Are those who don't honor logic deceitful egomaniacs?

[jafar]

Many of 'spiritual experience' are subjective and personal by nature.
Thus no 'shared context' or 'shared experience' that can be used as 'common ground'.
As it truly depend on the perspective of those who experienced it or those who observed it.

I think it's absolutely essential to be honest about what's subjective and mystical and then one can engage with it as such without problems.

This also ties into things like synchonicity, and connecting dots for a personal story in data of all kinds. There's enough data points in the world that any person who cared to do so could use it to construct a story placing that person at the center of the universe in a unique way. Some do and think their egocentric story is true and all others false. Skeptics think it's all just a matter of the human brain playing its usual tricks. Personally, I think people can engage the personal story as a personal story, keeping in mind that there's enough "synchronicity bandwidth" for everyone and that each thing used as a symbol has an infinite number of possible other uses, no such use more legit than any other.

The underlined statement is the thing that both 'materialist' and 'non-materialist' agree upon.
The differences lies on:
- Materialist think that anything outside of the 'conscious mind' (brain) is the trick of the brain.
- Non-Materialist think that anything inside of the 'conscious mind' (brain) is the trick of the brain.

Non materialist think that everything that's being experienced in the conscious state are Maya (Virtual).
Materialist think that everything that's being experienced in the conscious state are Real.

Non materialist think that we're living in 'simulated VR world' and the real 'me' / 'we' actually reside outside of the VR world. Materialist think that the 'simulated VR world' is the only reality that exist.

In gamer lingo we can also say that the materialist are 'fully immersed' into the game, while the non materialist are 'not fully immersed' into the game.

As such, there is no 'good' and 'bad' in both approach, it merely a 'choice' of how the player wishes to experience the game.

While some folks within the group labelled 'scientist' is now starting to explore the "Non materialist" approach.
Example:
You are a Simulation & Physics Can Prove It:
https://youtu.be/Chfoo9NBEow

While my personal experience on discussing with both Theist or Atheist is.
They're debating about 'something' which they don't have same definition about (ie; the word "God"), let alone the same shared context.  Yet it's still logical to say both theist and atheist are true or both theist and atheist are false.

A large portion of debates seem to be about popular dogmatic beliefs and for and against them. I usually find for and against Christianity debates boring to listen to, because Christianity isn't very intellectually interesting unless you're really into the Bible. (In such debates, there are more often however clear winners and losers.)

Sometimes there's debates about how things can or should be defined. And for example, Jordan Peterson (in)famously redefines many basic words so as to always be in the right, saying for example that anyone with a real value system believes in God ("God is your highest value"). That kind of speech vaguely sounds deep and superficially promotes something spiritual-sounding while ironically cheapening any real deeper spiritual meaning.

Yes Christianity (or other dogmatic religion) is not intellectual at all, thus not intellectually interesting.

However...
Christianity (or other dogmatic religion) is POLITICALLY and HISTORICALLY interesting.
As any dogmatic religion was created as political tools with objective to control the masses.

Once it's accepted and viewed as 'political tools' then many things within Christianity (or other dogmatic religion) are starting to make perfect sense, politically...