Debate Challenge 2.. mystical experience

[Swami]

My first debate challenge was if religious and mystical experiences can convince an atheist to move to theism. The atheists and skeptics agreed with me.

It appears the next question skeptics want to bring up is the validity of the mystical experience. I am willing to debate anyone on this matter. But I only want to focus on the experience of transcending self. I accept that this is the most important experience that anyone can have and this is why I am willing to debate it.

Debate challenge:
Mystical experiences. Real or hallucinations?

Rules:
Both participants get 3 posts each. My posts would be my opening, counter response, and conclusion.

Two week duration.

Who will accept?

[Swami]

The type of experience in the topic has some objective basis. The debate will be my task to show how or why the experience is objectively real

Sorry Swami, scientists have already shown your argument to be false. So there's nothing to debate. You really need to look into these things before offering to debate them.

[youtube][/youtube]

I will not look into any skeptical views here. I am confident in my views. If you are confident that your source proves me wrong then let us establish this in the head-to-head section.

Do you accept?

[Swami]

I am willing to show that a type of mystical experience, called the 'self-transcendent experience', has an objective basis. I will show that these experiences are objectively real.

Does anyone accept?

[William]

Swami: Debate challenge:
Mystical experiences. Real or hallucinations?

William: I think you are perhaps coming from the idea in the oft presented argument that what theists call "Mystical Experience" non-theists refer to as "Hallucinations".

I think it is debatable that those positions are generally non-negotiable regardless of what side of the argument one prefers.

Some theists argue that 'its demons' in relation to anything which may appear to threaten to contradict their own theology.

Some Theists see the physical universe - which non-theists argue for being 'the only reality' - is as 'real' (or not) as any other, including those "Mystical Experiences" thought of as 'the highest one can attain'.

Hope you don't mind me saying so, but your approach requires changing if you want to find a way to connect with "Western Minds" as promoting the "Eastern Mind" in the way you do, is really only analogous to sliding down the side of a Glacier flaying at it with your ice-axe hoping to gain traction and slow the decent.

There is no thing to debate in your challenge.

That aside, I personally enjoy most of your contributions to this site, but this is because I have touched upon Mystical Experience and regard it as real as any other, until someone can show me the evidence contradicting that. We can talk about that Around The Campfire any time you want to - the opportunity otherwise rarely presents itself to do so.

But if your just here to debate...good luck finding a listening ear.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 13 by William]

Thank you for the insights William. The following best describes the debate issue:

People can agree that experiences, which some label as being mystical or supernatural, have motivated some people who identified as gnostic atheists to become at least agnostic atheists if not gnostic theists. This observation in no way demonstrates that the causes of those experiences were actually mystical or supernatural. As such, there is no objective justification for labeling those experiences as being mystical or supernatural. Therefore, the statement, "Mystic experience can convert atheists to theism," is misleading in that it smuggles in the assumption that the experience was actually mystical or supernatural. So, while it is true that some atheists convert to theism as a result of some experience they label as being mystical or supernatural, this truth does not validate the objective existence of the mystical or the supernatural.

Bluegreenearth's thinking is what led me to issue my debate challenge. I want to debate on what bluegreenearth and other skeptics have said that my viewpoint doesn't prove.

If skeptics think that their arguments are strong then they should have no problem engaging me in a one-on-one debate format.

[Tcg]

My first debate challenge was if religious and mystical experiences can convince an atheist to move to theism. The atheists and skeptics agreed with me.

Let's be honest and express the limits of this agreement. Sure, experiences can convince atheists to move to theism.

We also agreed that experiences can lead theists to move to atheism.

We also agreed that this is no big deal as people change their minds all the time.

This is the limit of agreement you attained.


Tcg

[Swami]

There are 3 lessons that the audience should take away from this discussion:

1. The skeptics do not really want honest debate. Many skeptics here and elsewhere engage in dishonest debate so that they can distract from my point. They do this because my worldview is a threat to their Western materialist science.

2. If the skeptics were convinced of their own arguments, which would go with "genuine" disagreement, then they would have debated me. Instead, when I insist on a debate format where it would not be easy to distract, the skeptics decline the offer.

3. Western science is stumped when it comes to consciousness. I consider myself a consultant or even a teacher - the type that many scientists and others would seek out if they are looking for insight and new ways to explore consciousness. When you consult someone or want to learn something, you don't "challenge" it every step of the way. This is what the skeptics fail to understand. They want to know the nature of consciousness while not wanting to learn and experience.

Part of this I blame on intolerance because my views come from a different culture and approach. This site would do well to not reinforce this intolerance.

[benchwarmer]

There are 3 lessons that the audience should take away from this discussion:

1. The skeptics do not really want honest debate. Many skeptics here and elsewhere engage in dishonest debate so that they can distract from my point. They do this because my worldview is a threat to their Western materialist science.

No, many of us declined to debate something of which there is no debate.

You wanted to debate whether experiences converted atheists to theists. That was a non starter since everyone knows this is possible. How were we being dishonest in pointing that out?

Since no one decided to take the obvious losing side of a debate with you, now you seem to be erecting straw men to knock down. Why?

2. If the skeptics were convinced of their own arguments, which would go with "genuine" disagreement, then they would have debated me. Instead, when I insist on a debate format where it would not be easy to distract, the skeptics decline the offer.

Explained above. It's analogous to me asking people to debate me whether pink flowers are pink. Then complaining when no one wants to take the negative side.

3. Western science is stumped when it comes to consciousness.

What's this 'western science'? I think it may be YOU who are confused about what science means. There is no regional versions of science. There are only people from all over the world who take part in science. A peer reviewer from China can point out flaws in published research the exact same way as a peer reviewer from Sweden.

I consider myself a consultant or even a teacher - the type that many scientists and others would seek out if they are looking for insight and new ways to explore consciousness.

So a self appointed expert? And you wonder why no one is taking this seriously?

When you consult someone or want to learn something, you don't "challenge" it every step of the way.

If you have questions or see flaws with the material you sure do. Unless of course you come from the "swallow whatever I hear from others" camp.

This is what the skeptics fail to understand. They want to know the nature of consciousness while not wanting to learn and experience.

It appears to be you who misunderstands the questions posed to you regarding what you are proposing. Many have answered your posts outlining their experiences, but since they don't line up with your predetermined beliefs, you cry foul and accuse others of dishonesty.

Part of this I blame on intolerance because my views come from a different culture and approach. This site would do well to not reinforce this intolerance.

Lofty opinion noted and disregarded since it makes no sense.

[Swami]

No, many of us declined to debate something of which there is no debate.

You wanted to debate whether experiences converted atheists to theists.

The topic you bring up was my first debate challenge. The current debate challenge is about the validity of mystical experiences. I can not make this any clearer. This is what I explained earlier:

My first debate challenge was if religious and mystical experiences can convince an atheist to move to theism. The atheists and skeptics agreed with me.

It appears the next question skeptics want to bring up is the validity of the mystical experience.

What's this 'western science'? I think it may be YOU who are confused about what science means. There is no regional versions of science. There are only people from all over the world who take part in science. A peer reviewer from China can point out flaws in published research the exact same way as a peer reviewer from Sweden.

I make a distinction between Western science and Eastern science because in the East meditation is accepted as a tool for insight or knowledge. This distinction is necessary until Western scientists are willing to accept meditation for the objective tool that it is.

So a self appointed expert? And you wonder why no one is taking this seriously?

I have done close to 10,000 hours worth of meditation over decades of time span. I have studied Hindu or yogic philosophy. I also have publishers who have reviewed my book and are very interested in publishing it. I have worked with others on one on one basis to teach them different techniques to reach transcendent states. If that doesn't qualify me as an expert, then I am certainly someone that experts would consult.

If I was after money, I would charge a fee for each discussion that I am having on this site.

[Tcg]

So a self appointed expert? And you wonder why no one is taking this seriously?

I have done close to 10,000 hours worth of meditation over decades of time span. I have studied Hindu or yogic philosophy. I also have publishers who have reviewed my book and are very interested in publishing it. I have worked with others on one on one basis to teach them different techniques to reach transcendent states. If that doesn't qualify me as an expert, then I am certainly someone that experts would consult.

You used the word "I" five times in a paragraph that contains five sentences. This in an effort to establish that you are not a self appointed expert.

If I was after money, I would charge a fee for each discussion that I am having on this site.

If there were some mechanism to accomplish this, you could attempt to make money this way. Given that there isn't, that fact that you don't attempt it proves nothing. There is no means for you to do so.


Tcg

[Swami]

I am formally withdrawing my offer for one-on-one debate. A week has passed, and no skeptic is willing and able to accept my challenge. I feel that I have proven my point without even having to debate. If skeptics truly disagreed with me and thought that mystical experiences were not genuine (even when they convinced the experiencer to drop their atheism), then many skeptics would have accepted my debate challenge.

To date, ZERO skeptics have accepted.