Automaton

The point is, the my judgement of my experience being merely hallucinatory would be synchronious with my hallucination. If I had a strange account with Vishnu, involving wildly coloured fractal patterns and floating mustard, this would not compel me to believe in Vishnu.
Many hallucinations are visual, aural, and even tactile. Honestly, if you took LSD and saw blue snakes crawling up your leg, heard them singing classic Led Zeppelin, and felt their presence, would you not attribute this to the drug?
It's called a statistical sample. Take for example this theist's <a href="http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/experience/mystical.htm" target="_blank">apologetics page</a>, that claims the existence of "mystical" experiences is a proof of his God. If you'll scroll down, he quotes a study which lists the common characteristics of mystical experience:

• 1. Ecstatic mood, which he identified as the most common feature;
  2. Sense of newly gained knowledge, which includes a belief that the mysteries of life have been revealed;
  3. Perceptual alterations, which range from "heightened sensations to auditory and visual hallucinations (p. 167)";
  4. Delusions (if present) have themes related to mythology, which includes an incredible range diversity and range;
  5. No conceptual disorganization, unlike psychotic persons those with mystical experiences do NOT suffer from disturbances in language and speech.

Now, if you'll look at <a href="http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~ivl/writing/non_fiction/lsd/index.html" target="_blank">this</a> page, you will discover common effects of LSD include (but are not limited to): (1) euphoria, (2) [not listed, probably due to relevence, but this is indeed a common factor if you'll ask any retired hippie] (3) increased stimulus from environment, hallucinations, changes in shape/color, synaesthesia, etc. (4) [not specifically mentioned, but definitely implied, such as with;] schizophrenic-like state, [as schizophrenic delusions are very often mythologically or religiously themed], and (5) an "impairment of reasoning" is noted, but nothing is mentioned relating to disturbances in either language or speech. Obviously, the proposed naturalistic mechanism of mystical experience is not going to be exactly like LSD, which is a specific drug which targets specific neurotransmitters, but rather a much milder, more subtle, fluctuation in neurotransmitter levels, to generate similar effects. And this is not just an idle speculation, there are even studies in peer-reviewed journals that link so-called "mystical experience" to neurotransmitter imbalance, or brain function. Giving two simple examples, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=398615 2&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">this</a> which links mystical experience and head injury, and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=105759 73&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">this</a> which links mystical experience and manic depression.
I judge that it is highly unlikely.
Psychedelics, particularly those that have a strong tendency to induce mystical experiences, such as LSD, mescaline, etc.
The mechanisms of the brain, my friend.
I have had many apologists claim this in the past (sorry, no specific examples at hand).
I'll just leave this one alone.
Apologetic explanations of things (such as theodicies) tend to be extra-Biblical, and extra-dogmatic. If it is indeed the case, as some of them claim, that God positively reveals himself to those that use such and such substance, then wouldn't it be the case that God is condoning the use of that substance?
On a side note, in Biblical (NIV) terms:

• Genesis 3014 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes."
  15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?"
  "Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes."
  16 So when Jacob came in from the fields that evening, Leah went out to meet him. "You must sleep with me," she said. "I have hired you with my son's mandrakes." So he slept with her that night.
  17 God listened to Leah, and she became pregnant and bore Jacob a fifth son.
  18 Then Leah said, "God has rewarded me for giving my maidservant to my husband." So she named him Issachar.

In exchange for mandrake, which is a potentially dangerous hallucinogens, Jacob is prostituted, and the Lord appears to actually reward this.
Also, let us not forget that God gives man every seed-bearing plant for food (Genesis 1:29), so God condones the consumption of the coca plant, which contains cocaine, or the marijuana plant, or the opium poppy, etc.
If God revealed himself to me, I am assuming the experience would be so divine, that the possibility of it being not real would not even enter my mind.
Read some atheist "de-conversion" stories.

SteveD

Thanks for the responses so far.

I notice that no one has yet mentioned Douglas Bender's biblical equations.


Steve

Philosoft

I suspect pantheists consider the totality of universal laws and forces a sort of consciousness. On the one hand, I see the brain parallels in that the mind is perhaps a function of neural complexity. On the other, I have no reason to believe that a collection of macro-laws and -forces is analogous to billions of neurons.

Philosoft

Well, I happen to think his "demons on the roof" is much more robust evidence.

mattmattmattmattv

Because his current state (NOT seeing talking bushes, etc) is in line what the other 5,999,999,999 people in the world say THEY are experiencing. Medication usually treats mental problems with which people are seeing stuff different from everyone else.

DRFseven

I suppose their line of reasoning goes "Who says deities have to be beings?"

Typhon

The problem with this from my perspective is I have yet to see even a "good" argument for the existence of a god or gods.

One might argue that the belief has some degree of culturally oriented benefit, but this in and of itself is difficult to show and/or balance against the wealth of negative behavior that we can, in good conscience, lay at religion's doorstep.

I would say if forced to choose the "best" out of a bad lot, that it is nigh impossible to prove that some sort of higher being doesn't exist or has existed, who may or may not be aware, interested, or benignly or otherwise disposed towards our species. In other words, the best theory may be simply because we can not absolutely disprove the existence of a likely imaginary being, just because we have no good reasons or credible evidence to believe in one.

.T.

"Gods are made, not born."

Automaton

I'd have to take you up on that one. "Sanity is not statistical," as George Orwell put it.

emphryio

All arguments ultimately stem from a person thinking (in a very haphazard sort of way) that they would be happier if there was a God.

So once you've admitted in the back of your mind to yourself that, you think you would be happier with a God, you then grasp hold of whatever comes along.

Such as:
1. Hallucinations (miracles/god's presence)
2. Intelligent Design or psuedo logical arguments
3. The occasional lucky break (miracles)

As long as you can't admit what these ridiculous arguments all stem from, you can find a way to believe anything.

Strong hallicinations would be the best "argument".

The Admiral

I was born with a fully functioning bull-shit detector up and running. How lucky can you be?

The Admiral