god “converted” him.

Could you link to a claim of reality - as far as I know neither Vlad nor I claimed to have objectively, testable evidence of a god who converted him?

Why are you ignoring the rebuttal you’ve been given? Your response tried to draw an analogy between claims of an objectively “real for everyone”, factual, non-imaginary, "out there" god and your personal, subjective preferences about curries, 80s music etc. That’s called a category error, which is why the analogy failed.

No I wasn't making any claim of an objectively real god, as I don't have any objectively testable evidence for one. The analogy therefore did not fail.

As for your “prior information” sidebar, as a separate matter if the (supposed) entity that shows up doesn’t communicate anything about itself that the visitee doesn’t believe already all that implies is confirmation bias – and total relativism (because any description of god’s characteristics would be as (in)valid as any other).

Why would you think the entity would communicate anything new - as far as I know Vlad isn't claiming to be a prophet or messiah with a new message? He just made sense of his experience using the information already stored in his brain, as does everyone when they come up with concepts or values or preferences.   

It absolutely isn’t. Morals, aesthetics, hot beverage preferences etc are all about the subjective. Claims of gods, dragons and leprechauns are all about the objective. These are fundamentally different categories of knowledge.     

Is Vlad claiming to have objectively testable evidence of his experience in order to establish reality or is Vlad claiming a belief and a faith?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Since he said his experience was of God as Judge, and that the only responses were submission to him as Lord - or flight, that doesn't sound quite as cosy as you'd like to make it.

Maybe you're right - only Vlad can answer in what sense he used those terms. God as Judge is pretty standard. Not sure what he meant by "flight" - whether he literally felt like running screaming from the room or something else.

Of course conversion experiences of all kinds begin with some kind of intellectual cogitation, but the experience itself is often recorded as overwhelming. Trouble is, you can read accounts of the religious experience of Lakota Indians which are themselves Shakespearean in grandeur, but telling a completely different narrative from any of the dominant world religions. Doesn't make any of them objectively true.

Sure I agree. Maybe Vlad did find it overwhelming and I haven't been paying attention. But I'm not surprised that people's brains make sense of their experiences based on prior information and experiences already in their brains.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since he said his experience was of God as Judge, and that the only responses were submission to him as Lord - or flight, that doesn't sound quite as cosy as you'd like to make it.

Dicky, You seemed to have detected something discomforting in this around judgement and submission. I'm moved as with others in a similar position to suggest some personal exploration around this, maybe?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

“Hillside” (and, I suspect, the Prof) suggest no such thing. What I/we do suggest though is that any conversion event from any faith tradition will almost certainly light on the god with which the convertee is already most (or solely) familiar. Yours is one such.

This should give you pause at least.   

You exaggerate my personal faith tradition and certainly of the country which is really a kind of agnostic apatheism with Humanism and has perhaps been for decades.

That should give YOU pause given your theory of religion. To suggest that isn't based on exposure to religion is gaslighting on your part.

[ProfessorDavey]

You exaggerate my personal faith tradition ...

BHS can speak for himself - but I don't think there is any exaggeration on my behalf. My understanding of your personal faith tradition is that you were born into a country that retained a long-standing christian tradition, which was at the time pretty endemic. And that personally your parents chose to send you to Sunday School and a christian Faith School and that as a child you attended church - that, to my mind is consistent with having a christian upbringing, on the basis that parents not bringing their children up christian tend not to send their kids to Sunday School, Faith Schools and have their children attend christian religious worship.

So your personal journey appears to be one of a christian upbringing within a broadly christian society, a relatively brief period where you moved away from the religion of your upbringing and then reversion back into the religion of your upbringing. This is simply based on the information about your upbringing you, specifically, have provided.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You exaggerate my personal faith tradition and certainly of the country which is really a kind of agnostic apatheism with Humanism and has perhaps been for decades.

Nope. Everything you think you know about the “god” you “encountered” you knew before the encounter anyway because you were enculturated to it. There’s not one scrap of the story that was revealed to you during the episode, which is just what you’d expect if there was actually no encounter at all.   

That should give YOU pause given your theory of religion. To suggest that isn't based on exposure to religion is gaslighting on your part.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BHS can speak for himself - but I don't think there is any exaggeration on my behalf. My understanding of your personal faith tradition is that you were born into a country that retained a long-standing christian tradition, which was at the time pretty endemic. And that personally your parents chose to send you to Sunday School and a christian Faith School and that as a child you attended church - that, to my mind is consistent with having a christian upbringing, on the basis that parents not bringing their children up christian tend not to send their kids to Sunday School, Faith Schools and have their children attend christian religious worship.

So your personal journey appears to be one of a christian upbringing within a broadly christian society, a relatively brief period where you moved away from the religion of your upbringing and then reversion back into the religion of your upbringing. This is simply based on the information about your upbringing you, specifically, have provided.

This is biography by formula. You'll be after a patent on my life story next.
Your shocking claim that atheists suffered in the same way as  those caught having homosexual physical relationships was certifiable bunkum but just thepinnacle of your historical revisionism

It may come as a surprise to you Davey but I knew my parents....Your statements are becoming so silly I feel bound to ask you if you are taking the piss or just, through the anonimity of the internet, Gaslighting me something rotten?

 Lots of people had the same background as me and are not religious so your thesis is also a failed one. Christianity is the world's majority religion and the UK's faith position has been at most largely nominal and probably more realistically agnostic apatheist with humanist traits.

As for reversion. No, it was something new. I certainly have come across many who claim to have switched from christianity but their definitions of christianity do not match up with my experience and study and understanding as a christian but more of snatches of what might be understood to be christian by agnostic apatheists ( The clue here Davey is in the name there) who have had like me mere brushes with it as a child for an hour or so on sunday mornings probably not that given the attention span of a kid looking forward to Fireball XL5  or went to a rural C of E primary school or as you would put it, a fundamentalist christian Hothouse madrassa (I say C of E, it was also a local authority school).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. Everything you think you know about the “god” you “encountered” you knew before the encounter anyway because you were enculturated to it. There’s not one scrap of the story that was revealed to you during the episode, which is just what you’d expect if there was actually no encounter at all.   

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

It's amazing that with todays gas prices you are still caning it at this level of lighting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

If reality is defined as something established through objectively testable evidence, I haven't made a claim of reality.

But Vlad has, which is what this exchange is about. He thinks a real god really paid him a visit and thereby really converted him. 

Could you link to a claim of reality - as far as I know neither Vlad nor I claimed to have objectively, testable evidence of a god who converted him?

I assume you’re joking. Just read any of his posts here.   

No I wasn't making any claim of an objectively real god, as I don't have any objectively testable evidence for one. The analogy therefore did not fail.

You were responding to the argument about Vlad’s god also being the one to which he was the most enculturated remember, not your god. I don’t know whether you think your god is real or just a product of your imagination, but that’s not what this exchange is about so it doesn’t matter.

And yes the analogy did fail for the reason I’ve explained to you several times now – you conflated the subjective (preferring coffee etc) with the objective (“god is a fact” etc).     

Why would you think the entity would communicate anything new - as far as I know Vlad isn't claiming to be a prophet or messiah with a new message?

You’re being too literal – just turning up would be communicating information, just as someone turning a light on communicates information.   

He just made sense of his experience using the information already stored in his brain, as does everyone when they come up with concepts or values or preferences.

Which is the confirmation bias and ensuing relativism I talked about. If all that people who have moving episodes of some sort can do to explain them is to reach for the stories of the supernatural with which they happen to be most familiar then they explain nothing.       

Is Vlad claiming to have objectively testable evidence of his experience in order to establish reality or is Vlad claiming a belief and a faith?

That’s called a false dichotomy. He thinks he has “evidence” but that turns out to be just bad arguments, but his “belief and a faith” is also a belief and faith that “god” is an objective fact.

Anyway, the point here remains that the god Vlad think is objectively, factually, “true for everyone”, “out there” real is also by a remarkable co-incidence the exact one he happens to know the most about from his upbringing, and when you conflate the subjective with the objective as if they’re epistemically the same you commit a category error.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's amazing that with todays gas prices you are still caning it at this level of lighting.

Perhaps you should look up what "gaslighting" means before you attempt the term mistakenly again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

VG,
Quote
If reality is defined as something established through objectively testable evidence, I haven't made a claim of reality.

But Vlad has, which is what this exchange is about. He thinks a real god really paid him a visit and thereby really converted him.

You can only test this yourself, Hillside.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

But Vlad has, which is what this exchange is about. He thinks a real god really paid him a visit and thereby really converted him. 

I assume you’re joking. Just read any of his posts here.   

You were responding to the argument about Vlad’s god also being the one to which he was the most enculturated remember, not your god. I don’t know whether you think your god is real or just a product of your imagination, but that’s not what this exchange is about so it doesn’t matter.

And yes the analogy did fail for the reason I’ve explained to you several times now – you conflated the subjective (preferring coffee etc) with the objective (“god is a fact” etc).

What he said was he sensed god's presence in his consciousness. Which part of that is objective testable evidence? So no  the analogy didn't fail for the reasons already explained. Vlad didn't claim to have objectively testable evidence that god was present. He stated a subjective belief based on an inner experience.

You’re being too literal – just turning up would be communicating information, just as someone turning a light on communicates information. 

  What do you mean by 'turning up', given Vlad said he didn't believe in a physical god?

Which is the confirmation bias and ensuing relativism I talked about. If all that people who have moving episodes of some sort can do to explain them is to reach for the stories of the supernatural with which they happen to be most familiar then they explain nothing.   

That's illogical. How can people retrieve information that their brain is not already familiar with? Where is the source of this information they reach for other than their brain?

That’s called a false dichotomy. He thinks he has “evidence” but that turns out to be just bad arguments, but his “belief and a faith” is also a belief and faith that “god” is an objective fact.

Can you link to where Vlad has claimed objectively testable evidence? He said the presence was in his consciousness. How is that a claim for having objectively testable evidence?

A belief in "god" just means that someone holds the idea that their concept of god is true. Whereas a fact is something that has empirical evidence to support it, until new evidence comes along that amends the fact. You do know the two are not the same right? The belief that something is true is subjective, whereas facts can be objectively tested.

Anyway, the point here remains that the god Vlad think is objectively, factually, “true for everyone”, “out there” real is also by a remarkable co-incidence the exact one he happens to know the most about from his upbringing, and when you conflate the subjective with the objective as if they’re epistemically the same you commit a category error.   

You still haven't explained what's remarkable about it, despite me asking many times. Any sense he makes of an experience he has will be based on information already stored in his brain. What's remarkable about that and what's the alternative? 

[Sriram]

It is very clear that atheists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment. It is like born blind people denying the existence of light.

Believers are able to discern these patterns and are able to even discern the presence of higher levels of consciousness within themselves. How they interpret or imagine these experiences is related to their culture and religious background.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is very clear that atheists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment. It is like born blind people denying the existence of light.

Not really - there is objectively testable evidence for light. Your belief that your subconscious can discern patterns has no objectively testable evidence to support it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not sure but this might be of interest:

https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-gestalt-theory-and-perceptual-development.html

[Sriram]

Not really - there is objectively testable evidence for light. Your belief that your subconscious can discern patterns has no objectively testable evidence to support it.

There is no way you can prove to a stubborn born blind man that light exists... He has to take it on faith one way or the other.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is very clear that atheists lack a certain ability for subconsciously discerning patterns in their environment. It is like born blind people denying the existence of light.

Blimey - now Sriram is being atheist is the equivalent of having a disability - FFS.

Believers are able to discern these patterns and are able to even discern the presence of higher levels of consciousness within themselves. How they interpret or imagine these experiences is related to their culture and religious background.

I don't think that the experiences of believers and atheists are fundamentally different - the difference comes from how believers and atheists interpret those experiences, which will be fundamentally different with believers attributing those experiences to god. And you are correct that the different interpretation is driven by upbringing, culture and society as religion/belief in god seems very clearly to be societally-driven learned behaviour.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is no way you can prove to a stubborn born blind man that light exists... He has to take it on faith one way or the other.

But as VG has pointed out there is clear objective evidence that light exists. By contrast there is no credible evidence that god exists, which is why believers rely on ... err ... belief and faith.

So while a blind man may have to take the existence of light on faith (actually they don't as there is still evidence), the sighted person doesn't have to as they have objective evidence. In the case of belief or non belief in god no-one has evidence for the existence of god so everyone relies on belief or non belief.

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey - now Sriram is being atheist is the equivalent of having a disability - FFS.
I don't think that the experiences of believers and atheists are fundamentally different - the difference comes from how believers and atheists interpret those experiences, which will be fundamentally different with believers attributing those experiences to god. And you are correct that the different interpretation is driven by upbringing, culture and society as religion/belief in god seems very clearly to be societally-driven learned behaviour.

I think splitting interpretation of experiences into theists/atheists is incredibly simplistic.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is no way you can prove to a stubborn born blind man that light exists... He has to take it on faith one way or the other.

Not sure what you mean. We have instruments to detect and record what we call 'light' and can convert energy from light into electric currents to power something and can make predictions of how light will interact with other substances that can then be tested and verified, so you have objective evidence and don't have to take it on faith, even if you're blind. I assume the blind man is not deaf and can listen to an explanation of what light is made up of and what is recorded by instruments etc

Do you have an instrument to record the patterns sensed by your sub-conscious? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you are correct that the different interpretation is driven by upbringing, culture and society as religion/belief in god seems very clearly to be societally-driven learned behaviour.

I wonder if you are special pleading here what is special about believing in God. You mean belief in any weldbilt, world view or anything surely.

religion as learned behaviour? How does that work then since it seems the easiest thing to stop behaving as religious.

Frankly Davey you seem all over the shop on religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I don't think that the experiences of believers and atheists are fundamentally different - the difference comes from how believers and atheists interpret those experiences, which will be fundamentally different with believers attributing those experiences to god. And you are correct that the different interpretation is driven by upbringing, culture and society as religion/belief in god seems very clearly to be societally-driven learned behaviour.

We don't know whether the experiences are the same or different for different people as they are internal. You might be able to record some physiological components of the experience, but obviously it is possible there are components that can't be recorded.

People can of course decide, regardless of inner experiences, that what can't be recorded is not true/ real etc

ETA: Not sure how you equate belief with learned behaviour. How do you learn to believe?