# Conversion or just deluded? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 31, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828 "2005-12-31T05:53:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/81 "2006-01-04T16:02:08Z")
Just to clear something up: Personal experience is objective truth. If my foot hurts and I say my foot hurts I can in no way prove to you that my foot hurts but this doesnt mean that my foot doesnt hurt. If mswas and the person in reference of this thread had an experience that experience could be objective truth, even if they can not show evidence for this experience. Im not saying we should straight up believe them, that would be anti-skeptic, but I think we can be open to the possibility. And anyone who thinks that skepticism and atheism goes hand in hand need to look back into the history of philosophy and note that some of the early philosophical skeptics were also theists. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/82 "2006-01-04T16:12:52Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > People make claims of delusional all the time and think that they are being skeptical. That’s not skeptical at all. **Der Trihs** thinks that by virtue of being an atheist, this also makes him a skeptic. He is far from a skeptic, he is not a skeptic at all, he makes assumptive assertions all the time. Yes, assumption assertions don’t really fall under the definition of skeptic. There is a difference between doubt and certainty. Agnostic and atheist. Even strong or weak atheist. I would say\*\* Der Trihs\*\* is a strong atheist.\*\* Der Trihs\*\* do you disagree? > [@](#): > > If I am correct and God does exist, then atheism is incorrect and not an equally valid position. 2+2 does not equal 5, and I shouldn’t respect someone equally for believing it does, as I would someone who believes it equals four. I am convinced that they are wrong, it’s that simple. Can I explain it to them? No I can’t possibly show them anything until they are open to the ideas being presented to them. That’s part of free will. Here’s where I disagree. It’s precisely because there is no proof one way or the other that _both_ positions are valid. When you make an assertion on a debate board that you “know” a certain thing then it’s reasonable for others to ask you for proof. You admit you can’t prove it. In that case it’s useless to keep asserting “knowledge” that you can’t prove. If an atheist says my belief is invalid because I can’t prove it I disagree. My own subjective experience is enough for me to to decide what I do or do not believe. Since it is subjective I do not try to push my belief onto others as fact. I share my beliefs and insights in the hope that an exchange of ideas will be helpful for those participating. \ > [@](#): > > My problem here is people thinking that they are qualified to say that John C. Wright is delusional, when they most certainly are not. Their belief that he is delusional is what they WANT to believe, they are making assumptions and thinknig it’s skeptical, because they are fashion skeptics. They say they are skeptics in the hopes that the skeptics clique will accept them into the ranks. I have ZERO respect for this. If you are going to SAY you are a skeptic BE a skeptic. That’s far more important to me than believing me about God. Do you accept that you also are _not_ qualified to say Mr. Wright is delusional or not. The OP invited people to share their opinion. They did just that. What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > **cosmosdan** Now we get into your bias. You think that there is some sort of way you are SUPPOSED to react if you get to a certain level of understanding. I don’t begrudge anyone their individuality. I celebrate it. I do listen to what people give lip service to and compare that to their actions. Your recent posts have been erratic and irrational. > [@](#): > > I am simply laying it out on the line for people, calling it as I see it. Nothing to get offended about, it’ll all come out in the wash. Perhaps you could take your own advice when reading others posts. > [@](#): > > I am tired of being asked to respect people more than they respect me. I believe in reciprocal relationships. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but if someone goes after my eye I am gonna go after theirs, it’s that simple. An eye for an eye until the whole world is blind? > [@](#): > > That’s the sort of intellectual honesty I expect, and rarely see. When I see that, then I will give some respect. But stop acting like I am hurting people’s “rights” because I go lone wolf, I don’t try and back myself up by anyone else’s experience but my own. > Erek I doubt you have the ability on a message board to actually infringe on anyone’s rights. My wish would be thaqt you stop filling up the threads with the same kind of nonsesne you complain about. It’s a varied community here on SDMB. Sometimes rational and reasonable and sometimes not. If you want intellectual honesty try leading by example. When someone is so interested in asserting themselves that they stop listening to the points of others them attempts at communication seem to be a waste of energy and bandwidth. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/83 "2006-01-04T16:56:47Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > Just to clear something up: Personal experience is objective truth. > > If my foot hurts and I say my foot hurts I can in no way prove to you that my foot hurts but this doesnt mean that my foot doesnt hurt. > > If mswas and the person in reference of this thread had an experience that experience could be objective truth, even if they can not show evidence for this experience. Or as I said, a subjective feeling proves nothing but the feeling. It _does_ prove that, but nothing else. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I would say Der Trihs is a strong atheist. Der Trihs do you disagree? Nope. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/84 "2006-01-04T17:04:30Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Or as I said, a subjective feeling proves nothing but the feeling. It _does_ prove that, but nothing else. And baring any infringement on others, who should decide what that feeling means for that individual? > [@](#): > > Nope. danke ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/85 "2006-01-04T17:08:29Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Or as I said, a subjective feeling proves nothing but the feeling. It _does_ prove that, but nothing else. > > Nope. but an experience one has can prove to oneself something that could never be proven to someone else, yet this doesnt make it subjective. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/86 "2006-01-04T17:16:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > And baring any infringement on others, who should decide what that feeling means for that individual? Whoever is best equipped to judge in that particular matter. That’s why I don’t, for example, argue with **Siege** when she says religion makes her feel better; she is obviously the best judge of her own emotions. When someone starts making claims about objective reality, then those who are educated in the relevant facts are the ones qualified to judge. A drunk who wanders in the snow may feel warm, but the people who pull him out of it know better - he’ll freeze. Feelings are wrong all the time. > [@bobthebuilder](#): > > but an experience one has can prove to oneself something that could never be proven to someone else, yet this doesnt make it subjective. How so ? ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/87 "2006-01-04T17:21:04Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > How so ? Well lets say God appeared to me last night, and it was God. Of course you would argue that I must be halucinating ect ect, because you havwe already cast out any idea of a God. But I could be convinced that I had seen God, and since it was a personal experience I could objectively had seen God but I would never be able to offer you the evidence of this encounter with God. Thats similair to this discussion, I am not saying that this guy had an encounter with God, only that since we are incapable of being in the same experience as he was we can not cast out such an Idea. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/88 "2006-01-04T17:24:10Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > but an experience one has can prove to oneself something that could never be proven to someone else, yet this doesnt make it subjective. It’s clear that \*\*mswas \*\* had some sort of mystical experience. I don’t think anyone is denying that. What we question is his INTERPRETATION that mystical experience – whether it represented an actual supernatural intervention, or was merely the result of brain chemistry. Considering that we have no empirical evidence that God exists, and we DO have empirical evidence that mystical experiences can be induced in a non-religious context, I would suggest that the latter explanation is the more likely one. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/89 "2006-01-04T17:33:11Z")
> [@bobthebuilder](#): > > Well lets say God appeared to me last night, and it was God. Of course you would argue that I must be halucinating ect ect, because you havwe already cast out any idea of a God. But I could be convinced that I had seen God, and since it was a personal experience I could objectively had seen God but I would never be able to offer you the evidence of this encounter with God. That still doesn’t mean you saw an actual God; it just means you saw God ( the image, not the underlying reality, if there was one ). It’s still subjective. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/90 "2006-01-04T17:42:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Not so, because I can explain it to some people, just not to an atheist. Explaining something to an atheist should not make me suspect of my experience. To a great number of people it’s not difficult at all to explain. To a very limited number of people, a very small subsection of people, it is more difficult. There is of course a vast array of people out there who haven’t even questioned it. The fact that a vast number of people share your belief is meaningless. The vast number of people also have their eyesight. And yet I can still explain “red” to a blind man. According to you atheists are blind to God. We don’t know him, we can’t perceive him, even though he is obvious to you. If God is really the all-pervasive force you seem to think he is, you should be able to construct an argument for his existence that is convincing to a blind man like me. The fact that you can’t suggests that you may be mistaken about the nature of God. > [@](#): > > For you to understand where I am coming from, you’d have to be able to understand why asking me how I am sure God exists is the same question as asking me How do I know that I exist. I exist without knowing God. Clearly existence without knowing God is possible. So the questions are not equivalent. ---
**Author:** ![Psilocybe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/51bf81/32.png) [@Psilocybe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psilocybe)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/91 "2006-01-04T18:55:57Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > The vast number of people also have their eyesight. And yet I can still explain “red” to a blind man. You can explain all you want but he will never understand. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/92 "2006-01-04T18:57:57Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > It’s clear that \*\*mswas \*\* had some sort of mystical experience. I don’t think anyone is denying that. What we question is his INTERPRETATION that mystical experience – whether it represented an actual supernatural intervention, or was merely the result of brain chemistry. > > Considering that we have no empirical evidence that God exists, and we DO have empirical evidence that mystical experiences can be induced in a non-religious context, I would suggest that the latter explanation is the more likely one. I disagree with the term supernatural. Read the Supernatural thread Voyager started as to why. “Merely” brain chemistry is a perjorative way of explaining it. Just because I have effects in my brain doesn’t make it cease to be a religious experience. **Psilocybe** I have smoked DMT and drank Ayahuasca. I have extensive entheogenic experiences. They are just as mystical as any other mystical experience. I have had multiple near death experiences due to a heart condition. I have also meditated to transcendental states. I have run a whole range of mystical experiences. The physical/aesthetic representation of the mystical experience does not change the fact that it is a mystical experience. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/93 "2006-01-04T18:59:36Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > It’s clear that \*\*mswas \*\* had some sort of mystical experience. I don’t think anyone is denying that. What we question is his INTERPRETATION that mystical experience – whether it represented an actual supernatural intervention, or was merely the result of brain chemistry. > > Considering that we have no empirical evidence that God exists, and we DO have empirical evidence that mystical experiences can be induced in a non-religious context, I would suggest that the latter explanation is the more likely one. I disagree with the term supernatural. Read the Supernatural thread Voyager started as to why. “Merely” brain chemistry is a perjorative way of explaining it. Just because I have effects in my brain doesn’t make it cease to be a religious experience. **Psilocybe** I have smoked DMT and drank Ayahuasca. I have extensive entheogenic experiences. They are just as mystical as any other mystical experience. I have had multiple near death experiences due to a heart condition. I have also meditated to transcendental states. I have run a whole range of mystical experiences. The physical/aesthetic representation of the mystical experience does not change the fact that it is a mystical experience. **Tevildo** You must read a different Der Trihs than I do. The Der Trihs I read makes pat assertions and won’t ever provide a cite when you try to get one out of him. He states his opinions as statements of fact consistantly, yet complains when others do the same. Somehow I am being held to a higher standard of skepticism than Der Trihs, when I never claimed to be a skeptic and he does so all the time. Erek ---
**Author:** ![bobthebuilder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c67d28/32.png) [@bobthebuilder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobthebuilder)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/94 "2006-01-04T19:05:22Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That still doesn’t mean you saw an actual God; it just means you saw God ( the image, not the underlying reality, if there was one ). It’s still subjective. The whole point of what im saying is that you do not have the ability to say that, it is not within your knowledge to be able to make the above statement. You could say I dont believe you saw God, but you cannot say with all assurance that I didnt not see God. I dont see how it would be subjective, I could objectively see God just like my foot objectively hurts even though I cannot explain to you so that you would understand. I am open to the possibility that this man saw God, Im not saying he did see God, I tend to believe that he didnt see God, but it is still a possibility that he did. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/95 "2006-01-04T19:10:24Z")
> [@Psilocybe](#): > > You can explain all you want but he will never understand. He may never appreciate “red” in the fullness that I as a sighted person do. But I can still explain it sufficiently to convince him that “red” isn’t a figment of my imagination! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/96 "2006-01-04T19:15:32Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I disagree with the term supernatural. Read the Supernatural thread Voyager started as to why. > > “Merely” brain chemistry is a perjorative way of explaining it. Just because I have effects in my brain doesn’t make it cease to be a religious experience. I don’t mean anything pejorative with the “merely”. Either the experience was the result of your brain alone, or it was the result of your brain being influenced by some additional force. Am I correct in thinking you believe the latter? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/97 "2006-01-04T20:01:27Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > If a REAL skeptic could come and disabuse Der Trihs of this notion I would be eternally grateful. Looking at your old posts, I found this : [Here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6795641&postcount=34) > [@mswas](#): > > Noctolator refers to me as a radical skeptic. The reason for this is that I don’t believe anything is true. I believe that the entire universe is simply what we will it to be. I don’t believe in individuals, only the singularity, all things are one, everything else is aesthetics, artistic creation. The rules are the way they are, including Gravity, because I have willed them to be so. That’s not skepticism; that’s delusions of grandeur; extreme relativism at it’s best. I’m not a “real skeptic” by your definition, because I don’t consider myself a god. ---
**Author:** ![Psilocybe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/51bf81/32.png) [@Psilocybe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psilocybe)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/98 "2006-01-04T20:30:47Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Psilocybe** I have smoked DMT and drank Ayahuasca. I have extensive entheogenic experiences. They are just as mystical as any other mystical experience. I have had multiple near death experiences due to a heart condition. I have also meditated to transcendental states. I have run a whole range of mystical experiences. The physical/aesthetic representation of the mystical experience does not change the fact that it is a mystical experience. Okay, I can work with this. I don’t think anyone is claiming that mystical experiences don’t exist, or that because the brain causes them they are any less relevant. I just don’t understand where God plays a role in this if we can accept its caused by the brain. These entheogenic experiences did not require God, nor did they prove his existance. Why do natural experiences need to? Whats the difference? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/99 "2006-01-05T05:48:34Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > That’s not skepticism; that’s delusions of grandeur; extreme relativism at it’s best. I’m not a “real skeptic” by your definition, because I don’t consider myself a god. Not delusions of grandeur just stating a simple fact, that the world I perceive radiates out from a center point called ‘Erek Tinker’. That’s hardly delusions of grandeur, it’s called knowing one’s place in the universe. > [@](#): > > Okay, I can work with this. I don’t think anyone is claiming that mystical experiences don’t exist, or that because the brain causes them they are any less relevant. I just don’t understand where God plays a role in this if we can accept its caused by the brain. > > These entheogenic experiences did not require God, nor did they prove his existance. Why do natural experiences need to? Whats the difference? God created the entheogens, the ground they grew in, the scientists who synthesized them, the dealers who put them in my grasp, me, the hands that held the pipe, the consciousness that experienced the trip, God even dropped by to say hi while I was going through it. Let’s put it this way, I am more certain that God exists than I am certain that you exist. You I am far more willing to believe are a figment of my imagination, an useful cognitive tool placed there to help me reflect myself back at me, but of course that would be solipsistic of me to believe, but perhaps solipsism is the actual correct answer. In fact I believe that solipsism is correct, but I do not think that you are an illusion, you are quite very real, but you are still an extension of me, via the one who is called “I am.” I am here, I am talking to you. I am trying to explain myself so that you will understand me. You are there talking back to me trying to examine me, trying to figure out what it is I am trying to say, trying to relate your experiences. The above paragraph is equally true for both of us. We are both “I”, and we are connected via physical forces and metaphysical consciousness. And the root word in entheogenic is enTHEOgenic. My experiences may not have proven something to YOU but they most certainly proved something to ME. And you cannot explain red to a blind person in a way that they can verify. They might take your word for it and accept that there are people who can see even though they cannot based upon the overwhelming consensus that they are missing out on something. Erek ---
**Author:** ![Psilocybe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/51bf81/32.png) [@Psilocybe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Psilocybe)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2006, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828/100 "2006-01-05T06:30:40Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > God created the entheogens, the ground they grew in, the scientists who synthesized them, the dealers who put them in my grasp, me, the hands that held the pipe, the consciousness that experienced the trip, God even dropped by to say hi while I was going through it. Its hard/impossible to argue with a definition of God like that. What about the bad trips? Suddenly you are no longer experiencing God, but instead locked in a deep spiral of recursive mindfuck which makes no sense. You’re communicating with aliens and you literally think you’ll be in this state _forever_, only lucky if you get your old life back. Its all easily more bizarre than anything which can be imagined. The concept of “God” never even crosses your mind, instead you’re at a loss of what to do and you don’t even know who you are. You’ve lost your place in the universe. You’re not even sure any of this is real. Is that God? Wheres the line between a “hallucination” and “insight”? Locked deep in a mushroom trip, one may be convinced of many things. Its not until afterwards that you realize you were just plain out wrong about many of them. What if I never regained the ability to tell that I was wrong? I can see that _its physical_ - I don’t decide what I consider right or wrong, its up to my brain. My whole view of reality is up to my brain. This type of reasoning is what has me entrenched in the “its our brains” belief. Drugs just make it obvious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conversion-or-just-deluded/337828.md?page=6)