My first debate challenge was if religious and mystical experiences can convince an atheist to move to theism. The atheists and skeptics agreed with me.
It appears the next question skeptics want to bring up is the validity of the mystical experience. I am willing to debate anyone on this matter. But I only want to focus on the experience of transcending self. I accept that this is the most important experience that anyone can have and this is why I am willing to debate it.
Debate challenge:
Mystical experiences. Real or hallucinations?
Rules:
Both participants get 3 posts each. My posts would be my opening, counter response, and conclusion.
Two week duration.
Who will accept?
Debate Challenge 2.. mystical experience
Moderator: Moderators
-
Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Post #21
It's not uncommon for posters to judge themselves the victor in various debates. To do so absent debate is a new level of hubris.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #22
[Replying to post 21 by Tcg]
Well, if nothing else, now he can use it as an unearned badge of honor to wag around to inflate his self-image of his already dubious credibility.
Well, if nothing else, now he can use it as an unearned badge of honor to wag around to inflate his self-image of his already dubious credibility.
Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson
-Scott Aaronson
