Something out there? What thing can be external to your consciousness?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God experience can change atheists
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
Something out there? What thing can be external to your consciousness?
wandering peacefully
Which way to the woods?
Well, nothing as science has shown and more understanding of how the brain functions is learned. That is why I'm now an atheist.
No. There's a great deal more to it than that, as there is with the application of any honorific or title. But you probably aren't interested in hearing about it. You'd rather simplistically dismiss the entire ordeal so you can continue to insist there is no evidence for gods. I look forward to you doing the same thing for any and all other titles humans bestow upon things - from doctors to teachers, republicans to daughters - in order to remain logically consistent with your position. After all, these things cannot have evidence for them either since they are "nothing more than a word people have applied to things" as well.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
What creationist complaint are you referring to exactly and what point are you trying to make?
Last edited:
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Before my first God experience I had never prayed to God. I didn't have much knowledge regarding the debate between atheists and God in mind as it was the early to mid-eighties so before internet and the new atheism. I certainly had a much more inspired and firmer understanding of the Universe as science saw it and never once recall believing any of the Genesis version of things.
Around the time of my first God experience I had read something that the advisor for my introduction to the Bible course professor (who was also the head priest at the university) had recommended, Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ. I remember I liked it enough that when the movie happened to have come out shortly thereafter I went to see it twice in the theater. That was all around the year 1988.
My having chosen to go to that university had nothing to do with its religious affiliation. I didn't ever feel compelled in any way to profess a faith. It was a good university with an emphasis on teaching as I recall good access to professors who taught their classes in all of my subjects.
ecco
Veteran Member
The one you wrote about.
The one I quoted when I responded to your post.
Here, I'll post it again for you...
"scientists who want to study them not only won't get their projects funded but they risk their reputations for even showing interest."
etc.
I thought the point was very clear. That is the same
If it still isn't clear enough, I'll add that Creationists often complain that they can't get their projects funded and risk their reputations for even showing interest.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
So it would appear.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
Well, I have no doubt that you understood your point perfectly.
I've never heard that complaint from Creationists, but for the sake if this discussion, I'll grant that Creationists do make it. So, I'll ask again: What is your point?
The only thing I can guess is that you are implying that since Creationists lodge that complaint and Creationists are generally considered illogical that anyone else lodging the same complaint must therefore be illogical and their complaint unfounded --- which is nonsense.
ecco
Veteran Member
ETA:
Here is a quote from a creationist in another forum thread:
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
I have shown the Gestapo tactics used against dissenters, scientist not creationist but just scientist with great credentials, don't step out of line.
Creationism, Science and Peer Review - creation.com
Critics have been quick to call into question either the scientific competence of creationist scientists, or the soundness and quality of their scientific work. The critics do this in order to effectively and pre-emptively dismiss or diminish the arguments creationists put forward in order to support the biblical teaching of a recent creation.
One of the ways they do this is to show that a particular creationist scientist either does not participate in the main stream scientific community,
One of the ways they do this is to show that a particular creationist scientist either does not participate in the main stream scientific community,
Royal Society scientist loses post in row over creationism in schools
A leading biologist who claimed that creationism should be included in school science lessons has lost his job at the Royal Society as a result.
A leading biologist who claimed that creationism should be included in school science lessons has lost his job at the Royal Society as a result.
I responded to what you stated...
Because of one personal experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible ...
Precognition and telepathy and creationism all fall into the same bucket - woo. That is why their proponents are not taken seriously.
Last edited:
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
It seems like many are atheists here are unable to accept science when it goes against their worldview. Quite a shame really. Obviously, confirmation bias works both ways
joe1776
Well-Known Member
I can agree with you on creationism because the concept fails logically.
Please indulge me. I'd like to hear your argument for putting precognition and telepathy in the same 'woo" category as creationism.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
LOL Of COURSE I don't understand existence-consciousness, since it's a term that you just made up and have refused to define. As for You can be a physical body or you can be a witness of all that happens. As soon as you can provide evidence of a 'conscious witness' that exists WITHOUT a physical body, perhaps we'd have something to talk about. Until then, it's just a bunch of meaningless gibberish.
Why don't I simply say "I do not agree with the study'? Probably because I don't necessarily disagree with the study. If you've actually read my posts, all I said was that it's not as all surprising that the only way a person can change his/her mind concerning a god entity is through an experience that CANNOT be verified.
Shad
Veteran Member
Accepting what exactly?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Well of COURSE god exists as a honorific or title. As does teacher and doctor and daughter. The question is, are they titles for things are are REAL and exist beyond the imagination? I can provide verifiable evidence that there are people who hold the title of teacher or doctor or daughter that are genuinely REAL beings. I could ALSO provide you with 'people' who have been given those titles who are NOT genuinely REAL beings, but rather figments of someone's imagination. Dr. Watson was given the title of doctor, and the title doctor is a REAL title... but Dr. Watson is NOT a genuinely REAL person, but rather the creation of an author's imagination.
MANY things and supposed beings have been given the TITLE of God... but there is absolutely ZERO verifiable evidence that ANY of them are anything more than figments of people's imaginations.
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
The study linked in the OP
Shad
Veteran Member
Sorry. I am talking about specifics not merely "the study"
Ummmmm, God? the equally external Holy Spirit?, just for starters,
charlie sc
Well-Known Member
Good. I'm glad you've put your thinking cap on and accepted the study. If an atheist takes certain types of hallucinogenics, it's more likely they'll become theists.
My father's childhood experience turned him into an atheist, although I'm not sure if, at age 10 or so, he would have been clear enough mentally to know he was a theist. He was probably undecided. After the minister spoke vehemently about kindness to your neighbour, the neighbours in the big cars with empty back seats drove right past he and his little sisters, on a chilly rainy day. He saw something very wrong with the picture, and he never went back. The sisters did though.
In my understanding:
We are within the singularity, in the manifest or unmanifest modes.
Reality/Singularity/Brahman/God is ‘existence-consciousness’ itself for which space-time is not definable. Everyday, in deep sleep we enter this non dual singularity.