Most people who believe in God (specifically the priest that told me this when I asked him why he did believe)that I meet have that faith because they "emotionally" feel it to be true. Hence all the rhetoric about feeling God's love.

But since when have your emotions influenced or revealed the outside world? I've felt damn positive of several things that didn't happen. Or how about certainty that you would die in a car wreck, only to still be alive? Emotions and intuition have never been reliable, concrete methods for a belief in events, so why should it be fair to use the argument "you can't rationally experience God" as a belief in Him?

It sounds to me like Christians are taking comfort that there is someone out there who is taking care of things, and giving Jesus and God all the credit for feeling good about it.

When you're backed into the corner, confronted with logic that shows your beliefs are false, the "you need to experience god" argument tries to distract and discredit logic as a line of argument. When you inevitably ask "how can you be sure?" the faithbound person will reply "because I know."
Bringing 'faith' into a reasonable argument lets you hide behind barricades like subjectivity, which can be argued against, but the whole point is to break that flow of argument.

Bringing 'faith' into a reasonable argument lets you hide behind barricades like subjectivity, which can be argued against, but the whole point is to break that flow of argument.

So, sorry if I'm wrong, you're saying that my argument doesn't matter because it's based on logic, which goes against the point of the whole experience thing?

Yeah, I missed that, you're right. Shit.

But since when have your emotions influenced or revealed the outside world? I've felt damn positive of several things that didn't happen. Or how about certainty that you would die in a car wreck, only to still be alive?

Well thats probably why they call it belief in God, rather then knowledge of God.

Personally, I don't see why an experience would have to meet certain standards to be considered experiencing God. I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God. Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?

Personally, I don't see why an experience would have to meet certain standards to be considered experiencing God.
For the same reason that belief in anything should meet certain standards to be considered rational.


I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God.
What experience would that be?



Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?
No. (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html)

But the claim that a complex being that knows all and sees all has always existed is quite astonishing.

Most people who believe in God (specifically the priest that told me this when I asked him why he did believe)that I meet have that faith because they "emotionally" feel it to be true. Hence all the rhetoric about feeling God's love.

But since when have your emotions influenced or revealed the outside world? I've felt damn positive of several things that didn't happen. Or how about certainty that you would die in a car wreck, only to still be alive? Emotions and intuition have never been reliable, concrete methods for a belief in events, so why should it be fair to use the argument "you can't rationally experience God" as a belief in Him?

It sounds to me like Christians are taking comfort that there is someone out there who is taking care of things, and giving Jesus and God all the credit for feeling good about it.

It would be an odd priest who would say that, since much of RC dogma is based on the idea that the laity CANNOT experience God--hence the need for the priesthood, ritual, Holy Books and so on. And the religions of the book do not claim any authority due to feelings, but due to the "fact" that their books are the revealed word of God.

As far as the "outside world" goes, OP seems be positing that there is a fixed material reality which is independent of any and all observers. Tain't so--don't take my word for it, read some quantum physics, especially Heisenberg, Bohrs, and John Wheeler. In the Highest Reality, we are not in the world--the world is in us. And we create our reality even as we experience it, with our thoughts, words, and deeds. Shakespeare recognized this a long time ago when he wrote "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

OP writes "I have felt positive. . . .", but I doubt that. I think what he means is that his ego-based personality felt thus and so--the real him, his Inner Self had nothing to do with it.

It would be an odd priest who would say that, since much of RC dogma is based on the idea that the laity CANNOT experience God--hence the need for the priesthood, ritual, Holy Books and so on.
Nonsense! It would not be an odd priest at all that would tell you you can directly experience God's love.

As far as the "outside world" goes, OP seems be positing that there is a fixed material reality which is independent of any and all observers. Tain't so--don't take my word for it, read some quantum physics, especially Heisenberg, Bohrs, and John Wheeler.
How things behave in the quantum world and the macro world are different. Can you cite anything from Heisenberg, Bohrs or John Wheeler where they make the claim that the macro world has different realities independent of the observer?


In the Highest Reality, we are not in the world--the world is in us. And we create our reality even as we experience it, with our thoughts, words, and deeds.
Bullshit! Are you going to claim that Heisenberg, Bohrs or John Wheeler believe this too?


Shakespeare recognized this a long time ago when he wrote "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Uh, you really think what Shakespeare was trying to say there was that there is no fixed reality? Sounds like he was claiming what's described as good or bad is subjective. Sure, opinions of what's good are different than for some people. Quite different than claiming we create our own reality.

OP writes "I have felt positive. . . .", but I doubt that. I think what he means is that his ego-based personality felt thus and so--the real him, his Inner Self had nothing to do with it.
No, he means that he felt positive that certain things would happen based on intuition or something similar and they never happened. He's showing that feelings based on no credible evidence does not validate an extraordinary claim.

For the same reason that belief in anything should meet certain standards to be considered rational.

I said experience, not belief.

What are the standards that would make a belief rational?

Why must beliefs be rational?

What experience would that be?

Why narrow it down to a single experience? Why even separate little events into different experiences? I would go so far as to say I believe that experience, of anything, is experiencing God.

No. (http://www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html)

Interesting article, but I am still astonished that anything should exist at all. If nothing is supposed to be less likely then something, then this only brings another question to my mind ... why?

This is ignoring our predicament of being in a state of total uncertainty however.

But the claim that a complex being that knows all and sees all has always existed is quite astonishing.

I find it no less astonishing then reality. Actually, I see no difference.

I don't see anything wrong with saying that you need to experience God to believe in him (although I'm sure you could come to it on an intellectual level). I need experience of the color red to know what red is, I need the experience of a leg to know what a leg is.

Nothing wrong with experience. Seems pretty neccesary to me for the majority of everything.

I said experience, not belief.

What are the standards that would make a belief rational?
You don't know? I believe jumping out of a tall building will result in me plummeting toward the Earth. Someone else believes it will result in an ability to fly. I'd say the evidence that supports my belief makes mine more rational.

Why must beliefs be rational?
I never said they must be. But one is not likely to live long if they hold as many or more irrational beliefs as rational ones.


Why narrow it down to a single experience? Why even separate little events into different experiences? I would go so far as to say I believe that experience, of anything, is experiencing God.
Good for you. Until I see evidence that my ability to experience is evidence of God, I'll be without that belief.



Interesting article, but I am still astonished that anything should exist at all. If nothing is supposed to be less likely then something, then this only brings another question to my mind ... why?
Why? You mean why are things the way they are that make nothing less likely than something? You not having the answer to this is evidence of God? Sounds familiar.



I find it no less astonishing then reality. Actually, I see no difference.
You see no difference between reality and God? Whatever.

I'd say the evidence that supports my belief makes mine more rational.

The evidence, eh? Then my belief in God must be rational. The evidence is all around.

I never said they must be. But one is not likely to live long if they hold as many or more irrational beliefs as rational ones.

So what?

Good for you. Until I see evidence that my ability to experience is evidence of God, I'll be without that belief.

Thats fine man. I'm not asking anyone to join me.

Why? You mean why are things the way they are that make nothing less likely than something?

Yeah man.

Of course, considering our state of total uncertainty ... I still find it astonishing that anything should exist at all, despite this second question.

You not having the answer to this is evidence of God? Sounds familiar.

Hey, I don't want to come off as rude, but don't start assuming shit. I never implied that lack of an answer was evidence of God. I believe I exist in a state of total uncertainty ... evidence is meaningless.

I believe in God.

You see no difference between reality and God? Whatever.

Depending on the context of the words, no, I do not.

Why? Should I?

Bullshit! Are you going to claim that Heisenberg, Bohrs or John Wheeler believe this too?
.

I have seen a quote from John Wheeler to this effect, and am pretty sure Bohr was of this opinion--dunno about Heisenberg.

The evidence, eh?
Uh, yeah, evidence. You ask me a third grade question and you get the obvious answer. Yes, evidence is the standard that makes a belief rational.



Then my belief in God must be rational. The evidence is all around.
Nope. Simply claiming that things exist because God made them isn't evidence. You have to show that a god must have made everything, all while not contradicting how this god also exists.



So what?
You asked me why must beliefs be rational. I told you they don't have to be and that they help in survival. You ask "So what"? What the fuck kind of question is that? Some of us enjoy surviving. Do you just reply to everything said because that's how you believe one isn't losing an argument? I get that feeling by reading your posts.




Yeah man.

Of course, considering our state of total uncertainty ... I still find it astonishing that anything should exist at all, despite this second question.
Yeah, like God, right? Oh no, I forgot, He gets a free pass.



Hey, I don't want to come off as rude, but don't start assuming shit. I never implied that lack of an answer was evidence of God.
You said this:
Interesting article, but I am still astonished that anything should exist at all. If nothing is supposed to be less likely then something, then this only brings another question to my mind ... why?
If that wasn't said as an implication that God exists, what was your point?


I believe I exist in a state of total uncertainty ... evidence is meaningless.
You don't base the majority of your beliefs on evidence? Would you jump out of a window of a tall building to experience flying because the evidence that you'll die and won't fly is meaningless?




Depending on the context of the words, no, I do not.

Why? Should I?
The context of God the OP is using is the one a Catholic priest would be speaking of. If you're talking about another, don't waste my time and tell me to not assume shit when you're the one being purposely vague.

Thanks for the comments.

I think that some of you missed the point of the argument. This logic doesn't base itself on the difference between experience and belief.

The point is that justifying your belief in God based on the fact that you "experienced" (or at least thought you did) his love or anything else from him is bullshit, because there's no way to prove that it's not "just" a feeling. In my opinion, it's just a feeling, and because that feeling of certainty is absolutely unreliable when it comes to finding out what reality is really like, saying that it definitely pertains to reality (the equivalent of joining a religion I would think) is wrong.

I suppose you could argue that since you cannot prove whether the "feeling" is an actual experience of God, then someone could justify their belief because it's unprovable. I still think that's irrational though, because that implies a trust in one's emotions, which I, based on personal experience, hold to be wrong because it would that mean emotions are an accurate predictor of reality, which is against the "given" part of the whole arguement in the first place..

And ArmsMerchant, that's not what I meant. I don't believe in a human essence beyond that of the ego-based personality.

I have seen a quote from John Wheeler to this effect, and am pretty sure Bohr was of this opinion--dunno about Heisenberg.
You made a similar claim in this (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2136350&page=6) thread and when called on it by Rust and me you didn't respond.

Can you paraphrase what any of them said, give a cite, or copy a few paragraphs from a book?

Simply claiming that things exist because God made them isn't evidence. You have to show that a god must have made everything, all while not contradicting how this god also exists.

I'm not claiming that "God made everything". Since I believe God is all things I believe that any experience is experience of God.

I don't have to show anything, because I'm not arguing that I am correct or anything like that.

Some of us enjoy surviving. Do you just reply to everything said because that's how you believe one isn't losing an argument? I get that feeling by reading your posts.

What exactly am I losing? Why did you begin asking me questions in the first place?

Yeah, like God, right? Oh no, I forgot, He gets a free pass.

Of course not. Why would you assume this?

Could I not say the same thing about how someone like you might regard their belief in "reality"?


If that wasn't said as an implication that God exists, what was your point?

To underline how astonishing I feel it is that anything would exist at all. If you don't think it is, you must have a rational reason to believe why. You must have a rational answer for why something is more likely then nothing. Don't you?

You don't base the majority of your beliefs on evidence? Would you jump out of a window of a tall building to experience flying because the evidence that you'll die and won't fly is meaningless?

It depends on what I am more interested in.

The context of God the OP is using is the one a Catholic priest would be speaking of. If you're talking about another, don't waste my time and tell me to not assume shit when you're the one being purposely vague.

I don't think the OP's point (belief based on 'feeling') is restricted to the Christian God. I don't see any productive reason for limiting the discussion to this, either.

If you don't want to waste your time, find something worthwhile to do.

Stop asserting I have some sinister alternative reason for posing what I do.

I'm not claiming that "God made everything". Since I believe God is all things I believe that any experience is experience of God.

I don't have to show anything, because I'm not arguing that I am correct or anything like that.
When you reply to the OP "I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God. Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?", you're wasting his time and everyone else's by not being upfront that you have a vastly different definition of God then the type of god a priest is obviously talking about. It is doubtful that the OP has a problem with a priest or anyone else claiming God exists if God is being defined as "all experiences" and not a personal god.


It depends on what I am more interested in.
Oh bullshit. You're not interested in jumping out of a window and flying? Why not just clarify what and why you believe would happen in that situation instead of being vague about it?



I don't think the OP's point (belief based on 'feeling') is restricted to the Christian God. I don't see any productive reason for limiting the discussion to this, either.
If you see nothing productive about it, you can start a thread somewhere else. The OP was based on the idea of a personal god and I'm betting from the context of it, he's not interested in discussing evidence for "everything" or "experiences". Haven't you hijacked enough threads to talk about what suits your fancy?

When you reply to the OP "I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God. Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?", you're wasting his time and everyone else's by not being upfront that you have a vastly different definition of God then the type of god a priest is obviously talking about. It is doubtful that the OP has a problem with a priest or anyone else claiming God exists if God is being defined as "all experiences" and not a personal god.

I am not spending anyones time but my own. If someone wastes their time on my beliefs, that is their own doing, not mine.

My point is that I do not believe to experience God would be to experience something separate from everything else, much less something verifiable. My point is that I believe any experience should be considered experience of God.

Just wanted to contribute my two cents. What was your reason for posting?

Oh bullshit. You're not interested in jumping out of a window and flying? Why not just clarify what and why you believe would happen in that situation instead of being vague about it?

Do you have any reason why I should be more interested in that then anything else?

You want to know what I believe? I believe I would plummet to earth and die.

Do I know what would happen? No, I do not. I am totally uncertain.

If you see nothing productive about it, you can start a thread somewhere else. The OP was based on the idea of a personal god and I'm betting from the context of it, he's not interested in discussing evidence for "everything" or "experiences". Haven't you hijacked enough threads to talk about what suits your fancy?

Emotions and intuition have never been reliable, concrete methods for a belief in events

The point is that justifying your belief in God based on the fact that you "experienced" (or at least thought you did) his love or anything else from him is bullshit, because there's no way to prove that it's not "just" a feeling. In my opinion, it's just a feeling, and because that feeling of certainty is absolutely unreliable when it comes to finding out what reality is really like, saying that it definitely pertains to reality (the equivalent of joining a religion I would think) is wrong.

He seems interested to me.

When you reply to the OP "I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God. Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?", you're wasting his time and everyone else's by not being upfront that you have a vastly different definition of God then the type of god a priest is obviously talking about. It is doubtful that the OP has a problem with a priest or anyone else claiming God exists if God is being defined as "all experiences" and not a personal god.

If the priest is speaking of a personal god, still he is speaking of the All-God, for the personal god cannot be separate from the All-God, thus the experience he thinks he has with his personal god, is in fact (my opinion) in someway, experiencing the All-God.
So when Obbe says "I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God." I agree with him completely, likely the priest would also.

I have a question, are thoughts part of Reality?

I have a question, are thoughts part of Reality?

Can anything not be a part of reality?

The argument doesn't end at a definition of God. It was intended to be a refutation of using emotions as a resource of reality to justify anything. This would include a spiritual faith of any kind based on feeling, although it was the in the context of the priest that I thought of it.

The argument doesn't end at a definition of God. It was intended to be a refutation of using emotions as a resource of reality to justify anything. This would include a spiritual faith of any kind based on feeling, although it was the in the context of the priest that I thought of it.

I believe this extends beyond "spiritual faith" as well.

Most people who believe in God (specifically the priest that told me this when I asked him why he did believe)that I meet have that faith because they "emotionally" feel it to be true. Hence all the rhetoric about feeling God's love.

But since when have your emotions influenced or revealed the outside world? I've felt damn positive of several things that didn't happen. Or how about certainty that you would die in a car wreck, only to still be alive? Emotions and intuition have never been reliable, concrete methods for a belief in events, so why should it be fair to use the argument "you can't rationally experience God" as a belief in Him?

It sounds to me like Christians are taking comfort that there is someone out there who is taking care of things, and giving Jesus and God all the credit for feeling good about it.

You found a hole in the faith of a religion. Gratz.

Thanks for the comments.

I think that some of you missed the point of the argument. This logic doesn't base itself on the difference between experience and belief.

The point is that justifying your belief in God based on the fact that you "experienced" (or at least thought you did) his love or anything else from him is bullshit, because there's no way to prove that it's not "just" a feeling. In my opinion, it's just a feeling, and because that feeling of certainty is absolutely unreliable when it comes to finding out what reality is really like, saying that it definitely pertains to reality (the equivalent of joining a religion I would think) is wrong.

I suppose you could argue that since you cannot prove whether the "feeling" is an actual experience of God, then someone could justify their belief because it's unprovable. I still think that's irrational though, because that implies a trust in one's emotions, which I, based on personal experience, hold to be wrong because it would that mean emotions are an accurate predictor of reality, which is against the "given" part of the whole arguement in the first place..

And ArmsMerchant, that's not what I meant. I don't believe in a human essence beyond that of the ego-based personality.

I don't have much time, but let me say this: what if your experience of "god" (which I would not consider in some personal god form) is not a feeling, but rather, an enlightening experience that cannot be put into words, sort of like the flatlander seeing 3d world for the first time (if you don't know what I'm talking about, look up Flatland). He can't explain it to his friends, but when he sees it, it all makes sense. Some people who have done meditation or hallucinogens will probably understand what I say when I say that if you can clear your mind long enough to pay attention to what's going on, you can see the way everything seems to be synchronized, like an orchestra going on right in front of you. The thing is, I don't care to have it proven, and I used to be extremely skeptical, but like Sagan says, extreme skepticism can be just as bad as blindly following dogma. The idea here is to be open-minded in both directions, since you must concur that you do not know.

Most people who believe in God (specifically the priest that told me this when I asked him why he did believe)that I meet have that faith because they "emotionally" feel it to be true. Hence all the rhetoric about feeling God's love.

But since when have your emotions influenced or revealed the outside world? I've felt damn positive of several things that didn't happen. Or how about certainty that you would die in a car wreck, only to still be alive? Emotions and intuition have never been reliable, concrete methods for a belief in events, so why should it be fair to use the argument "you can't rationally experience God" as a belief in Him?

It sounds to me like Christians are taking comfort that there is someone out there who is taking care of things, and giving Jesus and God all the credit for feeling good about it.

It's fair to use that argument in one way: I never believed a God to even be a genuine possibility until I was laying in a fucking homeless shelter, and honestly admitted inwardly what I'd done to sabotage my life. God spoke to me, saying my name. I was born anew instantaneously and have never since been the same man I was then. This isn't belief in God; this is absolute knowledge of God's reality.

I don't have much time, but let me say this: what if your experience of "god" (which I would not consider in some personal god form) is not a feeling, but rather, an enlightening experience that cannot be put into words, sort of like the flatlander seeing 3d world for the first time (if you don't know what I'm talking about, look up Flatland). He can't explain it to his friends, but when he sees it, it all makes sense. Some people who have done meditation or hallucinogens will probably understand what I say when I say that if you can clear your mind long enough to pay attention to what's going on, you can see the way everything seems to be synchronized, like an orchestra going on right in front of you. The thing is, I don't care to have it proven, and I used to be extremely skeptical, but like Sagan says, extreme skepticism can be just as bad as blindly following dogma. The idea here is to be open-minded in both directions, since you must concur that you do not know.

I guess I agree, because I think that your flatlander analogy goes beyond the feeling that I was talking about. Either way, you are right, no one can really know, so it is best to remain open-minded to both sides.

Actually, I was going to regurgitate a bunch of atheist rhetoric here, about making claims about the unobservable and those claims not worth considering. But, what makes them worth considering is the fact that people consistently feel that there is a God, independent of each other. Thanks for the input.

I guess I agree, because I think that your flatlander analogy goes beyond the feeling that I was talking about. Either way, you are right, no one can really know, so it is best to remain open-minded to both sides.

Actually, I was going to regurgitate a bunch of atheist rhetoric here, about making claims about the unobservable and those claims not worth considering. But, what makes them worth considering is the fact that people consistently feel that there is a God, independent of each other. Thanks for the input.

No problem. I agree with your idea of using feelings to reinforce current beliefs. Once one gets past trying to feel comfortable and justify some concepts that they desperately want to hold on to, I think one can get a much deeper understanding of the universe on a level that transcends concepts and words.

I have read and accept as true that feelings are the language of the soul.

This is why words fail us when we try to describe experiences which are essentially transcendental, words being the language of the mind.

I have read and accept as true that feelings are the language of the soul.

This is why words fail us when we try to describe experiences which are essentially transcendental, words being the language of the mind.

I believe soul, god, miracles, afterlife, enlightenment are all products of a human mind, and can be fully described with words.

I do not believe feelings to be anything beyond an instinctual level of survival, that harkens back to our days spent as small mammallian and reptilian creatures.

God = Existence (both manifested and not) = The Universe and beyond. Just because the exoteric, anthropomorphised, personal, jealous Judeo-Christian definition of God doesn't fit reality doesn't mean others don't. You are always experiencing God, whether you want to worship it or not.

Really, where this ends at is the acknowledgment of our limited perspective of the whole due to our human knowledge being confined to that which we can perceive from our current vantage point.

I believe soul, god, miracles, afterlife, enlightenment are all products of a human mind, and can be fully described with words.

I do not believe feelings to be anything beyond an instinctual level of survival, that harkens back to our days spent as small mammallian and reptilian creatures.

It's easy to say something like this without having experienced any degrees of "enlightenment." See it for yourself, then judge. It is beyond feelings. It is simply seeing.

It's easy to say something like this without having experienced any degrees of "enlightenment." See it for yourself, then judge. It is beyond feelings. It is simply seeing.

"2. The root vid, from which Veda and vidya are derived, bears the twofold meaning of 'seeing' (videre in Latin) and 'knowing' (as in the Greek oida): sight is taken as a symbol of knowledge as it is its chief instrument within the sensible order; and this symbolism is carried even into the purely intellectual realm, where knowledge is likened to 'inward vision', as is implied by the use of such words as 'intuition' for example."

Just a footnote I typed out from Man & His Becoming According to the Vedanta by Rene Guenon. I think it applies very well to what you describe and shows the connection to what you have experienced and what is outlined in the Vedas, the core of Hinduism.

"2. The root vid, from which Veda and vidya are derived, bears the twofold meaning of 'seeing' (videre in Latin) and 'knowing' (as in the Greek oida): sight is taken as a symbol of knowledge as it is its chief instrument within the sensible order; and this symbolism is carried even into the purely intellectual realm, where knowledge is likened to 'inward vision', as is implied by the use of such words as 'intuition' for example."

Just a footnote I typed out from Man & His Becoming According to the Vedanta by Rene Guenon. I think it applies very well to what you describe and shows the connection to what you have experienced and what is outlined in the Vedas, the core of Hinduism.

I'll have to take a look at that. I've noticed that many religions, at their core, are very similar.

Well thats probably why they call it belief in God, rather then knowledge of God.

Personally, I don't see why an experience would have to meet certain standards to be considered experiencing God. I consider this experience, right now, as an experience of God. Is it not astonishing that anything exists at all?

i have a knowledge in God. sadly its nothing i can explain... :(
all i can really say is he answered me one day

It's easy to say something like this without having experienced any degrees of "enlightenment." See it for yourself, then judge. It is beyond feelings. It is simply seeing.

I am seeing threads filled with nonsensical "You'd have to have been there" when someone asks what enlightenment is like.

I used to be a buddhist. Did you know that. The type of buddhism I was a part of for a year and half involved chanting sanskrit to a scroll on a wall.

Nam YO Ho Reng Ge Ko

I tell you something...when I went to my first buddhist temple and listend to a hundred people chant that all at once for a half an hour....my mind was abuzz with strange feelings of spatial disorientation, thoughts seemed to come unbidden from deep within my mind....and I felt connected to each one of those voices at the end of that chant.

I have had the exact same feelings, attending important sporting events when our team scores the last second winning point.

I have experienced this nonsense, and I have judged it.

I am seeing threads filled with nonsensical "You'd have to have been there" when someone asks what enlightenment is like.

I used to be a buddhist. Did you know that. The type of buddhism I was a part of for a year and half involved chanting sanskrit to a scroll on a wall.

Nam YO Ho Reng Ge Ko

I tell you something...when I went to my first buddhist temple and listend to a hundred people chant that all at once for a half an hour....my mind was abuzz with strange feelings of spatial disorientation, thoughts seemed to come unbidden from deep within my mind....and I felt connected to each one of those voices at the end of that chant.

I have had the exact same feelings, attending important sporting events when our team scores the last second winning point.

I have experienced this nonsense, and I have judged it.

If that's been the extent of your search and you feel satisfied enough to stuff the whole practice into a box labeled "things that don't work," then fine. But if you think that the experiences you can have exploring consciousness is the same as your average feel-good moment at a football game, then you're wrong. You don't think I know what it feels like to get that tingly euphoria when your team scores at the last second?

If that's been the extent of your search and you feel satisfied enough to stuff the whole practice into a box labeled "things that don't work," then fine. But if you think that the experiences you can have exploring consciousness is the same as your average feel-good moment at a football game, then you're wrong. You don't think I know what it feels like to get that tingly euphoria when your team scores at the last second?

Look, I have experienced what people call higher consciousness and what people call God. I have experienced it, and found it to be nothing more than feel good moments and mental obfuscation.

I am now an atheist. For you to understand what it is to be an atheist, you just have to truly experience it. I cannot explain it.

Look, I have experienced what people call higher consciousness and what people call God. I have experienced it, and found it to be nothing more than feel good moments and mental obfuscation.

I am now an atheist. For you to understand what it is to be an atheist, you just have to truly experience it. I cannot explain it.

Look, I have experienced what people call atheism. I have experienced it, and found it to be nothing more than feel good moments and mental obfuscation.

I think there is something more to life. For you to understand what it is to think this, you just have to truly experience it. I cannot explain it.

Look, I have experienced what people call atheism. I have experienced it, and found it to be nothing more than feel good moments and mental obfuscation.

I think there is something more to life. For you to understand what it is to think this, you just have to truly experience it. I cannot explain it.

You both just illustrated that neither of your arguments have any substance behind them, as the stance you are supporting can easily be slipped into the same logic as the one you're arguing against.

You both just illustrated that neither of your arguments have any substance behind them, as the stance you are supporting can easily be slipped into the same logic as the one you're arguing against.

Uh yeah, one problem: I'm not trying to argue anything. Well, I take that back, I am trying to argue that you can't exactly call consciousness exploration bunk any more than you can call atheism bunk.

You both just illustrated that neither of your arguments have any substance behind them, as the stance you are supporting can easily be slipped into the same logic as the one you're arguing against.

No, I was being a smart ass.

Atheism can be described with words: Atheism is the lack of a belief in religion.

That is what atheism is. I JUST explained every single nuance of what it is to be an atheist.

You don't have to experience atheism to understand it and everything about it.

You have to experience God, enlightenment, flying spaghetti monster, etc. to believe in them.

---------

Why is it a person has to experience God to believe in him? Doesn't this destroy faith? If I experience something that is undeniably God...I no longer have faith, do I? I have an experience that grants me KNOWLEDGE...don't I?

So what happened to all of your faith?

No, I was being a smart ass.

Atheism can be described with words: Atheism is the lack of a belief in religion.

That is what atheism is. I JUST explained every single nuance of what it is to be an atheist.

You don't have to experience atheism to understand it and everything about it.

You have to experience God, enlightenment, flying spaghetti monster, etc. to believe in them.

---------

Why is it a person has to experience God to believe in him? Doesn't this destroy faith? If I experience something that is undeniably God...I no longer have faith, do I? I have an experience that grants me KNOWLEDGE...don't I?

So what happened to all of your faith?

What about it? The people who typically think "faith" is the answer don't believe you have to experience god. In fact, they usually think you can't experience god, that there is a large gulf in between you and god that can only be removed by a copious amount of ass-kissing and saying how bad you are.

Look, all I am saying is this:

Saying you have to experience God to believe in him, is an utter cop-out.

Many people (like the ass-kissing faithers you just described) have not experienced God, have faith that he exists, and believe in him.

So you don't have to experience God in order to believe in him.

Most skeptics, however, do have to experience something that is undeniably God in order to believe.

Most Christians, will most likely have to see the Loch Ness monster up close and personal before they believe. A grainy photograph just isn't gonna do it for most people. Many people believe that bigfoot isn't real, and that Elvis is quite dead.

If I wanted you to believe in Bigfoot, a living Elvis, and the Loch Ness monster, I just have to say "I have experienced it, and you have not, and until you do, you won't believe". Does that give their nutfuck beliefs any more validity or credibility?

So why the contradiction? Why is it, a good number of people, don't believe in these other myths, yet believe in God?

I believe it has to do with the fact that a belief in a caring God, an immortal soul, and a place where you can party with your dead relatives, is a very comforting belief. Thats a fact. It is more comfortable to believe that, instead of realizing your dead son/father/grandma/infant is rotting in the ground, and you will never see them again. This comfort, this undeniable desire for something that sucks less, blinds people to the facts.

But these people experience God, and believe, right? Never doubt the power of self-delusion. Self delusion holds together loveless marraiges and convinces mothers that their husbands are not fucking their daughter in the middle of the night. Convinces husbands that there wives are not fucking the neighbor.

Self delusion, especially when you want soooooooo bad to believe it, is a powerful force.

I guess you just have to experience self-delusion, to believe it is happening to you!!!

lol