Atheist vs. Agnostic Label

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

No, teasing out the antecedents of particular natural phenomena is the province of science, mysticism only exists because of the realisation that the rational approach cannot penetrate the mystery of why there are natural phenomena to be wondering about, in the first. The reason that religions exists, is because people realize that reason cannot answer such questions, organized religion depends on people accepting that others have "seen" the solution for them, it being a great work that is supposed beyond most. 

As you've said mysticism can't even give apparent answers.  You can't tell the truth from a lie.

The fact that reason has given answers that religious dogma got wrong undermines the effectiveness of mysticism.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

As you've said mysticism can't even give apparent answers.  You can't tell the truth from a lie.

The fact that reason has given answers that religious dogma got wrong undermines the effectiveness of mysticism.

There is no dogma inherent in mysticism.

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

There is no dogma inherent in mysticism.

It's free for all story telling.  What on earth makes you think this is how you arrive at any explanation?

[Habitat]

24 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

It's free for all story telling.  What on earth makes you think this is how you arrive at any explanation?

There is no real story telling as such, it would be like a sighted person describing sight to the congenitally blind. Not much use. But it is the illumination that carries over into their life thereafter, that has caused some of them to become prominent in history. Otherwise, what would be the use ?

Edited April 16, 2019 by Habitat

[eight bits]

36 minutes ago, Habitat said:

it would be like a sighted person describing sight to the congenitally blind.

No, it is exactly one person describing their dreams to an audience every one of whom has dreamt.

Whatever else mystics are, they are not special.

[Habitat]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

No, it is exactly one person describing their dreams to an audience every one of whom has dreamt.

Whatever else mystics are, they are not special.

on the contrary, they are of a rare species, and what makes you think it akin to relating a dream, pure supposition.

[Rlyeh]

40 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There is no real story telling as such, it would be like a sighted person describing sight to the congenitally blind.

Big problem here is there are other sighted people who can confirm or refute this person's description.  And we also have devices capturing visible light.  Nothing like this exists in mysticism.

You've stated there is no way to know if mysticism gives answers.  You can't even tell if they are lying.

[Rlyeh]

Mysticism might give us an explanation or it might give us a load of bull****, but it doesn't matter because we can't tell the difference.

What is the value of such a method of investigation?

[Rlyeh]

14 minutes ago, Habitat said:

on the contrary, they are of a rare species, and what makes you think it akin to relating a dream, pure supposition.

How do you know they're rare if you can't tell the truth from a lie?

Charlatans are not rare.

[Habitat]

28 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Big problem here is there are other sighted people who can confirm or refute this person's description.  And we also have devices capturing visible light. 

Good point, but you would need to be talking to a person who felt they had had the same experience, otherwise it would be like  the sighted man in the land of the blind.

[Rlyeh]

6 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Good point, but you would need to be talking to a person who felt they had had the same experience, otherwise it would be like  the sighted man in the land of the blind.

Would you be in favor of a system where people are convicted of crimes based on a mystic's hallucinations?

[Habitat]

23 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Mysticism might give us an explanation or it might give us a load of bull****, but it doesn't matter because we can't tell the difference.

What is the value of such a method of investigation?

We don't really know, unless we venture there. And we really can't venture there by "taking action", only by adopting complete inaction. Which may sound like bullship, but the reportage is  consistent across the world, across cultures, and different eras. But of course it may have claimed many casualties along the way this is an all-in proposition, no reserve is allowable.

[Habitat]

4 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Would you be in favor of a system where people are convicted of crimes based on a mystic's hallucinations?

Not, I think, for the time being, unless Mr Infallible comes along. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by Habitat

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Habitat said:

We don't really know, unless we venture there. And we really can't venture there by "taking action", only by adopting complete inaction. Which may sound like bullship, but the reportage is  consistent across the world, across cultures, and different eras. But of course it may have claimed many casualties along the way this is an all-in proposition, no reserve is allowable.

No it's not consistent, if it was most mystics/charlatans would be in agreement.  And since you can't tell the difference, your plan is fundamentally flawed.

All you'd achieve is gathering a bunch of babbling morons.

[Habitat]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

No it's not consistent, if it was most mystics/charlatans would be in agreement.  And since you can't tell the difference, your plan is fundamentally flawed.

All you'd achieve is gathering a bunch of babbling morons.

Do some unbiased research.

[Rlyeh]

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Not, I think, for the time being, unless Mr Infallible comes along. 

How would you know he's infallible?  You can't tell the difference remember?

[Rlyeh]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Do some unbiased research.

"Rational investigation doesn't give me the answers I want, lets get a bunch of lunatics who may or may not be lying to give me answers."

Your logic is completely asinine.

[Habitat]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

How would you know he's infallible?  You can't tell the difference remember?

Only by results. The fruits of mysticism might surprise, if we really could say who were mystics, i suspect many have not been recognized as such, they are certainly not all the same for their experiences, as they were not the same before them, and for lengthy periods of history, many would have been cautious to avoid appearing as bearers of inspiration from beyond, for fear of being in conflict with the ruling authorities of the day. 

[Habitat]

Just now, Rlyeh said:

"Rational investigation doesn't give me the answers I want, lets get a bunch of lunatics who may or may not be lying to give me answers."

Your logic is completely asinine.

It is clear rational investigation can't answer the "ultimate" question, but many mystics report satiation, now, that may just be a case of the mind somehow retiring itself from such curiosity, but best to decide that in light of the actual experience

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Habitat said:

Only by results. The fruits of mysticism might surprise, if we really could say who were mystics, i suspect many have not been recognized as such, they are certainly not all the same for their experiences, as they were not the same before them, and for lengthy periods of history, many would have been cautious to avoid appearing as bearers of inspiration from beyond, for fear of being in conflict with the ruling authorities of the day. 

You earlier said we can't tell if mysticism gives accurate answers, you're now saying we can.

You're contradicting yourself because you see how utterly ridiculous your logic is.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

You earlier said we can't tell if mysticism gives accurate answers, you're now saying we can.

You're contradicting yourself because you see how utterly ridiculous your logic is.

I never said it give a transmissable answer to the question that leads people in to it is the first place, but a consequence of mysticism appears to be an enhancement of all the faculties.

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Habitat said:

It is clear rational investigation can't answer the "ultimate" question, but many mystics report satiation, now, that may just be a case of the mind somehow retiring itself from such curiosity, but best to decide that in light of the actual experience

No, that's what you're saying.  You avoid rational investigation because it's blatantly clear you're incapable of it yourself.

[Rlyeh]

Just now, Habitat said:

I never said it give a transmissable answer to the question that leads people in to it is the first place, but a consequence of mysticism appears to be an enhancement of all the faculties.

Do you have an example of this?

[Habitat]

13 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No, that's what you're saying.  You avoid rational investigation because it's blatantly clear you're incapable of it yourself.

My rational investigations are better than average. Easily.

[Habitat]

20 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Do you have an example of this?

Do your research, history is awash with them. Every chance that Shakespeare was one.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Habitat