Experiencing God

[Desert Snake]

Even eyewitness testimony of real events that are seen by lots of people are not. A recent NJ State Supreme Court decision backs this up: Studies have found that faulty eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions. New Jersey is one of the few states in the country where courts consider the growing body of scientific evidence that suggests the human memory is far from perfect

Read more at Chief Justice Rabner Reshaped the Use of Eyewitness Testimony | New Jersey News, Politics, Opinion, and Analysis


But ... even in light of that someone is going to tell me that unshared, unverified, "religious experiences" should be given some sort of special notice? I think not. Let's stop calling a "spade" an "entrenching tool," and accept the proper default value for anything that involves hearing the voices of invisible or halucinatory beings: that is to say it's delusional.
​

The 'nay-sayers' in general have never impressed me with their broad brushes, as others have already said, it is matter of belief anyway, like many things.

 

[Sonofason]

This is where you and I differ, I get my knowledge from within, and you get yours from out there somewhere, good luck with that.

So if you're getting all of your knowledge from within, how's your understanding of science and mathematics going? Not so good, aye? Or are you not telling the truth, and you do rely on the knowledge of others? Except not when it comes to understanding God, as if you know God better than all others, right?

 

[Desert Snake]

This is where you and I differ, I get my knowledge from within, and you get yours from out there somewhere, good luck with that.

Many people have these experiences outside of their own beliefs. Granted instead of 'religious', they might chalk them up as mystical or 'far out', but it's tomato tomahto.

 

[psychoslice]

He, I was thinking the same about you, you act as if you know god better than everyone else, I know what I know, and that is all I need to know.

 

[psychoslice]

Whatever !!.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

@SonofSon you didn't respond to my last post for you.

 

[Sonofason]

@SonofSon you didn't respond to my last post for you.

Kindly inform me of the number of the post. If I should determine that your comment invokes a response from me, I will of course respond.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Its funny, this also applies to the near death experience, most see what their beliefs or culture dictates, a Christian will see Jesus, a Hindu may see Krishna.

Why wouldn't they? It is the consciousness that they are a part of

 

[Quintessence]

I realize the conversation has moved on somewhat from the opening post, but bear with me for a while. I made some minor alterations to the context of the OP so it better applies to my path.

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

Neopaganism on the whole generally falls under the category of what I like to call mystical religion, meaning experiencing our gods directly is not only routine, but expected. As such, it's not typically appropriate to say we "believe" in our gods; we know our gods. Our ideas are not faith-based, they are grounded in our own experiences. What ties Neopaganism together is often common practices, and these practices facilitate the sorts of religious/mystical experiences that enable us to get to know the gods. In my case, since my gods are literally all the aspects of reality, there are many different avenues I take to learn about the gods.

Simply being alive and existing will inevitably put me into contact with many gods. Various arcane practices can be used to contemplate the deeper essence of the gods. I frequently draw from the sciences when knowing the gods, along with the stories woven by the world's cultures whether it be ancient mythos or modern mythos.

What really enables any of these experiences is the decision to call something "god." Ultimately, that's a label we put on something. Non-theists and non-Pagans will have the exact same experiences I do, but they won't relate it to the gods. I see sciences as the study of the gods, but most people don't. I see the very ground I walk on as infused with gods/spirits, but most people don't. And that's okay. The path others take to truths and meanings need not be the same as mine, nor would I want it to be.

 

[Sonofason]

I realize the conversation has moved on somewhat from the opening post, but bear with me for a while. I made some minor alterations to the context of the OP so it better applies to my path.



Neopaganism on the whole generally falls under the category of what I like to call mystical religion, meaning experiencing our gods directly is not only routine, but expected. As such, it's not typically appropriate to say we "believe" in our gods; we know our gods. Our ideas are not faith-based, they are grounded in our own experiences. What ties Neopaganism together is often common practices, and these practices facilitate the sorts of religious/mystical experiences that enable us to get to know the gods. In my case, since my gods are literally all the aspects of reality, there are many different avenues I take to learn about the gods.

Simply being alive and existing will inevitably put me into contact with many gods. Various arcane practices can be used to contemplate the deeper essence of the gods. I frequently draw from the sciences when knowing the gods, along with the stories woven by the world's cultures whether it be ancient mythos or modern mythos.

What really enables any of these experiences is the decision to call something "god." Ultimately, that's a label we put on something. Non-theists and non-Pagans will have the exact same experiences I do, but they won't relate it to the gods. I see sciences as the study of the gods, but most people don't. I see the very ground I walk on as infused with gods/spirits, but most people don't. And that's okay. The path others take to truths and meanings need not be the same as mine, nor would I want it to be.

Sorry Quintessence, you don't get to rewrite what I said. What you have done is nothing less than slander. By changing what I said, and putting it forth as a quote from me is deliberate slander and misrepresentation. Undo it now, and apologize for your wrong doing.

 

[Sapiens]

I believe seeing spiritual experiences as delusional as an a priori argument ie You have already decided it must be delusional before even arguing the point and all your arguments are going to refer back to your a priori position.

No, all the scientific studies that are out there falsify the hypothesis that "spiritual experiences" are supernatural or dependable. If having a back log of good science makes it then a priori ... so be it, but that is not the case since I am always open to new data, your just not providing any.

 

[Quintessence]

Sorry Quintessence, you don't get to rewrite what I said. What you have done is nothing less than slander. By changing what I said, and putting it forth as a quote from me is deliberate slander and misrepresentation. Undo it now, and apologize for your wrong doing.

Seriously? Interpreting the OP from a perspective I can actually respond to with respect to my religious experiences is misrepresentation and slander? Not limiting the conversation merely to classical monotheists who believe in a one-god is misrepresentation and slander? Seriously? Un-be-frigging-lievable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is remarkable.

When we hear a boom, we're kinda certain that we heard the boom.
When we perceive light, even when our eyes are closed, we can be most certain that we are experiencing light.
When we experience God, it is hard to dismiss that we are experiencing God.
When our skin is on fire, it's hard to dismiss the sensation of heat.

When we hear a boom, it's often hard to tell whether it was thunder, an explosion, or something else.
When we perceive light, even when our eyes are closed, we can't be certain what the source of the light was.
To "experience God", we must first understand what "experiencing God" would feel like, and confirm that nothing else could create that sensation.
When your skin is on fire, if the burn is bad enough (i.e. enough to destroy the nerves), there's no sensation of heat at all... and many things create a sensation of heat without any real fire involved at all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet you never feel burned without the heat.

I take it that you've never had shingles.

 

[psychoslice]

Why wouldn't they? It is the consciousness that they are a part of

No, their true Consciousness is beyond idols of the mind, its the mind that dictates, what is beyond the mind is our true Essence, and this Essence cannot ever be conceptualized, to mere gods of the mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 'nay-sayers' in general have never impressed me with their broad brushes, as others have already said, it is matter of belief anyway, like many things.

Likewise, those who make claims about religious experiences have never seemed convincing.

The process of accepting a religious experience as genuine has to go through three necessary steps. They're there implicitly even if you try to jump straight to the end:

1. I experienced some set of sensations/perceptions.
2. These sensations/perceptions were caused by something external to me (i.e. they weren't a matter of hallucination, mental illness, drugs, etc.)
3. The external cause that explains the experience best is God.

Step 1 is the only one that the person having the experience is the best judge of... but even if we grant that the experience in step 1 is completely genuine, I've never seen a religious experience that passes the tests of steps 2 or 3.

 

[dgirl1986]

I always made a huge point of the moments I believed were experiences and avoided trying to get new experiences for fear of failing.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, their true Consciousness is beyond idols of the mind, its the mind that dictates, what is beyond the mind is our true Essence, and this Essence cannot ever be conceptualized, to mere gods of the mind.

We have a higher consciousness as everything is fractal... that is why they see their own saviour etc.
I don't necessarily disagree with your comments however

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Kindly inform me of the number of the post. If I should determine that your comment invokes a response from me, I will of course respond.

I believe it was post 134.

 

[Nakosis]

I am what I am. If my mind is fooling me, then so be it. I believe what I believe.
If you're right, then it is my recommendation that one ought to expose himself/herself to God. Only then can he/she hope to have an experience of God, thus enabling his/her thinking to be a reflection of his/her experience of God.

Fair enough. You have to depend on your own determination.

The only think I really asked of God was to know the truth.