EternalForest

Sorry if I'm bumping the thread after being inactive for a couple days, but @Leo Gura even though I understand that he would probably be closed minded to the idea that you can perceive truths using more than just the 5 senses, I think it would be worthwhile to simply expose him to the idea. Because if Matt is the true skeptic that he claims to be, if he simply took his skepticism "all the way" as you put it, then I'm sure it would make him re-evaluate things. I'm not even sure if he's aware that spirituality exists outside of religion exclusively. You could simply present it to him as an experiment: be open minded to seeking enlightenment, seek where it leads you, follow where the evidence leads honestly. That's something Matt often talks about, follow where the evidence leads you instead of leading the evidence to the conclusion you want it to. So once again, even though it may be a fruitless pursuit, I still think it's one that's worth the try, but it's up to you. I know that once I have more spiritual experience and confidence in the subject I may even call the show myself and attempt to explain these things. @Serotoninluv Yes, he is very skilled at re framing an argument, and totally rejects personal experiences. Hosts on that show often assert that if something isn't demonstrable to someone else then it can't count as evidence, and on the surface that's a hard thing to argue with. But I think this is just a side effect of rationalists not acknowledging the non physical as a viable source of truth. A spiritual truth is more personal, and even though it may not be as demonstrable to others, there is a trade off in that it is 10x more convincing to the person who had the experience. And I'm not saying that spiritual truths can't be deceiving, but that logic can be deceiving as well, (and not in the sense of a logical fallacy, but in the sense of being physically biased.)