God experience can change atheists

[chinu]

You really don't give up, now do you, @atanu ?

Of course, someone who had a god-experience is by definition a believer in the existence of a god, and therefore not an atheist.

When a drop experience a sea, she is no more a drop.
Now, she is a sea itself.

BTW, how are you doing brother, luis ?

 

[Audie]

I just read that one post and wasn't certain of your meaning...my apologies if I lacked relevant information from previous posts.

I may be the one with the off-topic response, I
lost track.

 

[Audie]

I see fantasy as a necessary augmentation of our practical and reproducible knowledge. It allows us to rethink a oftentimes brutal reality into a livable transition toward a more humane one. To the extent that a well-crafted fantasy can inspire us to not get overwhelmed by what is bad, we can work toward making what is good a reality.

Stories engage more fully the human psyche because they engage our experience more fully than objective facts alone. Responsible use of story can create the inspiration people need to meet injustice with practical correction. Irresponsible use of story (to promote an archaic, literalist power hierarchy) can lead to very bad outcomes.

Did you agree that god(s) exist only in fantasy?

As for the rest of what you said, sure.

 

[Audie]

Sort of, but an evolutionist might still take exception to such an easy claim.

The problem as I see it is that we might have faith in science or God but we should be open to experience to improve the precision or details as we continue to explore the truth whether religious or scientific.

Not sure what you mean by "we' might have "faith"
in science.

The only place that "faith" goes into science is
in the level of confidence.

Any failure to understand that, or worse, not be open
to improvement or completely throwing out a theory
is the behaviour of someone who has no idea of
or intention to follow a scientific approach.

Science is a culture of doubt; religion a culture of
faith.
The highest values of science and religion
are, in this case, exactly opposite.

You do know this?

Do you know of any religious person whose study
includes objective openness to throwing the whole
thing out? I doubt it!

 

[Quintessence]

So where SPECIFICALLY do you imagine I stated that there is zero verifiable evidence that reality and everything in it exists?

Let's back up, because you aren't processing what I'm saying. Let's start here with things I've already said. I started with this:

... except this is not actually true? Most gods throughout human history are deifications of various aspects of reality that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

And clarified with this:

...all things are gods or have been deified at some point in history. The gods include the air you are breathing right now, the ground beneath your feet, the emotions you experience reading this, the abstract principles that allowed the keyboard you are using to exist, and anything else you could name.

Do you understand that throughout history, humans have deified things that are as physically real and physically verifiable as the person behind the title "doctor?" I am not talking about "figments of imagination," I am talking about the physical universe and everything in it. What else am I supposed to infer from you after I point this out and you still insist there is "zero verifiable evidence" for gods?

Lords, I get that classical monotheism along with its supernaturalistic theological premises have a stranglehold on the minds of many, but get outside that box for a while and put on a polytheist's hat or a pantheist's hat. When someone says to someone like me - someone who deifies things like the planet we depend on for our lives - saying there's "zero verifiable evidence of gods" is literally the same thing as saying there's "zero verifiable evidence of the planet." Does this help you process what I'm saying?

As I said earlier, different folks deify different things and that is entirely fair! If others don't believe the planet we depend on for our existence isn't worthy of the title "god," that's totally fine. But denying that others deify our world? Or saying there is no evidence that our planet exists? That's just silly.

 

[sealchan]

Did you agree that god(s) exist only in fantasy?

As for the rest of what you said, sure.

I have a strong intuition about the answer to your question but I am not sure how well I can articulate it. To say "only in fantasy" is, for me, potentially highly misleading when I see the value of fantasy extends beyond simple subjectivity.

I don't see a hard line between fantasy and reality because what is fantasy changes over time. Flying was for most of human history fantasy. The elimination of slavery is/was a fantasy as well (I'm not sure of the worldwide status on this at present).

For me fantasy is intertwined with creativity. Only creativity? A creative and effective solution to a need that might help do real good in this world and help to evolve human culture into something greater than it was. Now that is highly arguable but it would be remiss to revoke the claim that belief in god(s) has been personally, psychologically helpful. It has certainly helped me even if I consider it to be equally an act of creativity on my part as it was a sort of "compulsion" of my experience (an experience that compelled me to such creative engagement).

Its just not as black and white I think as many would have it be.

Maybe it (using fantasy to do real psychologically transformative and adaptative work) is like being an "artist of the psyche" in that one creates a work of the imagination that resolves inner conflict into an image of such psychological merit that it is deeply appreciated even if not fully understood by those viewing such works of art. In the Abrahamic traditions that means having a personality that one can psychologically relate to who is also a stand in as the creator of reality. Being able to relate personally to reality as a whole is arguably an immensely useful in leveraging our psychology. Our psychology is an objective reality that our personal attitude often struggles with.

 

[joe1776]

I asked...
Do you not see the difference between funded projects and funded tests?
I guess I'll have to provide the answer, since you didn't. You do not see the difference between funded projects and funded tests insofar as this conversation is concerned...Projects are what proponents of ideas to gather support their ideas. This may and should include good testing...Testing is also done by researchers independent researchers and researcher opposed to the concepts put forward of a project/proposal.

You've given up on false analogies, now you're reduced to picking nits. This discussion was, and always has been, about tests and evidence.

So your only response is to try to play word games. There is no positive evidence for the Great Flood.

Word games? Evidence was offered by its proponents in favor of the flood event having happened. That's how I'm using the word "positive." I'm not referring to the quality of the evidence.

I using the word 'positive" in the same way with the evidence for telepathy (ESP) but your attempt at analogy to the Flood fails because we're talking about scientists experimenting with ESP and showing positive results.

The quality of evidence for telepathy is below reasonable standards for evidence.

That's the claim that you can't support. It's simply an opinion on one side of a controversy.

Really. Since I couldn't read the poll questions, I can't tell how they were worded.

I have a hunch that, if you had the poll, you'd find fault with it. I'm willing to stipulate that you find errors in it.

However, I find it interesting that the authors of your article ignored the difference between a survey and a poll.

What's interesting about it? Both surveys and polls ask people's opinions on topics. The survey-poll may not be published online. I found six or seven references to it but no link.

 

[sealchan]

I suppose my own God experience--which has left me in a state where I have, metaphorically, an atheist on one shoulder and a believer on the other--has forced me to take seriously what might be called the configuration of my psyche and its ability to adapt to the realities of my personal experience, its past interpretations of that experience and its present circumstances. As an artist might be compelled to seek out the inspiration it derives from a muse whether a real person or an imagined being, it makes little difference. Our psyches are developed in a subjective, biased manner such that others in our world or even in our inner psychology can act as balancing voices providing transcendant perspectives on our personal biasing. If we look at the world logically we might need someone who relates to the world on a feeling level to help us out of a "tight spot" in our own psychology.

Sometimes we can perform a certain action and make ourselves just "snap out of it". In this case we have a faith in a method that works without understanding it, a ritual perhaps. But sometimes people need to journey into their own experience more deeply to find a way out of their inner dilemmas and for this they must enter a world of fantasy of one kind or another. While in this realm it is entirely necessary to engage with it as if it were fully real, just as we do when we allow ourselves to be lost in a work of fiction whether in a book or a movie. The goal is to "untie" some knot in our psyche that is, in part, a lie and that holds us back from achieving a level of satisfaction that is in tune with both our reality and our inner selves. We must pass through this fantasy until we outgrow it to an extent and can come back to our real world with a better adaptative attitude. Having taken such a journey one is ever grateful for it.

That to me is the real meaning and value of religious experience...a necessary fantasy that gives one deep meaning, that is based on universal principles of the psyche but is also a unique truth for each person who engages with it. In this view this is why I see literalism as the great enemy of religion as it will mask all the great value to be found behind the curtain of willful ignorance and the abandonment of personal responsibility for one's actions and beliefs.

 

[ecco]

Because of one personal experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible but scientists who want to study them not only won't get their projects funded but they risk their reputations for even showing interest.

This is the same argument complaint that Creationists make.

You've given up on false analogies, now you're reduced to picking nits. This discussion was, and always has been, about tests and evidence.

One of the good things about forums, one can always go back and see what was and what wasn't said.

You asserted that the psi folks couldn't get funding (see your post above).

I responded that that argument/complaint was the same as creationists make (see my post above).

I'll not bother responding to the rest of your post so as to give you time to see for yourself what the topic of our conversation is and has been.

 

[Audie]

I have a strong intuition about the answer to your question but I am not sure how well I can articulate it. To say "only in fantasy" is, for me, potentially highly misleading when I see the value of fantasy extends beyond simple subjectivity.

I don't see a hard line between fantasy and reality because what is fantasy changes over time. Flying was for most of human history fantasy. The elimination of slavery is/was a fantasy as well (I'm not sure of the worldwide status on this at present).

For me fantasy is intertwined with creativity. Only creativity? A creative and effective solution to a need that might help do real good in this world and help to evolve human culture into something greater than it was. Now that is highly arguable but it would be remiss to revoke the claim that belief in god(s) has been personally, psychologically helpful. It has certainly helped me even if I consider it to be equally an act of creativity on my part as it was a sort of "compulsion" of my experience (an experience that compelled me to such creative engagement).

Its just not as black and white I think as many would have it be.

Maybe it (using fantasy to do real psychologically transformative and adaptative work) is like being an "artist of the psyche" in that one creates a work of the imagination that resolves inner conflict into an image of such psychological merit that it is deeply appreciated even if not fully understood by those viewing such works of art. In the Abrahamic traditions that means having a personality that one can psychologically relate to who is also a stand in as the creator of reality. Being able to relate personally to reality as a whole is arguably an immensely useful in leveraging our psychology. Our psychology is an objective reality that our personal attitude often struggles with.

Fantasy can be a fine thing, but it is fantasy.
Kind of like how one could imagine "Hulking out"
but, if I needed to, I cannot do it

That is a bright line distinction between real and
imaginary.

I dont see how it is hard to say if one believes
"god", like in bible or koran is real, or, made up.

 

[LuisDantas]

When a drop experience a sea, she is no more a drop.
Now, she is a sea itself.

BTW, how are you doing brother, luis ?

Sharp at pointing out to theists how they have a lot to learn about the proper use of god concepts, I would like to think.

What about you, Chinu?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Let's back up, because you aren't processing what I'm saying. Let's start here with things I've already said. I started with this:



And clarified with this:



Do you understand that throughout history, humans have deified things that are as physically real and physically verifiable as the person behind the title "doctor?" I am not talking about "figments of imagination," I am talking about the physical universe and everything in it. What else am I supposed to infer from you after I point this out and you still insist there is "zero verifiable evidence" for gods?

Lords, I get that classical monotheism along with its supernaturalistic theological premises have a stranglehold on the minds of many, but get outside that box for a while and put on a polytheist's hat or a pantheist's hat. When someone says to someone like me - someone who deifies things like the planet we depend on for our lives - saying there's "zero verifiable evidence of gods" is literally the same thing as saying there's "zero verifiable evidence of the planet." Does this help you process what I'm saying?

As I said earlier, different folks deify different things and that is entirely fair! If others don't believe the planet we depend on for our existence isn't worthy of the title "god," that's totally fine. But denying that others deify our world? Or saying there is no evidence that our planet exists? That's just silly.

I don't think that you're actually reading my responses. I have already agreed that God is a title that people have placed upon innumerable things over the centuries. Ancient tribes deified that nearby mountain that occasionally spewed lava, labeling it as a deity that would occasionally get angry and spit fire and make the earth quake. The question isn't whether or not humans have deified things throughout history... the question is, are any of the things humans have deified throughout history proven to be ACTUAL deities? IS the nearby mountain an ACTUAL deity that spews fire and makes the earth quake when it's angry, simply because ignorant tribesmen chose to label it as a deity OR is it actually the result of explainable geological phenomenon?

Note that I didn't claim there is no verifiable evidence that the concept of god exist or that there is no verifiable evidence that people have labeled things as gods. My claim is that there is no verifiable evidence that any ACTUAL god or gods exist. People can foolishly state that LOVE is GOD or the THE UNIVERSE is GOD, so if you agree that LOVE or THE UNIVERSE exist, you have to admit that GOD exists. But of course that's a moronic argument. We already HAVE a word for LOVE and THE UNIVERSE... it's LOVE and THE UNIVERSE. Attempting to redefine terms we already have as GOD just to get people to admit that GOD exists is nothing more than childish.

YES, you CAN deify the universe, if you so choose. And YES the universe DOES exists. But I'm STILL waiting for any verifiable evidence that the universe actually IS a deity. Choosing to CALL something a deity does NOT a deity make. Just like choosing to CALL the fictional character Watson a doctor does NOT make Watson an ACTUAL doctor.

 

[Quintessence]

I don't think that you're actually reading my responses. I have already agreed that God is a title that people have placed upon innumerable things over the centuries. Ancient tribes deified that nearby mountain that occasionally spewed lava, labeling it as a deity that would occasionally get angry and spit fire and make the earth quake. The question isn't whether or not humans have deified things throughout history... the question is, are any of the things humans have deified throughout history proven to be ACTUAL deities? IS the nearby mountain an ACTUAL deity that spews fire and makes the earth quake when it's angry, simply because ignorant tribesmen chose to label it as a deity OR is it actually the result of explainable geological phenomenon?

I think we're probably talking past each other for a variety of reasons, but I'm glad you clarified this because you are definitely approaching this from an entirely different angle than I am.

I'm not sure I can explain where I'm coming from, but I can try... using something you say later as a springboard to hopefully make things clearer.

People can foolishly state that LOVE is GOD or the THE UNIVERSE is GOD, so if you agree that LOVE or THE UNIVERSE exist, you have to admit that GOD exists. But of course that's a moronic argument. We already HAVE a word for LOVE and THE UNIVERSE... it's LOVE and THE UNIVERSE. Attempting to redefine terms we already have as GOD just to get people to admit that GOD exists is nothing more than childish.

This is an attitude that I run into a lot, unfortunately. It stems from people having different understandings of what it really means to deify something, or apply that title "god" to something.

There's really only one consistent thing that can be said about the things people deify, and that is that people deify things they deem worthy of worship. The "worthy" part is always subjective and a matter of personal or cultural values. The "worship" part looks very different depending on culture, but basically means holding something in high regard. It is sacred, valued, respected, or noteworthy in some way... for whatever reason that person deems appropriate. And it's backed up through action, whether that be formal rituals, embodying certain values, following teachings, or whatever. It looks a lot different depending on context.

You are correct that we already have a word for "the universe" but the contextual meaning of "the universe" versus recognizing the universe as a deity are not at all the same. Deifying something indicates a special status that the word "universe" alone does not convey. To borrow one of your earlier comparisons, it's like the "doctor" title in this way. Calling someone a "doctor" does not convey the same thing as calling someone "Jane Smith." It's not "redefining" anything to recognize this, nor is it foolish or childish. On the contrary, understanding that titles convey additional information is necessary to understand what that title means. To know what the title means, you have to ask... especially with something like "god." Once someone tells you "this is what god means to me or my culture," it is what it is. That's beyond argument and a matter-of-fact... at least if we want to maintain objectivity when understanding other cultures.

This is not about getting people to "admit" that gods exist. This is about understanding and respecting cultural diversity and differences. It's about making accurate statements that reflect our reality instead of nonsense like "there is no evidence for gods." With some more qualifiers, that statement can be true, but just like that? It is demonstrably false. It is better to say "there is no evidence for gods, as I understand them, that satisfies me." That can certainly be true, and I can definitely get behind that (hell, I used to be that guy).

 

[Quintessence]

Also, I apologize if I've been brusque. Life things have been going on, and I will confess I get really frustrated by folks that do what looks to me like cultural erasure. I may need to take a step back for a while.

 

[Yerda]

Are.... are you okay? I mean, until today I'd never actually met an atheist that literally denied all reality existed.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come across the work of Donald Hoffmann?

 

[Quintessence]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever come across the work of Donald Hoffmann?

Nope.

I'm still going to assume there is no such thing as an atheist who denies all reality and chalk it up to cultural miscommunication. That really is what that conversation looks like to me. Cultural context is more important than we often account for. Statements that make sense in one cultural context are absurd in another. Honestly? It is not possible to account for cultural context entirely. There is too much diversity for that to be possible. Bearing in mind the biases of our own perspectives helps, though.

 

[osgart]

The God experience has changed me, and i am still an atheist. There's a lot of hypotheticals, and dangerous ideologues in religion. But the idea of God is a fascinating one. I am very much a free thinker, and i love to roam about in this area. I used to seek God as a child until i met reality.

Nature is blind to moral conceptions, it just does what it does without regard to anyone or anything. That killed any hopes of their being a God for me.

Perhaps a cold, impersonal intelligence is out there and is a naturalistic force intertwined with the universe. Life is a beggar in the universe, and a sideshow.
The only ideals i have come across that are not dangerous are virtues.

And perhaps death is a persistent illusion, and we are eternal beings; because of all that a soul is and can be.

 

[Shad]

Did you provide any evidence that all who participated in the study are similar to your addict example?

Not required as my example was about the experience from chemical induced hallucinations and the interpretation of those as if real experience

That is your view, validity of which in respect of the referenced study cannot be established. I respect your opinion.

My point is isolated to the interpretation of the hallucinations. The only reason people are putting stock in this is due to the "God experience" being more acceptable and believed in over aliens.

 

[Unguru]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

You are correct, I've seen it happen before myself.

 

[charlie sc]

Reasonable skepticism is a good thing, IMO. Unreasonable skepticism is simple bias.

Because of one personal experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible but scientists who want to study them not only won't get their projects funded but they risk their reputations for even showing interest. A little over a year ago, over a hundred scientists signed a petition aimed at breaking down the bias against such studies. Brian Josephson, a Nobel winning physicist, heads up the group, but I haven't heard of any progress.

You know there's little to no scientific evidence to support psi/parapsychology. Therefore, trying to fund something without good evidence is more of a faith decision than evidential decision. Why would scientists want to fund anything on faith?