You are misunderstanding me, somehow. if someone hallucinates something, they experienced it, but it didn't happen. Something happened, but not the thing they perceived.

Did I claim otherwise?

The article mostly boils down to the old hat idea that religion helps some people's mental health. Therefore, it should not be clowned on. Just because a thing is helpful to some people doesn't shield it from criticism.

"Instead he considered himself a “radical empiricist,” and he defined this as accepting all observations of reality, including conscious experiences from a first-person perspective."

Not this any of what I am about to say disproves relgion's potential or supposed benefits, but James' "radical empiricist" claim is a bit silly here. If you want to be empirical in regard to subjective reality, you must come to the realization that not everyone's perception can be weighed equally. An example of an opinion that should be given less credence in this context would be someone suffering hallucinations. I may believe that a person experceived/percieved an event, but that doesn't mean it truly happened. There are also situations in which one should be weary of less honest relayed experiences. In this context, a religious bias in interpreting events is relevant.

Holy crap. I live right next to this. I haven't been outside yet, so thanks for the warning!

Why do many believe a naked singularity would bridge the gap between relativity and quantum mechanics? What do we expect to find if this is plausible?

Then why comment?? It seems brainless.

Consider that taking away someone's health care can ruin their life out of work. So: Fuck this brat

Pittsburgh has a long labor history. Fuck those who step on the worker.