People’s brains convincing them something stranger has happened isn’t actually all that strange.
Neither is people just making shit up.
Until I have a reason- tangible evidence- for a thing, I’m going to stay skeptical.
Edit:
To put this another way, if I indulge this, then I’d have to also indulge Mike Johnson’s insistence god told him he’s the second coming of Moses. Do you see the harm there?
So, going back to Mike Johnson, he’s a US lawmaker- the speaker of the house, and 3rd in line for what used to be one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world.
You don’t see the harm that he has voices in his head telling him he’s some kind of salvation figure (moses) liberating his people (evangelical christsians) from persecution (that isn’t happening.) making some very fucked up policies because of all the other shit the voices in his head are saying?
I prefer my policies set on evidence, not the internal monologue of a madman.
You’re welcome to believe what you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to indulge anything. And to be blunt, I have no more reason to believe spirits come and talk to you than Mike Johnson is sent by god. (even if I do wish he’d go wander the desert for a few decades.)
Without evidence, I have no more reason to believe some divine being is giving Mike Johnson orders than I do to believe spirits come talk to you while you meditate.
I do have some reason to believe that, during prayer/meditation/whatever you’ve entered into a state of altered consciousness and your perceptions are not grounded in reality.
For example, Michael Persinger’s “god helmet” experiments (in which they stimulated parts of the brain and induced euphoric visions of god,)
or the work of Newberg and d’Aquili who monitored brain activity of people praying or meditating (franciscan nuns and tibetan buddhists, in particular,) showing altered brain activity.
or Roland Griffiths who dosed people with psilocybin and achieved some of the same things, while doing similar neural imaging.
or the studies of near-death experiments which have more or less conclusively demonstrated those were not “real” experiences. (they brought things into the surgical theater and later asked them to recount what they saw. Including some studies where that was the the whole point- with instructions to ‘turn around’)
In short, if you have no tangible evidence of the spirit world (and you don’t,) then I have no reason to indulge it. anything that is claimed without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence. and personally, I think anything claimed without evidence should be dismissed.
which brings us back to: you have no tangible evidence. every religion has people reporting broadly similar experiences.
For example, the Prince Philip Movement in Vanuatu. They report Prince Phillip appearing to them in dreams. Do you really think that Philip spoke to them in their dreams?
Why not just go with it? For conversation’s sake.
Because the world is large and we are small and stranger things have happened.
Because why should I?
People’s brains convincing them something stranger has happened isn’t actually all that strange.
Neither is people just making shit up.
Until I have a reason- tangible evidence- for a thing, I’m going to stay skeptical.
Edit: To put this another way, if I indulge this, then I’d have to also indulge Mike Johnson’s insistence god told him he’s the second coming of Moses. Do you see the harm there?
No, I do not see the harm. Lol.
So, going back to Mike Johnson, he’s a US lawmaker- the speaker of the house, and 3rd in line for what used to be one of the most powerful and influential positions in the world.
You don’t see the harm that he has voices in his head telling him he’s some kind of salvation figure (moses) liberating his people (evangelical christsians) from persecution (that isn’t happening.) making some very fucked up policies because of all the other shit the voices in his head are saying?
I prefer my policies set on evidence, not the internal monologue of a madman.
You’re welcome to believe what you want, but that doesn’t mean I have to indulge anything. And to be blunt, I have no more reason to believe spirits come and talk to you than Mike Johnson is sent by god. (even if I do wish he’d go wander the desert for a few decades.)
Your thesis amounts to mere convention.
Without evidence, I have no more reason to believe some divine being is giving Mike Johnson orders than I do to believe spirits come talk to you while you meditate.
I do have some reason to believe that, during prayer/meditation/whatever you’ve entered into a state of altered consciousness and your perceptions are not grounded in reality.
For example, Michael Persinger’s “god helmet” experiments (in which they stimulated parts of the brain and induced euphoric visions of god,)
or the work of Newberg and d’Aquili who monitored brain activity of people praying or meditating (franciscan nuns and tibetan buddhists, in particular,) showing altered brain activity.
or Roland Griffiths who dosed people with psilocybin and achieved some of the same things, while doing similar neural imaging.
or the studies of near-death experiments which have more or less conclusively demonstrated those were not “real” experiences. (they brought things into the surgical theater and later asked them to recount what they saw. Including some studies where that was the the whole point- with instructions to ‘turn around’)
In short, if you have no tangible evidence of the spirit world (and you don’t,) then I have no reason to indulge it. anything that is claimed without evidence can be equally dismissed without evidence. and personally, I think anything claimed without evidence should be dismissed.
But there is evidence, my testimony.
Which is not really evidence at all.
which brings us back to: you have no tangible evidence. every religion has people reporting broadly similar experiences.
For example, the Prince Philip Movement in Vanuatu. They report Prince Phillip appearing to them in dreams. Do you really think that Philip spoke to them in their dreams?
Actually, in a court of law, we ask for the testimony of witnesses all the time. So you got that wrong.
Maybe you mean that it isn’t the kind of evidence that you want.