Experiencing God

[Sonofason]

I'm not "bent on" convincing you of anything. I'm interested in understanding theistic perspectives better, and so far, I've given you the benefit of the doubt by hoping that the irrational garbage you've provided so far aren't the real reasons you believe.

Virtually every religion has its own believers claiming the unassailability of their own beliefs, including those that conflict with yours. When you join the chorus too, the only message you communicate to me is that Christianity is just another religion, no more special than any of the many others.

I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really accustomed to atheists honestly seeking to understand theistic perspectives without also having the anterior motive and desire to undermine theistic perspectives. I'm sorry to say, that I believe that is the case here.

I wish I knew what it was I said that you are considering to be irrational garbage, as that might give us a place to start, that is if a rational discussion is what you truly desire to have.

 

[Cephus]

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that unbelievers are incapable of seeing what believers are capable of seeing. By all means continue on your present course. All will work out just fine, and as it should.

Delusion? Yup, you also seem to keep forgetting that being delusional is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Sonofason]

Delusion? Yup, you also seem to keep forgetting that being delusional is nothing to be proud of.

Yeah, that's kinda like homosexuals being proud of their delusion that they were once a homosexual infant. Indeed, delusions are nothing to be proud of.

 

[Cephus]

Yeah, that's kinda like homosexuals being proud of their delusion that they were once a homosexual infant. Indeed, delusions are nothing to be proud of.

Sexual orientation is largely genetically determined, science has proven it. You, however, want to believe that people choose to be outcasts from society. One side has evidence, your side has delusion. Color me completely unimpressed.

 

[Sonofason]

Sexual orientation is largely genetically determined, science has proven it. You, however, want to believe that people choose to be outcasts from society. One side has evidence, your side has delusion. Color me completely unimpressed.

Nope, science has not proven that. Nice try. If it is true, you will show your evidence.

I don't believe that people choose to be outcasts from society, anymore than I believe that a man whose addicted to pornography desires to be an outcast from his family. But people make bad choices that often times have bad consequences. If you don't like the consequences for your actions, don't engage in those actions. If you're okay being an outcast, then by all means continue in your sins.

 

[Thief]

Sexual orientation is largely genetically determined, science has proven it. You, however, want to believe that people choose to be outcasts from society. One side has evidence, your side has delusion. Color me completely unimpressed.

You cover your eyes and listen not.....even to your own words.

People DO choose to be outcasts of society.
They express that decision in so many ways.

 

[john2054]

Allan said not that god was light, although some of the Hari Krishnas i know might disagree with me, but that he is clothed in light. This is a metaphor or a eulogy. I suggest that the people on this tread go and read some books, and by all means i can recommend a few, before taking themselves too seriously anymore!

 

[Debater Slayer]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences won't share their experiences with others. It ought not surprise me however, as I too have had "spiritual" experiences that I just will not share with anyone. I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine.

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

I didn't know anything unusual that I'm aware of to invoke that experience, but I wouldn't call it a "God experience." I'd just call it "an extraordinary, blissful experience"; I think we currently know too little about the human brain to conclude with any degree of certainty what causes such experiences.

I think Occam's Razor favors a natural explanation, though. Not sharing such an experience with others makes sense to me because they would either not believe you or you wouldn't be able to describe the experience accurately due to how unusual it is, but I think a natural explanation is still the one that's most likely to be accurate out of all the other possible explanations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really accustomed to atheists honestly seeking to understand theistic perspectives without also having the anterior motive and desire to undermine theistic perspectives. I'm sorry to say, that I believe that is the case here.

I have a desire to figure out what's true. As part of that, I try to find out why people believe what they believe.

I have a particular interest in theistic perspectives because they're so foreign to me, but so popular: I see no reasonable way to accept any of them myself, but plenty of people do. I'm enough of an optimist to assume that not all of these people are being irrational, but every single time I've learned more about what a theist actually believes, they either give reasons for their beliefs that depend on logical fallacies, or their beliefs wouldn't be what I would consider actual acceptance of theism (e.g. they use God as a metaphor for something else).

I wish I knew what it was I said that you are considering to be irrational garbage, as that might give us a place to start, that is if a rational discussion is what you truly desire to have.

I was referring to the logical fallacies I've already called attention to in the thread, specifically...

Confirmation bias:

Yes, exactly. If one refuses to love God, there is something terribly wrong and ungodly with that person, and such a willful act isn't welcome in God's presence. And such a willful act shall not exist in God's presence. God is refining gold, and gold production requires refining. It involves removing impurities that remain after the smelting process. You're being smelted. Where's the gold?

Circular reasoning:

Sure, I agree with you. The trustworthiness of God's Word has enabled me to construct an impenetrable shield. I agree with you.

 

[Sonofason]

I didn't know anything unusual that I'm aware of to invoke that experience, but I wouldn't call it a "God experience." I'd just call it "an extraordinary, blissful experience"; I think we currently know too little about the human brain to conclude with any degree of certainty what causes such experiences.

I think Occam's Razor favors a natural explanation, though. Not sharing such an experience with others makes sense to me because they would either not believe you or you wouldn't be able to describe the experience accurately due to how unusual it is, but I think a natural explanation is still the one that's most likely to be accurate out of all the other possible explanations.

It is apparent to me that you have no explanation for what causes the experiences that many people claim are experiences of God. And that's fine. But it makes a great deal less sense to suggest without any evidence whatsoever that the experience is not indeed an experience of God. In view of this lack of knowledge on your part, I feel most inclined to continue believing that what I have perceived to be an experience of God is indeed an experience of God. That is indeed the more rational approach.

 

[Sonofason]

I have a desire to figure out what's true. As part of that, I try to find out why people believe what they believe.

I have a particular interest in theistic perspectives because they're so foreign to me, but so popular: I see no reasonable way to accept any of them myself, but plenty of people do. I'm enough of an optimist to assume that not all of these people are being irrational, but every single time I've learned more about what a theist actually believes, they either give reasons for their beliefs that depend on logical fallacies, or their beliefs wouldn't be what I would consider actual acceptance of theism (e.g. they use God as a metaphor for something else).


I was referring to the logical fallacies I've already called attention to in the thread, specifically...

Confirmation bias:


Circular reasoning:

I'm happy to see that you believe you have an open mind.

 

[Debater Slayer]

It is apparent to me that you have no explanation for what causes the experiences that many people claim are experiences of God. And that's fine. But it makes a great deal less sense to suggest without any evidence whatsoever that the experience is not indeed an experience of God. In view of this lack of knowledge on your part, I feel most inclined to continue believing that what I have perceived to be an experience of God is indeed an experience of God. That is indeed the more rational approach.

You are free to interpret your experience as you see fit, and so am I. While I don't think it's downright impossible for there to be a deity that causes such experiences, I also don't think that explanation is likely to be true.

Personally, I'm far more inclined toward believing that there are natural explanations that we're just not aware of yet, especially given how complex the human brain is; as I said earlier, I think Occam's Razor favors that viewpoint because it doesn't contain as many assumptions as one about the existence of a deity and the nature of that deity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is apparent to me that you have no explanation for what causes the experiences that many people claim are experiences of God. And that's fine. But it makes a great deal less sense to suggest without any evidence whatsoever that the experience is not indeed an experience of God. In view of this lack of knowledge on your part, I feel most inclined to continue believing that what I have perceived to be an experience of God is indeed an experience of God. That is indeed the more rational approach.

An argument from ignorance (e.g. what you're giving here) is never the most rational approach.

 

[john2054]

It says in the Bible, god proved himself to Noah after a month in the Ark, by his rainbow. So the next time it rains, and the sun still lights up the corner of the sky, why don't you step outside and see if you can see 'him'/? You never know, you just might surprise yourself?!?

 

[AllanV]

I didn't know anything unusual that I'm aware of to invoke that experience, but I wouldn't call it a "God experience." I'd just call it "an extraordinary, blissful experience"; I think we currently know too little about the human brain to conclude with any degree of certainty what causes such experiences.

I think Ockham's Razor favors a natural explanation, though. Not sharing such an experience with others makes sense to me because they would either not believe you or you wouldn't be able to describe the experience accurately due to how unusual it is, but I think a natural explanation is still the one that's most likely to be accurate out of all the other possible explanations.

It is more interesting to work out why certain people actually the majority do not have an experience of God. There are blocks or barriers installed and maintained and there is an easy explanation but it will not be believed. And there is evidence because it can be seen in human behavior and even in the energy that comes out of the heart that can be read.
Normal people have been killing each other in wars and conflict all throughout recorded History and they are in the majority. True believers in God are in the minority and are usually killed.

The people that are listened to can create problems in a personal self belief because this can lodge aspects into the subconscious.
It is obviously easy to say that someone has a belief in God but why are there so many nasty people who are religious. Do they believe in God or are they being talked into an ideology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It says in the Bible, god proved himself to Noah after a month in the Ark, by his rainbow. So the next time it rains, and the sun still lights up the corner of the sky, why don't you step outside and see if you can see 'him'/? You never know, you just might surprise yourself?!?

The Bible also describes God speaking to Noah directly. Apparently, if your scriptures are true, God is capable of communicating in ways that are much less vague and ambiguous than rainbows. Why not expect God to communicate that way today? Supposedly, if God wanted us to know something, he would be more than capable of telling us clearly. Why doesn't he?

 

[john2054]

Penguin, why don't you ask him that yourself? In prayer!

 

[Cephus]

It says in the Bible, god proved himself to Noah after a month in the Ark, by his rainbow. So the next time it rains, and the sun still lights up the corner of the sky, why don't you step outside and see if you can see 'him'/? You never know, you just might surprise yourself?!?

Identifying a natural event and slapping "God" on it is not impressive, sorry.

 

[AllanV]

The Bible also describes God speaking to Noah directly. Apparently, if your scriptures are true, God is capable of communicating in ways that are much less vague and ambiguous than rainbows. Why not expect God to communicate that way today? Supposedly, if God wanted us to know something, he would be more than capable of telling us clearly. Why doesn't he?

The situation is rather bazaar. God usually sends a prophet who is rather rough around the edges and tells people what they don't want to hear. But today with the media offered it gives many the opportunity and there are many different messages.

 

[john2054]

Identifying a natural event and slapping "God" on it is not impressive, sorry.

Cephus I was actually quoting from the Bible. Please check your facts next time, okay?