Evidence 1: Mystic experience can convert atheists to theism

[Swami]

A few months has passed since I posted a debate challenge to atheists regarding religious experience. To date, no atheist has taken up my challenge perhaps because there is some truth to what I'm saying. I hope that this will serve as a lesson to those so called skeptics and scientists who are so quick to dismiss religious claims.

Here is one interesting evidence of a woman who dropped scientific materialism after discovering the true nature of consciousness:

I was home alone, walking through the living room, not thinking of anything in particular, when suddenly my consciousness erupted. It no longer ended at the surface of my body but expanded outward, filling the surrounding space. I experienced everything around me as inside me and absolutely identical to myself. I was no longer Linda Johnsen; I was everything. The bliss of that single moment was beyond description.

I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness.

It wasn’t “as if� I was the universe. I really “was� the universe. It happened spontaneously, and even though it only lasted a few seconds, I emerged from it changed forever. Any confidence I had in the materialistic scientific paradigm collapsed. So did my naive belief that heaven—the most joyful place I’d heard of before that moment—was a physical site with streets paved in gold. I suddenly understood that the entire universe is held within an all-pervading, blissful awareness. It’s useless for you to argue that I must have been hallucinating or having some kind of epileptic fit. The experience was real. In fact, it was far more vivid than everyday reality and it set me on a lifelong quest to understand exactly what had happened and how I could make it happen again.

The flash of “cosmic consciousness� I experienced when I was 14 happens more seldom than the first two states of mystical consciousness just described, but bring up the subject in a large group and you’ll almost certainly find at least one person who’s had the experience. In this state the boundary between “self� and “other� dissolves and your individual consciousness merges with the living reality of everything around you, animate and inanimate. There’s a profound sense of coming home, of returning to a unity you suddenly “knew all along� was there, as if you’ve just awakened from a dream.

https://yogainternational.com/article/v ... xperiences

This experience is similar to many experiences that led me believe that there exist a consciousness that not only transcends body, but also, space, time, and yes, even the self.

To discussion:
Can mystical or religious experience convert someone to theism?

[Swami]

Instead of trying to figure out everything in your head, I recommend that you go have the experience. This is the lesson that you should get from the topic here.

I've already had the experience you are talking about several times over throughout my life. The bottom line is that this experience does not imply what you have mistakenly concluded that it implies.

This experience is fully compatible with a materialistic worldview. So it's already fully explained under materialism. Apparently you just don't understand the materialistic worldview. That's all.

Okay, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I walk away from the experience believing that consciousness is fundamental and that all of reality should be explained in terms of it. You walk away believing that matter is fundamental and this explains everything.

Now lets give the readers a chance to learn and make their own conclusions.

[benchwarmer]

IN all of my experience in dealing with others who have gone through these experiences, I can honestly say I don't believe you. You want me to believe that as a theist your religious experience made you an atheist? I simply do not believe you.

I don't really care if you believe me or not. I started as an atheist, became a theist, took part in charismatic Christian practices, then later realized it was all bunk and just a bunch of people really wanting to believe so much that they honestly believe they are having 'religious experiences'.

I also never said my religious experiences made me an atheist. Where did you get that? I said I used OTHER methods to examine my experiences. i.e. observation of reality. I examined the core beliefs of Christianity and where they came from. I was basing the entire house of cards on heresay and had fooled myself into thinking I was 'experiencing god'. What I was likely doing was experiencing being part of a group of people who really liked believing in something 'bigger'.

Here is what I suggest. Leave the site for a month. Stay clear of taking sides whether it be atheist or theist. I say this so you can take ego out of the picture. Then have the experience again. After that come back and tell us your view.

Suggestion noted and discarded. I compare all my experiences now with rational explanations and if something is unexplained, I don't make something up and declare it to be true. I say "I don't know what happened there, but that was interesting" and leave it at that.

[Divine Insight]

Instead of trying to figure out everything in your head, I recommend that you go have the experience. This is the lesson that you should get from the topic here.

I've already had the experience you are talking about several times over throughout my life. The bottom line is that this experience does not imply what you have mistakenly concluded that it implies.

This experience is fully compatible with a materialistic worldview. So it's already fully explained under materialism. Apparently you just don't understand the materialistic worldview. That's all.

Okay, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement. I walk away from the experience believing that consciousness is fundamental and that all of reality should be explained in terms of it. You walk away believing that matter is fundamental and this explains everything.

Now lets give the readers a chance to learn and make their own conclusions.

WRONG!

You clearly aren't understanding what I've been saying all along. And you have just now jumped to yet another totally wrong and incorrect conclusion.

I do NOT conclude from this experience that the world must be material. I simply point out that the experience is compatible with materialism and therefore does not provide any conclusive information. Therefore I make no conclusions about what the experience might imply beyond the obvious fact that I have perceived it. So, unlike you, I don't jump to any unwarranted conclusions from having had the experience.

You, on the other hand, DO jump to erroneous and unwarranted conclusions about this experience and decree that this experience supports your unwarranted conclusions, which it does not. So you are not understanding what other people are telling you, neither do you appear to understand what constitutes a valid conclusion.

I am not taking the opposite position from you and trying to claim that these experiences are evidence for materialism. I'm simply pointing out the fact that these experiences do not provide enough information to draw any conclusions about the state of reality. Just because they are totally compatible with materialism doesn't mean that they imply materialism.

So you clearly aren't following logical reasoning here. You seem to be hung up on jumping to erroneous conclusions based on experiences that don't support those conclusions and then decreeing that anyone who doesn't accept your erroneous reasoning must be on the opposite side of what you are attempting to debate.

I'm simply pointing out that your arguments concerning these experiences do not provide evidence to support the conclusions you are jumping to.

I am NOT claiming that they are evidence for anything else. I simply point out that these kinds of experiences are also fully compatible with a materialistic worldview. I am NOT suggesting that we should conclude that materialism must then be true.

The only conclusion we can make from having had these experiences is the simple fact that they don't provide any information at all concerning the true nature of reality.

As someone else suggested, it's no different from solipsism actually. Just because you can perceive that the world is nothing but a figment of your own imagination doesn't make that worldview true.

Same thing here. Just because you can perceive yourself to be discontinuous with your environment doesn't imply that there must exist a cosmic consciousness of which you are just a part of. That simply doesn't follow.

Your entire argument on this topic is non-sequitur.

That's what I'm saying. I'm NOT arguing that this experience is evidence for materialism. But I can point out the obvious fact that it is indeed compatible with materialism. That doesn't support that materialism is true. It's just an acknowledgement of compatibility.

[William]

[Replying to post 27 by ]

bluegreenearth: For some reason, this topic is reminding me of the philosophical problem of hard solipsism. Is someone's mystical experience of harmonious existence with the everything in the universe a metaphysical reality or an elaborate simulation produced by the mind of the person having the experience? If it is a simulation produced by the mind of the person who has the experience, how could that be distinguished from the metaphysical reality of that person's existence?

William: This is a good question to be asking as I think it shows that you are thinking this idea deeply enough to appreciate the fundamental position which is Solipsism.

In holographic terms, all fragments of a hologram contain within them the wholeness of the original hologram.

I see this as a great clue/evidence as to the probable nature of the Metaphysical, should it indeed exist,...in relation to patterns and vibrations that we know exist.

[William]

[Replying to post 30]

Swami: I don't believe my position fits with solipsism.

William: I would urge you to reconsider as it may be an important overall underlying reality...

Swami: The difference is that the first perspective with the everything involves seeing everything as it really is, while second perspective is only seeing reality as it appears to us.

William: It is the patterns which we need to examine. The fact that we can even contemplate Solipsism supports that it might well be factual...

Swami: The simulation comes from the mind of "the everything".

William: Then that would be the primary position of Solipsism..."The Mind of Everything" is that position.

Swami: Reality does not exist outside of the mind of this source.

William: Reality is simply the Mind of Everything which can be experienced as real.

Swami: Our own minds at best sustains the simulation in its own limited way

William: This in itself doesn't make the experience any less real.
Otherwise your argument raises the question "Is the Mind of Everything experiencing anything real?"

Swami: The way you can tell the difference between the two realities is by removing the filter of the mind and the senses. Then you can access the reality of pure consciousness.

William: In order for something to be "pure Consciousness" all things would have to be removed from its experience, including even all memories of ever having experienced things.
If so, then one in that state would be unaware of 'differences' as there would be no realities to compare.

The Script: Vasishta said:— He who has devoted his whole soul to the contemplation of Consciousness and feels it stirring within himself, knows in his mind the vanity and unreality of all worldly things.

William: Why does Vasishta see himself as separate from the consciousness to that point where he thinks himself a soul with this consciousness (other than soul) "stirring within himself"?

[Inconsistencies alarm bells are ringing.]

[Swami]

William: In order for something to be "pure Consciousness" all things would have to be removed from its experience, including even all memories of ever having experienced things.
If so, then one in that state would be unaware of 'differences' as there would be no realities to compare.

I define pure consciousness as awareness or perception without the mind and senses.

I can accept that if we want to experience only consciousness then it would involve experience of itself. This can occur during meditation. Under my view, the Cosmic consciousness (which is a pure conscious entity) is also aware of the world that it creates and can experience or perceive each and everything in it.

I accept that there can be levels of the pure conscious state. I say this because it's possible to tap into an aspect of it as opposed to merge with it completely. I use this to explain things like acquired savant syndrome and samyama (which is merging with one object, like a rock, while in pure conscious state).

[Swami]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 32 by benchwarmer]

This discussion is not about convincing you two. I started this discussion to show that experience is a powerful way getting someone to drop their atheism. I have shown this.

If my intentions were to convince you by simple dialogue then I would not be throwing me entire belief system at you. From experience, some get turned off by this so I would’ve started simple. I could tell you to forget about my notion of universal consciousness. First, discover that you can achieve a state of awareness that does not involve thoughts and senses. Even scientists are open to accepting this state if you read up on ‘dreamless sleep’. In general, if a person can accept this then I would have transitioned to other metaphysical views on consciousness.

[Tcg]

I started this discussion to show that experience is a powerful way getting someone to drop their atheism. I have shown this.

Nothing earthshattering here. Experience is also a powerful way to lead some to drop their theism. Some drop atheism, others drop theism. Neither experience proves anything about either theism or atheism.

It shows that people sometimes change their minds. This is not exactly front page news.


Tcg

[Bust Nak]

The experience itself is empirical evidence.

How is that empirical?

What many atheists are not doing is trying to have the experience for themselves so that they can have the evidence.

What is the method of gaining such experience?

Instead, many atheists want others to explain the experience to them and when I do so I am attacked and bullied.

I want you to present your claim in such a way that can be tested in a lab. Can you do that?

I never want people to just go by what I say. It is easier if you have the experience for yourself so you can realize the error of materialism.

Easier still, we can do an experiment and not rely on anecdote claims?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Swami]

The claim that mystic experience can convert atheists to theism isn't contraversal. What lesson are we skeptics and scientists supposed to learn from this?

Scientists and skeptics always claim that they need evidence to be convinced. The lesson here is that the experiences that I bring up is more than enough evidence to convince the atheists.

If atheists already agree with what I'm saying, which is shown when no one accepts my debate challenge, then why are they not willing to put the lesson here into practice? The reason can't be that the experiences never happen to them because I have presented reliable methods for bringing on the experiences instead of having to wait for them.

So what is it the reason? Pride or ego? Are they afraid? Or not ready for it or don't want the truth at all? I let the audience decide.

I'm curious, how much time do you spend debating the shape of the earth?
If none or very little, is that because the arguments for a flat earth are so good, or is it more that debating such a thing would be to give it credit it does not yet deserve?

Does pride or ego stop you from debating the shape of the earth? Perhaps your afraid?

See what I did there?
What's good for the goose...