A note that will pain most atheists

[Chevalier Violet]

- I will preface this post by saying that I am not christian, I am not sure God exists. But I have had epiphanic visions of God before, I just can't be sure that they're true.

I think it's kind of funny when people who have never had a religious experience say, "I don't believe in God."

Now, there are many people who have had religious experiences who come out atheists. That is fine, since they have had a revelation but still decided to keep their beliefs.

All I'm saying is, before a person has such an experience, he or she has NO RIGHT to say that God doesn't exist. Even if God indeed doesn't exist, nobody can deny that *religious experience* exists. So these atheists should HAVE a "vision of God" before they speak.

Most atheists, of course, are simply anti-Christian. They declare that Christians have manipulated and killed people for centuries. This is true, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

An atheist declares: "well I don't believe in aliens, yet I've never seen them:"

It is true that if you ask the skies to see an alien, you will not see one. (edit: But visions of God are different from experience in the everyday world. Anybody, with a REASONABLE EFFORT can see the vision theists attribute to god, even if you don't believe. No matter how much effort you expend, you will probably not see aliens. Also, searching for this religious experience will do NO HARM, unlike trying to personally understand insanity (or searching for aliens).)

Let's be very clear here. I'm not talking about imagining a rational conception of what God would be (as if religious people pray to that!). If an atheist has never had a vision of God, his or her opinion is simply uninformed. Considering how common it is to have a religious experience, the opinion is probably lazy too. (edit: <--- reasonable effort)

What would you say of an art critic who had never seen even a picture of the Mona Lisa but said "it's an ugly painting." You'd say, "You've only heard people call it ugly, and formed an opinion by hearsay. It is not hard to see a picture of this thing. With a very minimal effort, like finding a picture in any art book, you could have an *informed* opinion, rather than an uninformed one.

I'm not asking you to fly to Paris just to see it!"

(It doesn't matter if the person likes or dislikes the Mona Lisa without having seen it. It only takes a few seconds to google the Mona Lisa and see for yourself (reasonable effort)!)

Another atheist declares, "well, this is just a sneaky way of saying, 'if you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong.'"

No, I'm saying go look for YOURSELF. Once you've seen this epiphanic vision, which any fool can summon, your opinion will be just as informed as mine. At that point, if you think God doesn't exist, like I do some of the time, then you would be not a whit less informed than I am.

A fourth speaks, "people who believe in God are just gullible."

I don't think I'm alone when I say that the man who believes what he sees with his own eyes is less gullible than the man who accepts hearsay as fact, and believes himself smarter than all the world. It's true that a vision of God could be an illusion, but also it could not be an illusion. I don't know. All I'm saying is that everyone can and should see for themselves.

Atheists DON'T have to accept hearsay (whereas judges, psychiatrists, and UFO skeptics do). Atheists can see for themselves without unreasonable effort, and without harm.

The question left in my mind is, do they know how or where to look?

The Christians are largely responsible for this problem. They speak as if God's presence were self-evident, obvious, ubiquitous. It may be, but many atheists honestly and truly cannot perceive this God.

The point of my post is this: if you are an atheist, are you willing to look? Red pill or blue pill...

I'm not saying God exists. I don't know. I want to know if you're willing to look for yourself.

Based on experience, I'm betting the prospect of looking makes you fairly uncomfortable, which is why I will most likely receive a bunch of uncomfortable sounding non-sequiturs, high sounding abstractions that boil down to fear. Who among the atheists here will look for themself?

Post if you are ready.

The Purple Knight

PS I would love for you to perceive what people call God and remain an atheist. That would absolutely make my day, please try the step-by-step, posted on page 8.

 

[Nanda]

I'm just curious how one has a valid religious experience if god doesn't exist. I'm not arguing whether he/she/it does or does not exist, but you said even if there were no god, religious experiences exist... Well, if there is no god, what are religious experiences and where do they come from? And why would they matter? They obviously wouldn't come from any god, if there were no god, so they'd have to be the product of your own mind.

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

This thread does not belong in a DIR Atheism forum, so it has been moved to General Religious Debates.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I'm just curious how one has a valid religious experience if god doesn't exist. I'm not arguing whether he/she/it does or does not exist, but you said even if there were no god, religious experiences exist... Well, if there is no god, what are religious experiences and where do they come from? And why would they matter? They obviously wouldn't come from any god, if there were no god, so they'd have to be the product of your own mind.

I know you're not trying to say that God doesn't exist, but I would like to emphasize from the beginning: this thread is about deciding whether or not God exists.

I don't think people should come to any conclusions about whether or not God exists without seeking a vision of God first.

Let's assume God does exist for a moment. If God exists, you would supposedly be putting yourself in touch with an all-powerful being. The Christians say you would be ensuring your happiness in the afterlife. I have found that vision of God, whatever its ultimate reality, to be a source of perspective and wisdom on my life. So there's that. I have found a universal love for humanity.

Now there's also the possibility that God exists but is unlike the portrayals of the Christians or the Hindu or the Greeks. If this were the case, then having a vision of God would allow you to explore God's true nature and find a more profound understanding of the universe.

I think we can agree that if God ultimately exists, there are benefits in this life, right now, right away to seeking God out. When I saw my first vision of God I felt a profound peace for about two weeks. A process of repentance and self-forgiveness does seem to be intimately linked, at least in my life, to seeing this vision of God. So I have benefited enormously. I'm not saying you would do the same. Maybe it is not possible for you to see this thing.

If God ultimately doesn't exist, does seeking a vision of God have any benefit? Personally, I barely believe in God right now - I'm still very unsure as to his epistemic status. But I think seeing a vision of God has been very beneficial for me.

1.) At worst, it's a very cool vision. Like having my entire being lit up like a flame and extended to the edge of the universe. Unlike any dream or experience, and I liked it way better than sex.

2.) The Buddhists say that God is actually a "higher self." So I think that even if God is entirely in our head, God would be, according to the buddhists, a higher part of our head that we don't access very often.

So let's say you ultimately believe God is entirely in your head, it seems to me you would still benefit.

3.) Seeing is not believing. You can see a vision of God without buying into it. I do it all the time.

4.) You could make an informed decision about whether or not God exists.

5.) Seeing God is powerful. I felt like "I have always known this."

Meet humble Christians, you will be more amenable to meeting God, I think.

5.) I have never heard of visions of God being associated with insanity - ever. The skeptic dictionaries I have read have said that seeing God is a natural capacity we have, something like optical illusions only far more complex. So seeing God does not equal insanity, but at worst, is a natural capacity.

I have compared discovering God to recovering feeling in a numb toe. I would say that even if God is ultimately imaginary, finding this vision of God was, for me, a powerful, beneficial, and cleansing experience.

CV

 

[Darkness]

I am unsure what you are saying. How do am I supposed to get a religious experience? Kindly tell me.

I do not need a religious experience to not believe in God. I do not believe in God, because I see little or no evidence for His existence. I have never had a vision of Rosiel, yet I do not believe he exists (I kind of wish he did). No one can disprove the existence of God, but that does not mean we shouldn't say we don't believe in Him.

 

[Pah]

I have had two significant religious experiences - I prayed in tongues and I had personal demons exorcised by prayer.

Both events were a product of expectations within a "born-again" world.

There have also been the experiences of providing "pastoral" care.

 

[Pah]

I have no problems saying that there are no gods. Science has done wonders in examining some of the articles of faith and the re-enforcing, religious organization.

 

[Jaymes]

I think it's kind of funny when people who have never had a religious experience say, "I don't believe in God."
. . .
All I'm saying is, before a person has such an experience, he or she has NO RIGHT to say that God doesn't exist. Even if God indeed doesn't exist, nobody can deny that *religious experience* exists. So these atheists should HAVE a "vision of God" before they speak.

You do realize you made a huge jump with that, don't you? "I don't believe in God" and "God doesn't exist" are two COMPLETELY different statements.

And how would you suggest I have an experience with god? I've tried most of the mainstream ways. Perhaps I should take some hallucinogens?

Most atheists, of course, are simply anti-Christian.

Most Christians, of course, are simply anti-atheist.

How is my statement less of a gross generalization than yours?

They declare that Christians have manipulated and killed people for centuries. This is true, but it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Uh... why is the declaration of fact something bad? And how does this even relate to your original statement of atheists saying "I don't believe in God"?

edit: But visions of God are different from experience in the everyday world. Anybody, with a REASONABLE EFFORT can see the vision theists attribute to god, even if you don't believe. No matter how much effort you expend, you will probably not see aliens. Also, searching for this religious experience will do NO HARM, unlike trying to personally understand insanity (or searching for aliens).)

Bull. I tried to find a deity for years and never did. I meditated, prayed, did rituals, went to churches, whatever. None of these got me a religious experience, even when I was actively trying to believe.

Let's be very clear here. I'm not talking about imagining a rational conception of what God would be (as if religious people pray to that!). If an atheist has never had a vision of God, his or her opinion is simply uninformed. Considering how common it is to have a religious experience, the opinion is probably lazy too. (edit: <--- reasonable effort)

So now not only did I not make a "reasonable effort" (I searched for years! What more do you have to do?) now I'm also lazy?

What would you say of an art critic who had never seen even a picture of the Mona Lisa but said "it's an ugly painting." You'd say, "You've only heard people call it ugly, and formed an opinion by hearsay. It is not hard to see a picture of this thing. With a very minimal effort, like finding a picture in any art book, you could have an *informed* opinion, rather than an uninformed one.

You seem to be ignoring the obvious fact that you can't find God in an art book... or in anything physical. Otherwise it wouldn't be a matter of faith to show that he exists.

The point of my post is this: if you are an atheist, are you willing to look? Red pill or blue pill...

I DID look for years. And found nothing to suggest the evidence of any kind of deity.

I'd kindly suggest you backtrack and renounce your suggestion that anyone who hasn't had an experience with a deity is lazy, uninformed, and that experiences with a deity are something a fool can do. I'm none of those and I tried to have a religious experiences for years and came up dry.

 

[logician]

I guess I have the right to say "I don't believe in god" since I was "saved" on several occasions in my protestant upbringing. However, I don't agree that one must have had some kind of previous religious experience to validate their atheism. Atheism stems from rationalism and free thought, not from a religious background.

 

[Zeno]

When I saw my first vision of God I felt a profound peace for about two weeks.

The problem with this is that it is subjective. Were I to ever have a religious experience where I saw what appeared to be a God, why would I assume this experience has a supernatural basis. We have plenty of models for delusions. Many people "see" God when they are under the influence of LSD or other hallucinogenic substances. We even have models for these kind of delusions in mental disorders like paranoid schizophrenia.

The human mind is easily influenced by its environment. For example, in cultures that have not been exposed to Christianity, you never encounter an instance someone having a "vision" of Jesus. Also, you don't have instances of people believing they can communicate with Jesus or pass his message along. However, in cultures with prevalent Christianity, these delusions of grandeur in regards to Jesus are rampant.

If your experiences brought you inner peace then I am not one to say you should avoid them. I think that is great. However, their real link to a deity (or even a religion for that matter) is a subjective opinion at best.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

The problem with this is that it is subjective. Were I to ever have a religious experience where I saw what appeared to be a God, why would I assume this experience has a supernatural basis. We have plenty of models for delusions. Many people "see" God when they are under the influence of LSD or other hallucinogenic substances. We even have models for these kind of delusions in mental disorders like paranoid schizophrenia.

The human mind is easily influenced by its environment. For example, in cultures that have not been exposed to Christianity, you never encounter an instance someone having a "vision" of Jesus. Also, you don't have instances of people believing they can communicate with Jesus or pass his message along. However, in cultures with prevalent Christianity, these delusions of grandeur in regards to Jesus are rampant.

If your experiences brought you inner peace then I am not one to say you should avoid them. I think that is great. However, their real link to a deity (or even a religion for that matter) is a subjective opinion at best.

I agree, the link between perception and deity is a subjective leap.

And I agree with every epistemic problem you raised. Perhaps it is environment, imagination etc. These are all very plausible.

All I would ask in your case is that you at least try to make it a subjective leap informed by personal experience, rather than speculative subjective leap which I think we can agree is done most atheists. Only a minority have ever perceived what people call God before.

There is nothing invalid about speculation. And the atheistic opinion may be correct. All I'm saying is that anyone can perceive God and therefore inform themselves with experience.

As for how to have a vision of God, I confess, it just came to me. I wouldn't know how to teach it.

I would love some help thinking of a way to get atheists to at least perceive whatever this thing is.

 

[Chevalier Violet]

I guess I have the right to say "I don't believe in god" since I was "saved" on several occasions in my protestant upbringing. However, I don't agree that one must have had some kind of previous religious experience to validate their atheism. Atheism stems from rationalism and free thought, not from a religious background.

You're right, your opinion is informed by experience. You may be correct in your atheism. I laud your free thinking.

You're right that atheism comes from a lot of places. I believe it is rather self-evident that an atheist who has perceived God is a more trustworthy and informed source than an atheist who has never perceived this vision of God before. Again, I would trust an art critic who had actually seen the Mona Lisa more than one who hadn't.

I have no problems saying that there are no gods. Science has done wonders in examining some of the articles of faith and the re-enforcing, religious organization.

I have had two significant religious experiences - I prayed in tongues and I had personal demons exorcised by prayer.

Both events were a product of expectations within a "born-again" world.

There have also been the experiences of providing "pastoral" care.

But you never had a vision of God? Interesting. Whatever, your belief seems informed by positive (as opposed to negative) personal experience to me. I think your opinion on the non-existence of God is as good as mine.

I am unsure what you are saying. How do am I supposed to get a religious experience? Kindly tell me.

I do not need a religious experience to not believe in God. I do not believe in God, because I see little or no evidence for His existence. I have never had a vision of Rosiel, yet I do not believe he exists (I kind of wish he did). No one can disprove the existence of God, but that does not mean we shouldn't say we don't believe in Him.

I know you don't need a religious experience to not believe in God. Any speculator can do that.

You do need to have a vision of God to have any positive personal experience... as opposed to a total lack of personal experience being your basis.

The problem, as I see it, is that atheists and theists are often just different in experience. The only difference between most atheists and theists I know is that the theists have had a vision of God and the atheists have not. I am inviting atheists to bridge this gap before deciding that "God doesn't exist."

I have another post where I outline how to have a vision of God. This is very rudimentary however and very far from compelling a newbie to have a vision of God. I am looking for people to help out this experiment, but so far I am disappointed by the lack of interested people.

It seems many people are more interested in sterile, abstract debates, than actual personal experience. What a shame.

Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it. I'll get back to you on that.

CV

 

[Jaymes]

"I will preface this post by saying that I am not Pastafarian, I am not sure the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. But I have had epiphanic visions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster before, I just can't be sure that they're true.

I think it's kind of funny when people who have never had a religious experience say, "I don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

Now, there are many people who have had religious experiences who come out atheists. That is fine, since they have had a revelation but still decided to keep their beliefs.

All I'm saying is, before a person has such an experience, he or she has NO RIGHT to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. Even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster indeed doesn't exist, nobody can deny that *religious experience* exists. So these atheists should HAVE a "vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" before they speak.

Most atheists, of course, are simply anti-Pastafarian. They declare that Pastafarians have manipulated and killed people for centuries. This is true, but it doesn't mean that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

An atheist declares: "well I don't believe in aliens, yet I've never seen them:"

It is true that if you ask the skies to see an alien, you will not see one. (edit: But visions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are different from experience in the everyday world. Anybody, with a REASONABLE EFFORT can see the vision theists attribute to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even if you don't believe. No matter how much effort you expend, you will probably not see aliens. Also, searching for this religious experience will do NO HARM, unlike trying to personally understand insanity (or searching for aliens).)

Let's be very clear here. I'm not talking about imagining a rational conception of what the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be (as if religious people pray to that!). If an atheist has never had a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, his or her opinion is simply uninformed. Considering how common it is to have a religious experience, the opinion is probably lazy too. (edit: <--- reasonable effort)

What would you say of an art critic who had never seen even a picture of the Mona Lisa but said "it's an ugly painting." You'd say, "You've only heard people call it ugly, and formed an opinion by hearsay. It is not hard to see a picture of this thing. With a very minimal effort, like finding a picture in any art book, you could have an *informed* opinion, rather than an uninformed one.

I'm not asking you to fly to Paris just to see it!"

(It doesn't matter if the person likes or dislikes the Mona Lisa without having seen it. It only takes a few seconds to google the Mona Lisa and see for yourself (reasonable effort)!)

Another atheist declares, "well, this is just a sneaky way of saying, 'if you don't believe what I believe, you're wrong.'"

No, I'm saying go look for YOURSELF. Once you've seen this epiphanic vision, which any fool can summon, your opinion will be just as informed as mine. At that point, if you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist, like I do some of the time, then you would be not a whit less informed than I am.

A fourth speaks, "people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster are just gullible."

I don't think I'm alone when I say that the man who believes what he sees with his own eyes is less gullible than the man who accepts hearsay as fact, and believes himself smarter than all the world. It's true that a vision of the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be an illusion, but also it could not be an illusion. I don't know. All I'm saying is that everyone can and should see for themselves.

Atheists DON'T have to accept hearsay (whereas judges, psychiatrists, and UFO skeptics do). Atheists can see for themselves without unreasonable effort, and without harm.

The question left in my mind is, do they know how or where to look?

The Pastafarians are largely responsible for this problem. They speak as if the Flying Spaghetti Monster's presence were self-evident, obvious, ubiquitous. It may be, but many atheists honestly and truly cannot perceive this the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The point of my post is this: if you are an atheist, are you willing to look? Red pill or blue pill...

I'm not saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. I don't know. I want to know if you're willing to look for yourself.

Based on experience, I'm betting the prospect of looking makes you fairly uncomfortable, which is why I will most likely receive a bunch of uncomfortable sounding non-sequiturs, high sounding abstractions that boil down to fear. Who among the atheists here has the openness of mind to look for themself?

Post if you are ready."

How is this any more ridiculous than what you posted?

 

[Darkness]

I know you don't need a religious experience to not believe in God. Any speculator can do that.

You do need to have a vision of God to have any positive personal experience... as opposed to a total lack of personal experience being your basis.

The problem, as I see it, is that atheists and theists are often just different in experience. The only difference between most atheists and theists I know is that the theists have had a vision of God and the atheists have not. I am inviting atheists to bridge this gap before deciding that "God doesn't exist."

I have another post where I outline how to have a vision of God. This is very rudimentary however and very far from compelling a newbie to have a vision of God. I am looking for people to help out this experiment, but so far I am disappointed by the lack of interested people.

It seems many people are more interested in sterile, abstract debates, than actual personal experience. What a shame.

Thanks for the offer, I appreciate it. I'll get back to you on that.

I cannot bridge the gap because I doubt I will ever have a religious experience. When I was a Christian I begged God to let me know if He existed, but I got nothing. I do not know what more you want. And Jaymes nice work.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree, the link between perception and deity is a subjective leap.

So is the link between perception and delusion.

 

[darkpenguin]

I think i'm right being an athiest, on one hand, no I havn't tried looking for god but on the other hand there are better and more productive things to do in life then look for something which for an awfull lot of people isn't there.
If god wants to be found then he will find me.

 

[Sunstone]

Well, if there is no god, what are religious experiences and where do they come from?

Normal awareness (consciousness) divides subject from object. e.g. the person (subject) who sees something (object) is distinct in normal awareness from the thing (object) seen. But there is another kind of awareness that occurs when subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end. In that second kind of awareness, there is no divide between subject and object, and all things seem interconnected in a great whole, which some people call "God". That's the logic of a religious experience in a nutshell.

And why would they matter?

Most people who have had such experiences report several benefits from them. Such as loosing any fear of death, discovering love for others, having insights into the nature of language and symbols, greater psychological integration, and so forth.

They obviously wouldn't come from any god, if there were no god, so they'd have to be the product of your own mind.

Precisely.

 

[Booko]

As for how to have a vision of God, I confess, it just came to me. I wouldn't know how to teach it.

I would love some help thinking of a way to get atheists to at least perceive whatever this thing is.

Maybe the reason some people haven't had visions is because they simply don't work for everyone.

I was an atheist for years. Never had any visions. If I'd had, I'd have automatically discounted them as delusions anyway.

I've been a theist for years. Still haven't had any visions. And if I did, I'd still see a doctor as a response.

Not everyone comes to faith the same way. Compare notes with those who have, and you'd find that out very swiftly.

Why not just trust that God knows what the heck God's doing and gives everyone what they need in the measure they need it, rather than trying to hem God in and telling God that visions are the only path to belief you're going to allow Him to use to draw people nearer?

 

[Nanda]

Normal awareness (consciousness) divides subject from object. e.g. the person (subject) who sees something (object) is distinct in normal awareness from the thing (object) seen. But there is another kind of awareness that occurs when subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end. In that second kind of awareness, there is no divide between subject and object, and all things seem interconnected in a great whole, which some people call "God". That's the logic of a religious experience in a nutshell.


Most people who have had such experiences report several benefits from them. Such as loosing any fear of death, discovering love for others, having insights into the nature of language and symbols, greater psychological integration, and so forth.

But it seems like lying to yourself to me...

 

[MaddLlama]

So, your reasoning is....because I've never had a direct experience of God, I can't know he doesn't exist.

Ok, well have you ever had a direct experience with an invisible pink unicorn? Or maybe even a purple invisible alpaca from the sky? Or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? No? Well, then you can't say those things don't exist either.

If a person believes that God doesn't exist, then what logic is there for that person to try to experience God? For the atheist, there's nothing there to experience.

And, not having a "religious experience" isn't the only reason, or even the major reason that people are atheists.