People who have never had any supernatural experience shouldn't be religious or spiritual.

People who have never had any supernatural experience shouldn't be religious or spiritual. It's just a LARP at that point, you're literally electing to believe something just because you read about it in a book and found it cool. From your point of view it's not any different than believing Spiderman exists.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    ive had supernatural experiences that i cannot explain though

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      My thread is obviously not about you then.

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do we know that it's supernatural and not schizophrenia

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      if multiple people experience it simultaneously

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        And how do we know that these multiple people aren't just under the influence of drugs, or bread/water contaminated with ergot

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are things like foreknowledge/prophetic gift that cannot be explained by drugs or schizophrenia. The closest thing to a scientific explanation is J.W. Dunne's serialism.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >foreknowledge/prophetic
            Can you name some accounts of this that are highly reliable?

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    No-one has ever had a supernatural experience. Some people are just mental or moronic.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      ....is what i would say if i was a fat, seething brainlet

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read this OP. Whether or not you have a supernatural experience is largely shaped by your own perception

  5. 4 months ago
    Dirk

    People who have never had any ancient Roman experience shouldn't be Roman historians or romaboos. It's just a LARP at that point you're literally electing to believe something just because you read about it in a book and found it cool. From your point of view it's not any different than believing Spiderman exists.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good job outing yourself. Always suspected it too.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I hope you're just funposting and not actually moronic

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      You can find evidences of that in museums and texts, you cant find evidences of spirituality without experience. Its a different topic

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Don't tell me you've never had a religious experience before.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the foremost /rel/ namegay has never had a single supernatural experience in his entire pathetic life
      Lmao this is too good.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >religion is literally a romaboo vgh larp

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Besides everything else, being a roman historian isn't equivalent to literally worshipping a israelite.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is moronic. People don't invoke their love of Roman history as some teleological/metaphysical necessity.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well you're right, no one should be a romaboo.

      >historians
      historians of rome don't need ancient roman experience (though many try somehow), historians of religion don't need spiritual experiences either.
      Having an academic interest in religion is totally different from being religious.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      I sincerely hope you aren't the real dork

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you're literally electing to believe something just because you read about it in a book and found it cool.
    You mean like atheistisraelites believing in and forcing evolutionism on kids in schools?

    They've never experienced it, never observed it, it contradicts all science and history.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure how to feel about this. I have had supernatural experiences and they are the basis for my religious beliefs. So, if that's what it took for me, how could I expect anyone else to believe without their own similar experiences? But then does that mean I should just abandon everyone else even if it's to their own detriment? Obviously the ideal solution would be to help other people to have their own supernatural experiences. But I have no clue how or why mine happened, so I'm not sure where to go from there.

    • 4 months ago
      Dirk

      If you appeal to a personal experience that's not externally verifiable, the person receiving your testimony is just receiving a testimony. It has persuasive power but can't really be compelling evidence.
      I see no reason to deny the possibility that an unbeliever could ask God for a supernatural sign, as if he can't hear them. The new testament points to a born again experience and accompanying signs of a new life as proof one may know he possesses eternal life, which I think is the normative supernatural experience for Christians, simultaneous with conversion.

      The supernatural can't even exist as a thing

      >radical naturalism
      Hey grandpa, did you just get a box set of cosmos for Christmas or something?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >radical naturalism
        Tell me when you have an actual argument against it

        • 4 months ago
          Dirk

          Kalam

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >kalam
            Lol; lmao

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            Tell me when you have an actual argument against it

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well you don't; I accept your concession

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not him, but Kalam cannot prove its conclusion until you prove that the A theory of time is true and both infinite regresses and causal loops are impossible.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            The impossibility of paradoxes is generally assumed as intuitive, as is A theory.
            You are right formally but your point functions as a defense, not a refutation of Kalam. He asked for an actual argument and I brought one up.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Infinite regresses and causal loops are not paradoxes. The A theory is assumed to be wrong by the majority of philosophers and physicists.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            Infinite regress is itself a paradox, yes. It's an actual infinite. Hilbert's hotel demonstrates the absurdity.

            >Majority
            Citation?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Hilbert's hotel sounds absurd because the parameters are set in a context where Infinity seems absurd. You got got by the oldest trick in the book.
            My source regarding the majority is the philpapers survey and the fact that special relativity is a mainstream scientific theory.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            It seems absurd because it is. The analogy demonstrates the point.
            Show me an actual infinite

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Show me an actual infinite
            god?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The analogy relies on your instincts regarding particular things which are not relevant to the temporal regress. How could you build an infinite hotel? Where would you put all the rooms? What about the material? etc.
            Can you show me an immaterial mind?

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            The questions all lend support to the absurdity

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah to the absurdity of a brick and mortar hotel that accommodates an infinite number of guests. However, you may notice that time isn't situated within a designated block of land and made up of bricks and mortar.
            You still haven't shown me an immaterial mind btw.

          • 4 months ago
            Dirk

            You're just being more descriptive of an actual infinite as opposed to a potential infinite. Do you get that?
            We can both conceive of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, the concept is not absurd. It's absurd to say an infinite is or could be actual. You cannot create a brick and mortar Hilbert's hotel on a designated block of land to accommodate an actually infinite number of guests. Its not possible for an infinite amount of bricks, mortar, or guests to exist, and the accomodation of the guests further demonstrates the absurdity which is why you get paradoxes where the hotel is simultaneously full and has vacancies.

            An eternal past is likewise impossible, with certain traditional assumptions about time, because it requires an actually infinite number of past units of time. Infinite regress is impossible because it requires an actually infinite sequence of causes and effects.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You're just being more descriptive of an actual infinite as opposed to a potential infinite. Do you get that?
            Wrong. I am simply telling you that the intuitions which make Hilbert's hotel seem ridiculous do not apply to time. Time is not made of bricks, it doesn't sit on a plot of land etc.
            >An eternal past is likewise impossible, with certain traditional assumptions about time, because it requires an actually infinite number of past units of time. Infinite regress is impossible because it requires an actually infinite sequence of causes and effects.
            This is just an assertion. You haven't explained why there can't be an infinite number of "units of time" or causes and effects - you just got upset, threw your hands up and said that there just can't be, ok????

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Numbers

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >and the fact that special relativity is a mainstream scientific theory
            Time dilation and light not being transmitted instantaneously don't preclude the existence of past, present, and future and it's kind of weird that anyone would think that they do.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither does the B theory of time.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it does. The entire idea is rejecting the existence of a forward flowing passage of time, which means no present at all and no general past or future. And people seem only to accept it because they consider a ripple reaching the bank of a pond to be the same event as the stone striking the water.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are confused. The claim of the B theory isn't that the past, present and future don't exist. It's the literal opposite - the past, present and future all exist.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, the events that occur at those points in time exist, but the states of present and general past and future do not. The present is the current point in the forward flowing passage of time. If such a passage of time is merely a human illusion, then the present as a state does not exist. And if the present as a state does not exist then the past and future, as general states applying simultaneously to the entire universe, do not exist. All because the observation of an event is equated with the event itself.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm afraid that's the consequence of special relativity. When two observers cannot agree on whether A happened before B or the other way around, you'll have a hard time salvaging the idea of a universal present.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Only if you're moronic. If I see some homosexual on Mars mooning me in my super telescope and hop in my wormhole teleporter to kick his ass do you think he's still going to be there or did he zip up his pants and walk off several minutes ago?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your example is not relevant to the point, which tells me that you don't know how special relativity relates to the topic. This also explains why you're so confused and angry.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"When two observers cannot agree on whether A happened before B or the other way around"
            >example of observers not agreeing when something happened
            >"n-no. not like that"

            >special relativity is when light travels a long time
            lmao

            It's the exact same shit if me and the guy passing me in a spaceship going half the speed of light disagree on when we think we flipped each other off. Our observations of the events aren't the actual events so our observations disagreeing isn't evidence that we did not both pass through a simultaneous present.
            And you know I'm right or you would have tried responding with something more than "you're wrong" by now.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >example of observers not agreeing when something happened
            You did not post that. You also seem to be under the impression that the phenomenon in question doesn't take into account the time it takes for light to travel to the observer. Very low IQ tbh.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >special relativity is when light travels a long time
            lmao

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Hilbert's hotel demonstrates the absurdity.
            Hilbert's hotel doesn't demonstrate the absurdity of an infinite; it showcases it's propertiee.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cause and effect only exist up until a certain point; causality is superimposed onto the pattern of reality by the human mind to create a sense of temporal order. The beginning of time is the beginning of cause and effect (which only exist up to a certain granularity even now), thus to demand cause for the beginning of causation is like demanding to know what came before time.
            The problem is that one might not be able to imagine what "before time" means: even our language does not permit talking about such a state accurately, since "before" is a temporal term. What "before time" means is that time itself (and also causation) is not fundamental, but merely a local phenomenon.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The supernatural can't even exist as a thing

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Semantically true, but not what people mean.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        People don't know what they mean with "supernatural"

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most people use it to refer to phenomena for which there is no explanation that is consistent with the current understanding of the material universe.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that is consistent with the current understanding of the material universe.
            Surely you see that it doesn't point to an actual thing but just to the lack of knowledge of humans

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Obviously I see that. I'm the one that included that in my definition. I'm also the one that said that your statement was semantically true. You're right something can't actually be supernatural. But that doesn't mean that the word conveys no meaning. Most everyone understands the kind of phenomena it refers to.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's more a matter of logic. Everything coming from nothing in the form of a "big bang" where the universal sense puts all the bits and pieces to mold in a way that our world is born just resonates to my understanding in a way that there must have been an extremely intelligent conscious creator.
    Also infinity is something that is hard for me to understand without adding something divine to the equation.
    Also the fact that all cultures and civilizations have believed in the divine and formed religions throughout history, even when they have been in zero contact with each other comes to me as almost proof.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Also the fact that all cultures and civilizations have believed in the divine and formed religions throughout history, even when they have been in zero contact with each other comes to me as almost proof.
      There are always two explanations for why some belief might exist in two distinct places: historicism and structuralism (jargon-terms, nothing to do with structuralism vs. post-structuralism): either people believe in a story because they are historically connected, with that link being now lost, like some population of settlers inheriting the beliefs of their ancestor population, or because they're both humans who have human brains, and the human brain just likes making up a certain kind of explanation. The human brain has the neurology to make up "persons", which is why humans also used to think in animist terms, thinking that the "tree-spirit" made the tree grow, and the lightning-man made the lightning shoot.
      Really, historicism and structuralism are the same thing, just on different levels: memetic vs. genetic common descent.
      However, neither proves that whatever people happen to believe is factually true.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        If we don't count the memetic part then that still doesn't explain the need for worship in all cultures. And it hasn't all been memetic for all cultures across the globe

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the need for worship in all cultures
          Let us be careful with our terms here: our words contain cultural assumptions. For instance, the term "worship" already evokes a feeling of essentially church-service. Humans like ritualistic behavior, which is likely an artifact of our neurology: mammals can learn and repeat patterns of behavior, and humans can learn particularly abstract rituals with no obvious connection to any immediate benefit, which would explain the variety of "worship"-traditions across the globe: burning incense, dancing, reading aloud, yelling, etc. That's an outward form; as to the motivation: there might be no motivation beyond this being some social activity that happens to be what people do, with maybe some mythology as to why this is being done that gets attached as a justification. Humans also like coming up with explanations for why things are the way they are; they also would serve an evolutionary purpose.
          Humans furthermore also like to control their environment, the sense of control also evoking a desired sense of safety. Since they cannot really control their environment beyond a certain, fairly limited point, we could think that they would nonetheless try. The way of doing this would be more or less random, or ritualistic, since, in the more concrete case, humans cannot control e.g. lightning and floods, thus they'd, if they tried, would resort to various rituals. In the more abstract case: they cannot control mortality and the destiny of their consciousness.

  10. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's precisely my talking point, what I believe is because of spiritual experience (union with God), triggered by meditation, yet not only do people choose random religion but also put themselves at the same level.

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    All religion is a larp dude. But it's a larp that cements group cohesion and identity. Ritual is "costly signalling" in the parlance of evolutionary psychology.

  12. 4 months ago
    Dirk

    I didn't know Oyish was such an empiricist board

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >historian
      >not empiricist
      ????

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *