Dialogue: Taking down Naturalistic Alternate Causes on RE argument

this is a dialogue with an atheist apologist known as "Skepie" (I am skeptical) which took place on Metacrock's bog,"Unicorns Don't Exist,Therefore God Doesn't Exist?" (Oct 22 2018)

 So you contend that there are no natural explanations for mystical experiences or the correlations between spirituality and beneficial outcomes in life? Joe, I have cited some of what various psychologists have said about these things.

Not that there are no naturalistic forces innovated but they do not explain it by themselves,

First of all, the "experience" itself is indeed an emotional reaction, and all emotions are chemically stimulated. This has ample backing in experimental data.

Of course the experience is conveyed by chemicals but that is like saying logic is just air waves because logical ideas are conveyed by vibrations of air wave striking the ear drum. The 8 tie breakers make arguments like this does not explain why it's always positive. why it's good for you, why it;s related to a sense of meaning in life, why it has noetic function and so on.

your fear of emotion is biasing your view so you are not thinking anarchically about these issues,

Not only is it possible to induce these experiences by various types of electro-chemical means, but it is also possible to create the same emotional effect by psychological manipulation.

false, (1)no one has proven that, you say that because propaganda tells you it should but you have no evidence. The fact is people who pretend to produce such effects do not use any control mechanism like the M scale so they Make up their own arbitrary criteria we don't know what they are actually producing but all they have produced is the effects they want not mystical experiences.

(2) If there are chemical receptors that communicate the experiences the false stimulate could open those receptors and produce some similar symptoms but that doesn't mean the total experience is reproduced, just a pleasant sensation may be produced,

(3)No longitudinal studies show them producing the same kind of effects in life from having the experience induced in lab,

As for the positive effects, I explained to you that most psychologists believe there is a common cause (in the psychological outlook of an individual) for BOTH the positive outcomes AND the emotional effect of the "mystical experience". Your problem is that you have limited your analysis to a tiny corner of the scientific community, and you completely ignore mainstream scientific views.

you have it backwards, you cannot produce a single printed source saying that that is your stupid opinion it is totally wrong. First i've never seen any shrink say that, if they do those are the ones who don't do the studies,the who do the studies find significant effects that's close to 200 studies,

im-skeptical said...
you have it backwards, you cannot produce a single printed source saying that that is your stupid opinion it is totally wrong. First i've never seen any shrink say that, if they do those are the ones who don't do the studies,the who do the studies find significant effects that's close to 200 studies

- I have tried again and again to tell you that the scientific community in general, and psychology in particular, is much larger that the narrow segment you pay attention to (psychology of religion, which is dominated by religious people like Hood).

(1) You do not know anything about the field you do not speak for psychologists, you are not documenting it it;s just your little bigoted sophomoric opinion.

(2) you are willing to take the view of those who don't work in the field over those who do because you are so simplistic in your thinking and paranoid in your hatred of God that you don;t even get that pathology of religion is not religious people definding religion, (I have shown before most of the researchers I know of are not Christians or not religious)

(3) if this global warning you would be using the pinons of those who don;t study climate to argue against warming

You keep saying there's nothing out there, but there is plenty. You just ignore it because real science doesn't support your conclusions. You need to get out of your little isolated religious bubble and do a real survey of the pertinent scientific information.

you still haven;t documented anything just little uninformed pinon

9:20 AM Delete

- It is part of psychology, and secular psychologists (not necessarily in the field of psychology of religion) DO study such things.

No they don;t, there;s a big difference in reading about something and actually studying it. When one says study in this context it usually means doing a study.

There is plenty of material on it, and they don't have a goal to link these experiences to God, the way Hood tries to.

where do you get that idea? Hood never said that. That's your little need to defame and destroy my work to ridicule my source because he says stuff you don't like.since you are not an academic and not a scholar you don't know one can have beliefs and not use them as clandestine motives for research. That tells us a lot more about you than it does Hood,

They are more interested in scientific understanding of the phenomenon. You have claimed that Hood is not religious, but I know that he is. He was the head of a Christian organization.

Un cool. Very unprofessional trying to interpret the psychological motives of opponents in argument is very uncool and shows a real lack of professional understanding.

Hood is considered to be the leading researcher in that field, you know nothing about that field. it is not dominated by fundies or Christians or believers. I;ve told you hes not a fundie he's not a Christian grow up,

you are trying to think of this as a war, you are seeking to destroy belief, That is childish
I can sight chapter and verse where Hood says he ls trying not to deal God as a cause its not his place as a scientist, he has only made a God argument in private  he's never published it, (see intro to chapter 11 in Hood Spilka books)