u/Azatsatru

Hello everyone! I’m not a professional writer, but a recent dream entirely consumed my mind, and I had to sit down and translate it into a short story to get it out of my head.

​It's a psychological, dystopian story about a protagonist living in a heavily controlled institution where even names are forbidden. It’s a short piece (around 2,500 words), and I tried my best to capture the exact atmosphere and feeling of the dream.

​If you're interested in reading it, please drop a comment below or send me a DM, and I will happily share the link with you!

​I would honestly appreciate any feedback, thoughts, or raw reactions you have. Thanks for taking a look!

I have a thought experiment.

Suppose I invent a completely fictional religion called "Dogami." I claim that Dog is the supreme being, that I am his prophet, that an angel called Cat gives me revelations, and that there is a heaven called Catland and a hell called Dogahell. I also claim that followers experience miracles, visions, spiritual feelings, and encounters with supernatural beings.

Now imagine that millions of people sincerely believe in Dogami. Some report seeing visions of Dog, hearing messages from Cat, feeling the presence of supernatural beings, and having profound religious experiences.

However, by stipulation, we know that Dogami is entirely fabricated. Therefore, the supernatural explanation offered by Dogami is false.

My question is: if the experiences of Dogami believers are explained by psychological, social, neurological, or other natural causes rather than by actual supernatural beings, then why couldn't the same type of explanation apply to the religious experiences reported in existing religions?

I am not claiming that this proves all religions are false. Rather, I am asking whether the existence of sincere religious experiences can, by itself, serve as evidence that the supernatural claims of a religion are true.

If everything is ultimately empty (śūnyatā), then Nagarjuna, his philosophy, and even his arguments are also empty. If his teachings possess no intrinsic or absolute nature, on what basis should I accept them over any other philosophical system? Why should his account of reality be considered more compelling than alternative interpretations?