Experiencing God

[Guy Threepwood]

There is also no proof that any god doesn't exist. There is no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist. There is no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. However, most adults would consider belief in any of these things to be absurd. Why is God different?

good question, why do you think most adults, do not believe in unicorns but do believe in God? If you think there is no difference at all, don't you think it's more likely that you are just not seeing the difference?

 

[Cephus]

good question, why do you think most adults, do not believe in unicorns but do believe in God? If you think there is no difference at all, don't you think it's more likely that you are just not seeing the difference?

Because there has traditionally been a lot of social pressure to conform. This is true in most countries where people, social creatures, want to be part of the in-group and therefore at least profess belief in the accepted social mythology. For many, and perhaps most, they really only view it as a social tool, studies show time and time again that most people who profess Christianity in America don't have a clue what it is that they're supposed to believe beyond the most basic platitudes they hear on their occasional ventures into a church. They might own a Bible but they never read it. I'm sure this is true in other countries as well, especially in places like the Middle East where not openly accepting Islam can get you killed. That was once the law of the land in Europe with Christianity, before anyone starts feeling all high and mighty. However, in recent years, people have started to realize that being a Christian, or at least claiming to be a Christian for appearance sake, really isn't the panacea that they thought it was, it doesn't necessarily open doors any better than just being honest and admitting that you don't really buy into it. That's one reason for the huge increase in non-religiosity in this country. People don't have to pretend anymore.

If all of that was done for unicorn belief, you can be sure that the majority of people would profess belief in unicorns too, at least until they understood that it didn't get them anywhere and there was no real social benefit from pretending.

 

[mystic64]

There is also no proof that any god doesn't exist. There is no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist. There is no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. However, most adults would consider belief in any of these things to be absurd. Why is God different?



No, you just have a poor understanding of what atheism is. It is the rejection of claims about the supernatural because of lack of evidence. It is not, for the majority of atheists, a belief that gods do not exist.

But do try again.

Cephus there is irrefutable evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. And I have been discussing religion with atheistically inclined individuals on different internet religious forums for well over twenty years now. So I probably understand the different versions of atheism at least as well, if not better, as you do . I have over time heard all of the arguments from both the theist stand point and from the atheist stand point. I know most of them well and yours is pretty standard issue and it is an illogical argument because the foundation premises for your argument are flawed. "I refuse to believe because there is no evidence" is illogical and shows a mind that makes decisions without all of the facts being in. And Cephus, basically you are running the old, "The world is flat." argument and doing in the name of science the same narrow minded approach that the Catholic church did in the name of religion.

C ephus, this topic is about experiencing God, which is what makes it an interesting topic. The question, "How do you know that it is real and not just a chemical embalance in the brain?" is a valid question. "How can you believe that God even exists when Santa Clause does not exist?" is not a valid question because the topic is about personal experiences with God, be they chemical embalances or not . And if you would like to reject the claims about the supernatural because of scientific evidence, then you should go to one of the places where the Voo Doo type stuff is practiced and laugh in their faces and dare them to mess with you. And what you will experience neither you or science will be able to explain .

 

[Cephus]

Cephus there is irrefutable evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. And I have been discussing religion with atheistically inclined individuals on different internet religious forums for well over twenty years now. So I probably understand the different versions of atheism at least as well, if not better, as you do . I have over time heard all of the arguments from both the theist stand point and from the atheist stand point. I know most of them well and yours is pretty standard issue and it is an illogical argument because the foundation premises for your argument are flawed. "I refuse to believe because there is no evidence" is illogical and shows a mind that makes decisions without all of the facts being in. And Cephus, basically you are running the old, "The world is flat." argument and doing in the name of science the same narrow minded approach that the Catholic church did in the name of religion.

No you can't. If we follow the Biblical example, where God started out as someone that walked and talked and provided direct experience to humans to the modern version where he's inscrutable and invisible and undetectable, we can do the same with Santa Claus. It's all made up anyhow. We can make him invisible and supernatural. It's just another sect of Santa Clausism after all. And I'll take your 20 years and up it by a couple of decades, I don't think you really have much of a grasp on things yet, but keep trying.

Cephus, this topic is about experiencing God, which is what makes it an interesting topic. The question, "How do you know that it is real and not just a chemical embalance in the brain?" is a valid question. "How can you believe that God even exists when Santa Clause does not exist?" is not a valid question because the topic is about personal experiences with God, be they chemical embalances or not . And if you would like to reject the claims about the supernatural because of scientific evidence, then you should go to one of the places where the Voo Doo type stuff is practiced and laugh in their faces and dare them to mess with you. And what you will experience neither you or science will be able to explain .

But that's not what makes it interesting for me. The fact that religious individuals can self-delude themselves is the sign of a defective mind, not something to be proud of. Most people who profess religion don't have a good idea of what brain chemistry is or how it operates, trying to have a discussion on that basis is pretty pointless. We know, for instance, that several brain chemicals can be triggered by supposed religious experience to make people feel good about their beliefs, this makes people revisit these experiences and beliefs time and time again to get their jolt. If you want to have a solid discussion about brain chemistry and religion, I'm game but it doesn't actually give any proof that religion, the actual existence of any gods, is true, in fact, it just shows that religious beliefs have a social and biological origin.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because there has traditionally been a lot of social pressure to conform. This is true in most countries where people, social creatures, want to be part of the in-group and therefore at least profess belief in the accepted social mythology. For many, and perhaps most, they really only view it as a social tool, studies show time and time again that most people who profess Christianity in America don't have a clue what it is that they're supposed to believe beyond the most basic platitudes they hear on their occasional ventures into a church. They might own a Bible but they never read it. I'm sure this is true in other countries as well, especially in places like the Middle East where not openly accepting Islam can get you killed. That was once the law of the land in Europe with Christianity, before anyone starts feeling all high and mighty. However, in recent years, people have started to realize that being a Christian, or at least claiming to be a Christian for appearance sake, really isn't the panacea that they thought it was, it doesn't necessarily open doors any better than just being honest and admitting that you don't really buy into it. That's one reason for the huge increase in non-religiosity in this country. People don't have to pretend anymore.

If all of that was done for unicorn belief, you can be sure that the majority of people would profess belief in unicorns too, at least until they understood that it didn't get them anywhere and there was no real social benefit from pretending.

except that more people by far pray alone, individually to God, with nobody watching, than ever go to church at all. Their faith is entirely personal and very important to them, any person of faith I know would tell you the same entirely confidentially or publicly.

In stark contrast- in countries where state atheism is 'officially' achieved through massive social pressure/ political oppression of other beliefs, people still pray alone to God, and where that freedom of faith returns to places like Russia, China today, open religiosity resurfaces as we are seeing

Do beliefs in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa require atheist socialist states to oppress them? why not? they are just the same as God yes?

 

[Cephus]

except that more people by far pray alone, individually to God, with nobody watching, than ever go to church at all. Their faith is entirely personal and very important to them, any person of faith I know would tell you the same entirely confidentially or publicly.

How do you actually know that? Do they say they pray or do they actually pray? Where is your evidence that they actually pray and don't just report it?

In stark contrast- in countries where state atheism is 'officially' achieved through massive social pressure/ political oppression of other beliefs, people still pray alone to God, and where that freedom of faith returns to places like Russia, China today, open religiosity resurfaces as we are seeing

Because Putin isn't a religious fanatic and enforcing his religious views on everyone or anything... sure, Russia is a great atheist panacea.

Do beliefs in unicorns, leprechauns and Santa require atheist socialist states to oppress them? why not? they are just the same as God yes?

No but you can easily make the theoretical case that they do. And there are no atheist socialist states, you're just being silly. Or are you saying that in order for Christianity to exist, there have to be these mythical "atheist socialist states" to "oppress" them?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you actually know that? Do they say they pray or do they actually pray? Where is your evidence that they actually pray and don't just report it?

ask them they won't bite

Because Putin isn't a religious fanatic and enforcing his religious views on everyone or anything... sure, Russia is a great atheist panacea.

more freedom relative to the USSR but I take your point there, similarly China has a ways to go

there are no atheist socialist states

you'd have to take that up with Stalin, Mao, and KIM Il what'sisface

 

[Cephus]

ask them they won't bite

But again, you have to rely on their honesty, you cannot verify it independently. If these are people who are convinced they are getting some social benefit from feigning religiosity, why wouldn't they continue to lie about it?

more freedom relative to the USSR but I take your point there, similarly China has a ways to go

I'm not saying that there aren't some people who really believe pretty much everywhere, the more oppressive the regime, the more likely you have people who turn to religion to get out from under it, or at least get the feeling that they are doing so. None of that proves that the beliefs are factually true though.

you'd have to take that up with Stalin, Mao, and KIM Il what'sisface

Since they're all dead, that would be difficult. Besides, none of those were atheist states, they were non-religious states. There is a difference.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But again, you have to rely on their honesty, you cannot verify it independently. If these are people who are convinced they are getting some social benefit from feigning religiosity, why wouldn't they continue to lie about it?

you'd have to rely on their dishonesty,people who share their prayers with and for each other are really lying?! do you pray?

Since they're all dead, that would be difficult. Besides, none of those were atheist states, they were non-religious states. There is a difference.

calling north Korea 'non religious' instead of atheist wouldn't be much comfort to all the people killed for being theists (or non-non-religious if you prefer), the ideology is identical

Their ideology has been described as "state-sanctioned atheism".[78] Although the North Korean constitution states that freedom of religion is permitted,[79] free religious activities no longer exist in North Korea, as the government sponsors religious groups only to create an illusion of religious freedom.[80][81] Cardinal Nicolas Cheong Jin-suk has said that, "There's no knowledge of priests surviving persecution that came in the late forties, when 166 priests and religious were killed or kidnapped," which includes the Roman Catholic bishop of Pyongyang, Francis Hong Yong-ho.[82] The Juche ideology, based on Korean ultranationalism, calls on people to "avoid spiritual deference to outside influences", which was interpreted as including religion originating outside of Korea.[42] On November 2013, the repression against religious people led to the public execution of 80 people, some of them for possessing Bibles.[83][84]

 

[Cephus]

you'd have to rely on their dishonesty,people who share their prayers with and for each other are really lying?! do you pray?

Nope but I don't think I'm getting anything out of it either. I don't think it affects my social position, my friendships, my employment or anything else. I have no reason to lie about it because I don't benefit from pretending I'm religious. Others do.

calling north Korea 'non religious' instead of atheist wouldn't be much comfort to all the people killed for being theists (or non-non-religious if you prefer), the ideology is identical

You might be able to get away with calling the "religion" of North Korea "Kim-Jong-ism", if you want to call it a religion, although it really doesn't fit the parameters of most religions because I don't think anyone really considers Kim Jong Il (or subsequently, Kim Jong Un) an actual god. And should atheists be comforted in religious countries for being killed or otherwise abused for not believing in the dominant local deity? I don't think you'll find anyone who is actually in favor of such things. You are mistaking political positions for religious ones.

 

[mystic64]

Humm ? Cephus, brain chemistry works both ways because we deny what we fear. One could say that your inability to experience God or the supernatural is a brain chemistry imbalance that is caused by fear. For some reason in your personality programming you fear the supernatural and this fear creates a brain chemistry reality that forces you to deny the existance of all things supernatural and therefore the inability to experience it. Being an athiest and promoting atheism could be said to be your secutity blanket just like religion is a security blanket to a lot of folks that are religious. Because there is no evidence one way or the other, if there was not fear, then one would be an agnostic and one would not have a brain chemistry problem because of their personality programming and its responce to fear.

 

[Sonofason]

But, in fact, they're not. If you were not impressed with such claims when you were an atheist, you shouldn't be impressed with them now because, even if you're the one experiencing them, they prove nothing, Everything you thought was wrong with them when you were an atheist is probably still wrong with them now. When I was a Christian, I was utterly convinced that I had experiences with God but as I started to examine them rationally, I realized that I had no such thing, I was just insisting that they were with God when there was no reasonable or objective way to verify my own demands.

You're probably doing the same thing and because you're so close to it, you're not being as objective as you should be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I would like to see your evidence that proves that the experiences that you once had, that you once believed were experiences of God, that you no longer believe were experiences of God, were not indeed experiences of God.

It certainly could be that you were right then, but are wrong now. What makes you more reasonable now than you were then?

 

[Sonofason]

Do you bring them up with Muslims?



Nope. With the possible exception of delusion.

Ciao

- viole

What do you know about delusions?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, but that depends on who you ask. Or where you ask. If you ask people in Alabama you will have different answers than the ones you get if you ask in Jemen.

What reasons do you think there are that explain why experiences of the different versions of God are so unequally distributed geographically?

Ciao

- viole

Wow, wow, hold on now. I haven't heard anyone describe their experiences of God. I have not heard a Muslim's version of his experience of God. I'm not sure I've heard any detailed experiences of God from anyone so far. So how is it that you are now saying that Muslims and Christians experience different versions of God? Please cite the experiences that you are comparing here.

 

[Cephus]

I would like to see your evidence that proves that the experiences that you once had, that you once believed were experiences of God, that you no longer believe were experiences of God, were not indeed experiences of God.

It certainly could be that you were right then, but are wrong now. What makes you more reasonable now than you were then?

You can't prove a negative. Let me know when you prove God exists, otherwise you're still just making empty claims with no validity.

 

[Sonofason]

Really, dude? Really?

Just go with it, it's the best he's got.

 

[Sonofason]

Really.

If any of what I said was unreasonable, please point it out.

Well, you basically just told everyone that the woman I'm sitting here eating my dinner with might not be my wife, and these kids I keep feeding everyday, that are sleeping in my home might not be my kids.

Really dude? Really?

 

[Sonofason]

There is also no proof that any god doesn't exist. There is no evidence that unicorns don't exist. There is no evidence that leprechauns don't exist. There is no evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist. However, most adults would consider belief in any of these things to be absurd. Why is God different?



No, you just have a poor understanding of what atheism is. It is the rejection of claims about the supernatural because of lack of evidence. It is not, for the majority of atheists, a belief that gods do not exist.

But do try again.

You obviously have adopted a deficient and over-manipulated concept of what an atheist is. An atheist is and is nothing other than a person who believes that no god exists. If he doesn't know whether or not a God exists, he's an agnostic.

 

[Sonofason]

Humm ? Cephus, brain chemistry works both ways because we deny what we fear. One could say that your inability to experience God or the supernatural is a brain chemistry imbalance that is caused by fear. For some reason in your personality programming you fear the supernatural and this fear creates a brain chemistry reality that forces you to deny the existance of all things supernatural and therefore the inability to experience it. Being an athiest and promoting atheism could be said to be your secutity blanket just like religion is a security blanket to a lot of folks that are religious. Because there is no evidence one way or the other, if there was not fear, then one would be an agnostic and one would not have a brain chemistry problem because of their personality programming and its responce to fear.

There it is. Unless you have experienced God for yourself, the only reasonable position left to take is agnostic. It certainly cannot be considered reasonable and reliable to form opinions from a lack of evidence.

 

[Sonofason]

You can't prove a negative. Let me know when you prove God exists, otherwise you're still just making empty claims with no validity.

You just said,

I was utterly convinced that I had experiences with God but as I started to examine them rationally, I realized that I had no such thing, I was just insisting that they were with God when there was no reasonable or objective way to verify my own demands.

So why should I believe that your rationalization of your former experiences are of greater value than your first impressions of your former experiences? Why should I think that you rationalizing over something has any weight at all?

Anyhow, you say you "realized" that you had no such experience. I would like to hear more about this realization. What exactly did you realize? What was the experience you had that you now deny having?