I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

Tasting ice cream is indisputably an empirical expereince.Whether one likes or loathes that taste is subjective.

Hey - Once you'd got past your misuse of the word "about" I was happy to agree with you and even cheered (admittedly at your request) your post Message 138

Subjective empirical experiences can be compared. When we have similar ice-cream-tasting observations, the "liking" of ice cream moves into a grayish area between subjective and objective. The same would apply to religious experiences.

I didn't misuse the word "about". You ignored it until I discovered the caps-lock key.

Are you putting forward religious experiences as "subjective empirical experiences"?Is that what these non-empirical methods that keep being alluded to are referring to?

I didn't ignore it. I didn't think your use of it justified the rest of what you were saying. As per Message 137 and Message 140But do we really need to go through all that again?If you are fishing for more cheers just say so....

I can't speak for anybody else's allusions but I do see religious experiences as similar to ice-cream-tasting experiences. I haven't had anything that I would call a "religious experience" but I don't see why they would be less "real" than ice-cream-tasting.

Boo hoo. We didn't need to go through it the first time. You were the one who brought it up.

The parts of the Bible that make empirical claims can be tested using the scientific method. The claims in the Bible that can be scientifically tested are going to be empirical claims.The parts of the Bible that make non-empirical claims are not going to be able to be tested using the scientific method. The claims in the Bible that cannot be scientifically tested are going to be non-empirical claims.You asked how the latter can be tested at all and I explained how.Now you're saying that they are not comparable to the former.Well.... duh.

The ability to empirically detect ice cream (via taste buds, molecular analysis equipment, whatever) is pretty indisputable.That those having religious experiences are empirically detecting anything at all is highly disputable.If the next person to "see" Allah could just whip out their mobile phone and take a snap then I guess you might be onto something with this idea of yours....

Is the claim that God wants us to worship him (for example) an empirical or non-empirical claim? What about the claim (that which underlies the entire premise of the bible and other holy books) that God exists - Is that an empirical or non-empirical claim?If these non-empirical methods you speak of are entirely useless with regard to things external to one's own mind then they continue to have no real relevance to examining the statement " I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity" because both God and gravity are being put forward as things extant to human minds.

Not really.

You keep using the word "indisputable". Taste buds and/or other analytical equipment can detect ice cream but they can't empirically observe the liking of the ice cream. (Here's where somebody looks up studies on changes within the brain while experiencing ice cream and while experienceing gods.)

That's fine. I chimed in to explain to you how you could test some of the non-empirical claims to figure out if they're likely to be true or not.

All experiences, whether empirical or not, involve the brain.