Total Posts:233|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What Would Your Diagnosis Be?

dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 2:57:17 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

Mental disorder = Prophet
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 7:35:07 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Good point.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 1:13:03 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 2:57:17 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

Mental disorder = Prophet

Apparently so. If anti-epilepsy and anti-psychosis medication had existed 2,000 years ago there would have been no Christianity. A very startling thought.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 1:23:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

That makes no sense. It is either one or the other.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

We are discussing mental illness not drug-induced hallucinations.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Of course it invalidates it. When someone is diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy or psychosis, it is a given that whatever they experience (visual or auditory) does not correspond to reality. The brain is malfunctioning and manufacturing the "waking dream". This is the very definition of mental illness, a break with reality.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 12:20:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

Oh, the anti-epileptics and anti-psychotics already exist and they work. Simple belief doesn't count as delusion though if it is harmless to society. You have to actually experience a seizure or have a psychotic episode and it has to involve some level of danger to yourself or the community, either directly or indirectly, in order to be prescribed medication.

As I understand it, religious beliefs aren't classified as delusional by the psychiatric profession only because a large portion of the population hold them. It has to be something outside of the norms of society. That is the only reason.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 12:24:51 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

not at all thought provoking, mildly amusing about covers it...

Do you think an epileptic seizure would cause someone to turn away from a strong belief they previously had, Saul was a pharasee, he was in line to become the high priest, he was persecuting Christians, his experience turned him around completely, it caused him to go around the area preaching Christ as the saviour...
bulproof
Posts: 25,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 1:58:42 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 12:24:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

not at all thought provoking, mildly amusing about covers it...

Do you think an epileptic seizure would cause someone to turn away from a strong belief they previously had, Saul was a pharasee, he was in line to become the high priest, he was persecuting Christians, his experience turned him around completely, it caused him to go around the area preaching Christ as the saviour...
Now gog, as someone who claims to have seen god can you confirm that Harry saw god during his spastic episode?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 2:56:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

It has already been explained why the bible lacks the concept of mental illness. Your son Harry would have been safer in biblical times than he would be today with his condition just as much as you would be with your condition. That is because today the two of you would be diagnosed as mentally incompetent or even mentally ill, whereas in Biblical times demons would have been blamed and exorcized restoring you two to sainthood.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 4:07:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 1:23:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

That makes no sense. It is either one or the other.

Why? Because your bias tells you so?

What makes no sense is to assume that such spiritual experiences must be of "supernatural" origin. Unless one wants to create an impossible threshold for them to occur at all.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

We are discussing mental illness not drug-induced hallucinations.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Of course it invalidates it. When someone is diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy or psychosis, it is a given that whatever they experience (visual or auditory) does not correspond to reality.

Well, this is patently absurd, as what they experience is as much a part of reality as anything is. If you hit your finger with a hammer, the pain you experience will be just as real as the hammer that caused it. How you experience it is just as real as it's cause.

The brain is malfunctioning and manufacturing the "waking dream". This is the very definition of mental illness, a break with reality.

The malfunction may be considered an illness, just as hitting your finger with a hammer may be considered an injury, but that does not make the experience of the illness or injury any less real.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:01:58 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 4:07:30 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/16/2016 1:23:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

That makes no sense. It is either one or the other.

Why? Because your bias tells you so?

What makes no sense is to assume that such spiritual experiences must be of "supernatural" origin. Unless one wants to create an impossible threshold for them to occur at all.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

We are discussing mental illness not drug-induced hallucinations.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Of course it invalidates it. When someone is diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy or psychosis, it is a given that whatever they experience (visual or auditory) does not correspond to reality.

Well, this is patently absurd, as what they experience is as much a part of reality as anything is. If you hit your finger with a hammer, the pain you experience will be just as real as the hammer that caused it. How you experience it is just as real as it's cause.

The brain is malfunctioning and manufacturing the "waking dream". This is the very definition of mental illness, a break with reality.

The malfunction may be considered an illness, just as hitting your finger with a hammer may be considered an injury, but that does not make the experience of the illness or injury any less real.

Then, why don't all people experience the so called "supernatural" visions in the same way that all people experience pain from hitting their finder with a hammer? Try and think things through if you're going to use examples from reality to compare to the supernatural.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 10:02:47 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 12:24:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

not at all thought provoking, mildly amusing about covers it...

Do you think an epileptic seizure would cause someone to turn away from a strong belief they previously had, Saul was a pharasee, he was in line to become the high priest, he was persecuting Christians, his experience turned him around completely, it caused him to go around the area preaching Christ as the saviour...

Yes. I've experienced it first-hand and the person affected cannot be persuaded that they are suffering a delusion. It seems as real to them as anything else appears real to someone who is not mentally ill.
dee-em
Posts: 6,495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:33:10 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 4:07:30 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/16/2016 1:23:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

That makes no sense. It is either one or the other.

Why? Because your bias tells you so?

No, simple logic tells me so. If someone is mentally ill, their brain is malfunctioning. If a brain is malfunctioning then whatever experience it reports is not grounded in objective reality. Is this a difficult concept for you?

What makes no sense is to assume that such spiritual experiences must be of "supernatural" origin.

Who are you arguing with? I never made such an assertion.

Unless one wants to create an impossible threshold for them to occur at all.

Strawman of your own creation.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

We are discussing mental illness not drug-induced hallucinations.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Of course it invalidates it. When someone is diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy or psychosis, it is a given that whatever they experience (visual or auditory) does not correspond to reality.

Well, this is patently absurd, as what they experience is as much a part of reality as anything is.

You are the one being absurd. If a person hears voices which no-one else can hear then the voices are in their head only and not part of objective reality. According to you there is no such thing as mental illness which is a nonsensical position.

If you hit your finger with a hammer, the pain you experience will be just as real as the hammer that caused it. How you experience it is just as real as it's cause.

Your analogy is inane. There is no dispute that a bodily injury causes pain. Feeling pain has nothing to do with mental illness. We are discussing what are perceived as external phenomena (sights and sounds) which simply aren't there. The person with the mental illness may consider them real but they have no objective reality since normal people see and hear nothing. You can't call what someone experiences internally as corresponding to objective reality, otherwise you are led to the ridiculous conclusion that dreams correspond to objective reality.

The brain is malfunctioning and manufacturing the "waking dream". This is the very definition of mental illness, a break with reality.

The malfunction may be considered an illness, just as hitting your finger with a hammer may be considered an injury, ...

Um, they are an illness and an injury respectively. You have no point.

... but that does not make the experience of the illness or injury any less real.

Unfortunately you are discussing another strawman of your own making. No-one is talking about what a person experiences as seemingly real. Mental illness is about what does not correspond to objective reality. According to you delusions are always real. That is a nonsense position and self-refuting.
Osmium
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.
Osmium
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 4:09:58 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 12:24:51 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

not at all thought provoking, mildly amusing about covers it...

Do you think an epileptic seizure would cause someone to turn away from a strong belief they previously had, Saul was a pharasee, he was in line to become the high priest, he was persecuting Christians, his experience turned him around completely, it caused him to go around the area preaching Christ as the saviour...

The same thing could be said for anyone who experiences a life changing event. A traumatic head injury can actually change someone's personality for example. These changes are not always for the better. If it's for the better should we always assume that it was divine intervention? What happens when the injury causes serious psychosis that results in bad deviant behavior?
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 7:50:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

I think that whilst we will probably always have religion or belief in spirituality, organised religion is on its way out, in free society at least. Technology, social media, differences in social values and access to information are already factors in people turning away from churches in droves.

There has been a resurgence of organised religion in Russia and China for obvious religions, however, I think that will be short-lived once the novelty wears off.
Osmium
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 8:01:00 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 7:50:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

I think that whilst we will probably always have religion or belief in spirituality, organised religion is on its way out, in free society at least. Technology, social media, differences in social values and access to information are already factors in people turning away from churches in droves.

There has been a resurgence of organised religion in Russia and China for obvious religions, however, I think that will be short-lived once the novelty wears off.

One can only hope that large organized churches will slip away into oblivion rather than evolve into something that continues to manipulate and take advantage of good people. I wonder what the Vatican would become in a world without organized religion. Money is oozing out of every crack and crevice of that place.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 8:12:04 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 8:01:00 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/17/2016 7:50:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

I think that whilst we will probably always have religion or belief in spirituality, organised religion is on its way out, in free society at least. Technology, social media, differences in social values and access to information are already factors in people turning away from churches in droves.

There has been a resurgence of organised religion in Russia and China for obvious religions, however, I think that will be short-lived once the novelty wears off.

One can only hope that large organized churches will slip away into oblivion rather than evolve into something that continues to manipulate and take advantage of good people. I wonder what the Vatican would become in a world without organized religion. Money is oozing out of every crack and crevice of that place.

And they still wield a lot of power. In the end, just as we have just seen in elections, the will of the people will determine the fate of the Catholic church, I hope sooner rather than later.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 1:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.

So the Athiest starts at a real possibility.
OK now do the theist way of thinking. What does it start at ?
Go.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 1:52:49 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 1:22:48 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.

So the Athiest starts at a real possibility.

What is "real" responsibility? Atheists have no one to be responsible to. There is no responsibility when you are your own ultimate boss.

OK now do the theist way of thinking. What does it start at ?

Real responsibility. Where you will have to answer to the Boss if you shirk your responsibility. Theists know that they aren't the decider of the law. They know that the needs and desires of others matter. They know that things are not moral simply because they are pleasurable.

A theist must take responsibility. That is why he is required to acknowledge and confess his wrongs, and the make amends and refrain from future wrong. He knows that someone is holding him to an objective standard, and will punish infractions.

Give me a thing an atheist would find pleasurable which he also finds to be immoral.

Go.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 2:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 3:33:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:07:30 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/16/2016 1:23:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/15/2016 7:32:00 PM, PureX wrote:
What I find interesting is the degree to which we automatically presume that Paul's experience must be either a "supernatural" experience of God or a natural experience of temporary mental illness. With no consideration at all being given to the idea that it could be both.

That makes no sense. It is either one or the other.

Why? Because your bias tells you so?

No, simple logic tells me so. If someone is mentally ill, their brain is malfunctioning. If a brain is malfunctioning then whatever experience it reports is not grounded in objective reality. Is this a difficult concept for you?

Except that this is not true. Many brain malfunctions do not result in a loss of cognition. And not being "grounded in objective reality" characterizes a great deal of very "real" human thought. Also, who gets to decide what thoughts are "grounded in objective reality" when everyone's experience of "objective reality" is uniquely their own? "Objective reality" is itself an intellectual construct that exists only to the 'believer', very similar to the god concept.

Many religions in many cultures recognize natural processes that lead to spiritual results. And it has been commonplace that people would invoke spiritual visions and experiences through the deliberate manipulation of physical substances and conditions.

We are discussing mental illness not drug-induced hallucinations.

Even if Saul did experience some sort of medical condition that enables his visionary experience, this does not invalidate the visionary experience. It only explains the mechanics of it.

Of course it invalidates it. When someone is diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy or psychosis, it is a given that whatever they experience (visual or auditory) does not correspond to reality.

Well, this is patently absurd, as what they experience is as much a part of reality as anything is.

You are the one being absurd. If a person hears voices which no-one else can hear then the voices are in their head only and not part of objective reality.

"Objective reality" is a made-up ideal. It does not exist outside the human mind.

According to you there is no such thing as mental illness which is a nonsensical position.

I never claimed any such thing. You're simply unable to realize that "objective reality" does not exist. Reality exists, but it includes both our subjective and objective experience of it. As well as our non-experience of it.

If you hit your finger with a hammer, the pain you experience will be just as real as the hammer that caused it. How you experience it is just as real as it's why.

Your analogy is inane. There is no dispute that a bodily injury causes pain. Feeling pain has nothing to do with mental illness. We are discussing what are perceived as external phenomena (sights and sounds) which simply aren't there.

No, we are discussing the mind/body reaction to physical stress. And I am pointing out to you that our reaction and the cause are both equal aspects of reality. "objective" and "subjective" they may be, but they are both equally real. You're not grasping this because you wrongly think "objective reality" is real, while our subjective experience of it is not.

The person with the mental illness may consider them real but they have no objective reality since normal people see and hear nothing. You can't call what someone experiences internally as corresponding to objective reality, otherwise you are led to the ridiculous conclusion that dreams correspond to objective reality.

Dreams do correspond to reality. They are "real". We really do have them, and they really are a part of how we experience and understand reality.

The brain is malfunctioning and manufacturing the "waking dream". This is the very definition of mental illness, a break with reality.

But it's only a 'break with reality" if you believe only "objective reality" is real. But that belief is wrong. All reality is real. Including our subjective, misconceived, experience of it.

The malfunction may be considered an illness, just as hitting your finger with a hammer may be considered an injury, but that does not make the experience of the illness or injury any less real.

Unfortunately you are discussing another strawman of your own making. No-one is talking about what a person experiences as seemingly real. Mental illness is about what does not correspond to objective reality.

Again, you are insisting that "objective reality" determines what is "real". And this is false. This is a biased belief of yours that does not logically represent reality and how we experience it.

You will never learn anything if you keep clamping your mind shut every time someone proposes a new way of understanding reality.

Reality is not "objective", or "subjective". Only our cognition of it is "objective" and/or "subjective" because that's how our brains function (by comparing and contrasting information sets).

Your assumption that "objective reality" is the true reality, and that our subjective experience is "illness" unless it agrees with you is false. It is a bias based on a lack of specific information and experience.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 2:37:59 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:01:58 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:07:30 PM, PureX wrote:
The malfunction may be considered an illness, just as hitting your finger with a hammer may be considered an injury, but that does not make the experience of the illness or injury any less real.

Then, why don't all people experience the so called "supernatural" visions in the same way that all people experience pain from hitting their finder with a hammer?

Why do you expect that they should be the same? Why do you assume "sameness" to be a criteria for accuracy or truthfulness? Our experience of existence is both unique to us and similar to others. Simultaneously. This is the real truth. This is the "reality" of it.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 2:46:40 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 12:20:53 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/15/2016 11:40:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
Suppose your religiously inclined son Harry told you that whilst he was out walking one day he suddenly saw a light from the sky flashing around him. He fell down on the ground and then he heard a loud voice say "Harry, Harry! Why do you persecute me?". He tried to get up but found he could not see. His temporary blindness lasted several days.

You take Harry to a specialist (neurologist) who diagnoses temporal lobe epilepsy and explains that he had a grand mal seizure which caused him to see things and hear voices which weren't there. Temporary blindness is one of the symptoms reported in epileptic seizures. He prescribes medication which Harry has to take for a few years and puts a restriction on his driver's license.

Now wind back a couple of thousand years to Saul/Paul. How would you diagnose the episode described as having been experienced by Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts of the Apostles?

(Note that this is not a new idea. In Ireland in times past, epilepsy was known as "Saint Paul's disease". The term points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy).

A religion was founded on this, a medical condition which could not be treated or even diagnosed in ancient times. Thought provoking?

And still, nowadays we have the same thing happening with UFO sightings, visions, miracles and God talking.
These happenings, of course, are due to delusions.

I look forward to the day when science develops a medication for delusional behavior....religion will, at last, become a thing of the past.

Oh, the anti-epileptics and anti-psychotics already exist and they work. Simple belief doesn't count as delusion though if it is harmless to society. You have to actually experience a seizure or have a psychotic episode and it has to involve some level of danger to yourself or the community, either directly or indirectly, in order to be prescribed medication.

As I understand it, religious beliefs aren't classified as delusional by the psychiatric profession only because a large portion of the population hold them. It has to be something outside of the norms of society. That is the only reason.

Depends on what icd-10s you are talking about, proper diagnosis, body chemistry, TIME, and correct dosage.... which goes back to TIME.

There have been great advances in mental health medication but unless one is living in the 50s and turning people into zombies with thorazine, can't make a statement that drugs 'work' as there are too many factors.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 2:49:44 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 1:52:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:22:48 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.

So the Athiest starts at a real possibility.

What is "real" responsibility? Atheists have no one to be responsible to. There is no responsibility when you are your own ultimate boss.

OK now do the theist way of thinking. What does it start at ?

Real responsibility. Where you will have to answer to the Boss if you shirk your responsibility. Theists know that they aren't the decider of the law. They know that the needs and desires of others matter. They know that things are not moral simply because they are pleasurable.

A theist must take responsibility. That is why he is required to acknowledge and confess his wrongs, and the make amends and refrain from future wrong. He knows that someone is holding him to an objective standard, and will punish infractions.

Give me a thing an atheist would find pleasurable which he also finds to be immoral.

Go.

Jesus using his miracles to produce wine is the pleasurable part. That he made wine from water is the immoral part. That is pure fraud. Wine is made from grapes.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:00:06 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 1:52:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:22:48 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.

So the Athiest starts at a real possibility.

What is "real" responsibility? Atheists have no one to be responsible to. There is no responsibility when you are your own ultimate boss.

OK now do the theist way of thinking. What does it start at ?

Real responsibility. Where you will have to answer to the Boss if you shirk your responsibility. Theists know that they aren't the decider of the law. They know that the needs and desires of others matter. They know that things are not moral simply because they are pleasurable.

A theist must take responsibility. That is why he is required to acknowledge and confess his wrongs, and the make amends and refrain from future wrong. He knows that someone is holding him to an objective standard, and will punish infractions.

Give me a thing an atheist would find pleasurable which he also finds to be immoral.

Go.

I've lived 38 years with no rules . That's exactly how I got my morals.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:05:46 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 2:49:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:52:49 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:22:48 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 11/17/2016 10:25:55 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 11/17/2016 3:56:01 AM, Osmium wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:34:33 AM, Willows wrote:

I doubt religions will ever become a thing of the past. They'll just evolve. We know what were the probable causes of Paul's visions (aka religious experiences) thousands of years ago and can speculate what medical condition he most likely had. Even knowing these things many people will still cling to the possibility that it was divine intervention and that Paul's visions were real.

So the answer is to basically declare your conclusion in your argument and then act as if it is proven? In approaching the question, we begin as if neither position is correct. If we assume at the beginning that spiritual experiences are always delusions, what are you on a debate site to do? Make speeches?

However, no one knows for sure if he was sick or if he did have a close encounter with God. That's why there is no winning argument here. Objectively speaking, it's hearsay either way.

But that is precisely why arguments can be won here. Consider;

If you are right that no one knows for sure, then Dee em's claim that Paul certainly had an epileptic seizure is wrong and unsupported. As such, his argument fails.

What Dee has done here is what we call the atheist slide. First, you state a reasonable possibility. Paul could have had a mental medical episode. And then from that point on, write as if your possibility was objective fact that Paul's experience was medical and not spiritual.

Finally bring in the quips about how there would be no Christianity were it not for delusions. Atheists simply state a real possibility, and then slide from that to greater and greater "certainty", until what began as only a possibility is now assumed to be an empirical fact. Its the poor man's way of arriving at facts, not through logic and reason, but through little incremental unwarranted assumptions.

Dee's basic logic is, "because today we would say Paul had a mental episode, therefore Paul must have had a mental episode." But is that logical? It isn't. The beauty of this logical trick is this....

It is TRUE that today we would SAY Paul had a psychotic break! And people already biased to Dee's position, or who are poor thinkers, conflate this true fact with, "Paul had a psychotic break then." These claims are not the same thing, and only one of them can be demonstrated to be true.

Dee's argument depends on their conflation. At its heart, the argument is illogical. It's conclusion does not follow from its premises, which is why he has to assume the conclusion inside the argument for there is no logical way to arrive at it.

This type of argument works best on poor thinkers and the already biased. Other groups know it is only logical sleight-of-hand.

So the Athiest starts at a real possibility.

What is "real" responsibility? Atheists have no one to be responsible to. There is no responsibility when you are your own ultimate boss.

OK now do the theist way of thinking. What does it start at ?

Real responsibility. Where you will have to answer to the Boss if you shirk your responsibility. Theists know that they aren't the decider of the law. They know that the needs and desires of others matter. They know that things are not moral simply because they are pleasurable.

A theist must take responsibility. That is why he is required to acknowledge and confess his wrongs, and the make amends and refrain from future wrong. He knows that someone is holding him to an objective standard, and will punish infractions.

Give me a thing an atheist would find pleasurable which he also finds to be immoral.

Go.

Jesus using his miracles to produce wine is the pleasurable part. That he made wine from water is the immoral part. That is pure fraud. Wine is made from grapes.

Ya good mates missus would be pleasurable but immoral.