4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The curious thing about near death experiences (NDE) is that they have many common elements that crop up again and again. However, as we saw above with the explanation of altered states in meditation, how those common elements of NDEs are interpreted depends on the cultural background of the person:

 

"For example, in the US, where 46% of the population believes in guardian angels, they will often be identified as angels or deceased loved ones (or will be unidentified), while Hindus will often identify them as messengers of the god of death."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience

 

So it would seem that cultural conditioning heavily influences the perception of what we see.

Absolutely. You could say that Spirit talks to us in the most appropriate way for us to understand the message.

4 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Coming back onto meditation, I did develop some small superpowers.

...

I am sure that more serious and more experienced meditation practitioners have much more serious abilities.

My only super-power is being invisible for attractive women... ????

40 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

My only super-power is being invisible for attractive women... ????

LOL, sorry if this is off topic, but this reminds me of a funny moment in my life. I was standing on a street in London waiting for someone and I noticed that several good looking women slowed down and looked in my direction. Cool, I thought, must be my lucky day.
The dream didn't last long though, because when I turned around I found out why I got so much attention.

I was standing in front of a big H&M window.... ????

Edited May 10, 20206 yr by Sunmaster

I was Christian educated.

At the age of 13 I had my "experience".

Woke up at night in sweat, shivering, and aware that there was no God, no creator, nothing. 

I  use the word "experience" instead of "revelation" , as I think the latter only apply the other way around (from non-believer to believer). 

Since then I just enjoy the things

without looking for an explanation. 

I am happy with the nature, I enjoy the earthly pleasures, and listening for instance to the Flower Duet from Delibes is so beautiful and peacefully. 

In 60 years science made considerable progress and many things are now comprehensive, we still don't have a rational explanation for everything, maybe it will come one day, or than not. 

There will always been believers, and good if this make them happy and sereen. 

We all have our ways to find happiness and serenity. 

I will not pretend that my way is better than, for instance Sunmaster's way, as I know what I feel, not what he is feeling. 

But the path using doesn't necessary to be complicated. 

Of course we are all different, and the way one is using is not necessarily the appropriate one for another. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Your reply seems a bit confused tbh.

You don't have to be enlightened to see that we're all connected etc....but you'll 100% know it if you're enlightened. 

Then you ask "Is that why humans are so racist?". Well, if they are racist, they obviously haven't realized that we're all the same and connected. So, why blame the more evolved group for the failings of the racist group?

Does that make sense to you?

 

Does that make sense to you?

TBH no. You might be correct when you say my reply seems a bit confused.

Even after 1000's of years, why is it that only a minority of humans have got into the 'evolved group'? And it seems that with time, that group is slowly loosing its members. Could it be, that in real, that group is unevolved? 

 

10 minutes ago, ravip said:

why is it that only a minority of humans have got into the 'evolved group'?

Because it takes a lot of work (on yourself) and dedication to get to that point. It's not for everyone and not everyone is willing to look past the "earthly pleasures". 

The vast majority of people love nature, but only a very small minority will have a PHD in biology.

 

10 minutes ago, ravip said:

And it seems that with time, that group is slowly loosing its members.

What do you base your number estimation on? How would you know the amount of awakened or enlightened people on earth right now, or at any other point in time for that matter?
Maybe you're talking about religions and their members, but then we are talking about 2 very different things.
 

10 minutes ago, ravip said:

Could it be, that in real, that group is unevolved? 

How so? 
Sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited May 10, 20206 yr by Sunmaster

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What do you base your number estimation on? How would you know the amount of awakened or enlightened people on earth right now, or at any other point in time for that matter?
Maybe you're talking about religions and their members, but then we are talking about 2 very different things.

According to the Bhagavad Gita, about 1% of all humans are looking for the Lord.

Of this group, 1% finds the Lord.

In times of trouble (Kali Yuga), and this is my opinion, this numbers can vary, as there is more pull from the dark forces, and more pull from the divine forces.

The changes which normally occur can become accelerated and unpredictable.

533 pages? Wow, that certainly got people's interest!

 

Seems to have drifted off-topic a lot though.

 

Back on topic for those who complain that God sent the Corona virus, nope, what He actually did was list what animals birds and fish were safe to eat.

 

So if you step outside of that and eat worms and frogs and, well......bats I suppose........... you must accept responsibility for that action if you and everyone else get sick and maybe die. 

 

I suppose one root cause for bat eating is the need to feed on something, so perhaps the Chinese Communist Party are culpable for not concentrating more on keeping citizens fed and healthy instead of repression and constant re-education. But other countries too have insanitary food habits so it is only a matter of time. 

 

But obey God, follow rules and guidance of those God has set in Authority over you as it says in the bible, in today's culture social distancing and masks and hand washing etc - and you will stay safe. Those who put their trust in God will never be ashamed, and now that the social prop of Church has been banned it will be revealed WHO really does trust God and obey Him and not just do lip-service!

 

The Social Club type of Church-going is now removed - what do you really believe and rely on?

 

 

2 minutes ago, cliveshep said:

But obey God, follow rules and guidance of those God has set in Authority over you as it says in the bible

Wow, this just sent some potent shivers down my spine... ????????

57 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

The vast majority of people love nature, but only a very small minority will have a PHD in biology.

It is a honor and a achievement to get a PHD. 

However not a guarantee of being more happy and sereen. 

Another can never determine what degree of happiness/serenity oneself has/has reach. 

As such I can not claim that I am more, or less, or equal happy/sereen than Sunmaster. 

And in my opinion, he or another can neither claim   that he is more, less or equal happy/sereen as myself. 

 

58 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

It is a honor and a achievement to get a PHD. 

However not a guarantee of being more happy and sereen. 

Another can never determine what degree of happiness/serenity oneself has/has reach. 

As such I can not claim that I am more, or less, or equal happy/sereen than Sunmaster. 

And in my opinion, he or another can neither claim   that he is more, less or equal happy/sereen as myself. 

 

500+ pages and every one of your posts says exactly the same. Yes, we got it,...you think every opinion is equal to every other and nobody can claim anything, one way or another.

Is there anything else you would like to add?

14 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

500+ pages and every one of your posts says exactly the same. Yes, we got it,...you think every opinion is equal to every other and nobody can claim anything, one way or another.

Is there anything else you would like to add?

 

Not really. 

But I will continue to post the same when I think it is necessary. 

Some have the tendency to forget. 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 

Not really. 

But I will continue to post the same when I think it is necessary. 

Some have the tendency to forget. 

 

 

 

I don't forget...I simply ignore it.

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't forget...I simply ignore it.

Up to you. 

 

Interestingly, you always seem to pop up with your passive aggressive replies after one of my posts. I don't think I'm the only one with opinions here, as strong as they may be, and I will certainly not sit quietly while you try to make me feel guilty for expressing them. After all, I think I supported all my opinions with valid arguments.

Besides, we already established that your reasoning is ILLOGICAL. 

You claim that no opinion is better, truer than any other. By this reasoning your statement de facto supersedes all other statements, and thus clearly goes against your opening claim.  

Time to update my ignore list.

7 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Cherry-picking sceptic comments on Sheldrake's work is easy, especially as his aim is to expand science beyond its conventional boundaries in the hope that a new path to discovery can be opened up.  But having the temerity to do so is of course the proverbial red flag on the sceptic science-bull.

You ask for sources > Just read a chapter of one of his many books.  They are written in clear language and not trying to impress with formula-babble, but instead he describes the experiments he conducts to check the validity of some scientific dogma's, and on the basis of those cases he then postulates a theory.  The theory being formed by what was observed. 

As a scientist he never claims that this theories are the One and Only Truth, but are indeed an 'idea' that could explain some phenomena that are unexplainable with the present scientific thinking.  And for that he researches and experiments with some odd but fairly common phenomena like animals sensing that their master is coming, the connection between a carrier-pigeon and his till, the feeling of 'being watched', phantom-pains in amputated body parts, telepathic communication, etc...

 

Stating facts is not cherry picking. How about you go cherry pick some real proof then? Which you claimed and I asked for the proof. Anyone can write a book and make all kinds of claims. So you claimed irrefutable proof by Sheldrake of consciousness without a brain. Please provide that proof...other than pointing a chapter in his own book. That's not proof. I'll save you a lot of time...there is NONE. It's an IDEA, not a scientific theory. Doesn't even seem an hypothesis of any merit among the scientific community. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Stating facts is not cherry picking. How about you go cherry pick some real proof then? Which you claimed and I asked for the proof. Anyone can write a book and make all kinds of claims. So you claimed irrefutable proof by Sheldrake of consciousness without a brain. Please provide that proof...other than pointing a chapter in his own book. That's not proof. I'll save you a lot of time...there is NONE. It's an IDEA, not a scientific theory. Doesn't even seem an hypothesis of any merit among the scientific community.

I actually started writing a reply on your baseless attack of Sheldrake's work and your belittling of his theories as just crackpot ideas not founded by any empirical evidence.  Sheldrake is a scientist pur sang and his work is not easily dismissed, exactly because it is done the pure scientific way.  The subjects he studies are often controversial, but not the methods he applies to present his case (e.g. his theory of morphic resonance).

But then I realized the futility of replying in extenso, your opinion being based on a quick Wikipedia look-up and mine on having read some of his work.

9 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I actually started writing a reply on your baseless attack of Sheldrake's work and your belittling of his theories as just crackpot ideas not founded by any empirical evidence.  Sheldrake is a scientist pur sang and his work is not easily dismissed, exactly because it is done the pure scientific way.  The subjects he studies are often controversial, but not the methods he applies to present his case (e.g. his theory of morphic resonance).

But then I realized the futility of replying in extenso, your opinion being based on a quick Wikipedia look-up and mine on having read some of his work.

I went to have a look at Sheldrake's work, and his experiments with rats, that's interesting indeed.

Btw, R. Steiner, which i regard very highly as a modern pioneer of spiritual science, was saying the same things about 100 years ago.

Hey you mob! Get a life! Move on,please

On 5/8/2020 at 12:55 PM, Neeranam said:

“Through the present moment, you have access to the power of life itself, that which has traditionally been called "God." As soon as you turn away from it, God ceases to be a reality in your life, and all you are left with is the mental concept of God, which some people believe in and others deny. Even belief in God is only a poor substitute for the living reality of God manifesting every moment of your life.”

― Eckhart Tolle

 

OK, here's my serious answer to the OP, using the quotation above as a starting point. Sorry, but I haven't read through any of the other posts yet. Maybe get round to that in the coming weeks!

 

To answer the question surely you must begin by defining what God is, for if you don't know then there's nothing to believe in. My observation is that there are many different interpretations of God (so there are maybe millions of Gods), the broadest of which might be expressed as:

 

"God is the energy that runs through all things" or as Eckhart Tolle puts it: "The power of life itself".

 

I'd go along with that as a reasonable definition and since I DO believe in a universal energy and that all living things AND what we might regard as inanimate objects too are imbued with this energy, then ipso facto, I believe in God.

 

The problem comes when arguing about YOUR definition of God. If you define God in terms other than above I'd almost certainly tell you that I don't believe in your God.

 

I was confronted by a couple of Christians in a social situation who asked me if i believed in God and I answered that I did. They immediately started embracing me (not physically) as 'one of them' and asked me which church I belonged to. When I explained that I didn't belong to any church and certainly did not believe in Jesus the welcoming smiles disappeared and they immediately shunned me! I was no longer worthy of further social interaction! You might argue that this concerns 'religion' and not 'God' but to me they are coterminous in most circumstances. These Christians (in this example) shunned me because my God was not theirs.

 

There's a joke in psychology (my subject) that goes like this:

 

A patient walks into a psychologist's office and tells him that he's been talking to a post. He asks if this means that he is 'psycho'. The psychologist replies "No. But if the post replies to you come back and see me again".

 

Funny isn't it? Yet it is right on the mark. There is no difference with people who say that they talk to God. It's fine to do so, really. Asking questions and contemplating answers, posing problems and seeking solutions, are an important part of our development. Most people are aware that if we do this before sleep the brain (maybe with the help of that universal energy) has an amazing capacity to provide answers on waking having incubated the question overnight. There have been numerous scientific studies and explanations of how this occurs.

 

But people who say that they have conversations with God (that God replied) are most likely nuts (or in more professional terminology 'suffering from delusion').

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 20206 yr by Antonymous
Clarification

39 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

"God is the energy that runs through all things" or as Eckhart Tolle puts it: "The power of life itself".

 

I'd go along with that as a reasonable definition and since I DO believe in a universal energy and that all living things AND what we might regard as inanimate objects too are imbued with this energy, then ipso facto, I believe in God.

'God', by this definition, is really no different to terms like 'Nature', 'Tao', 'the Path' or 'the Way', according to the Tao Te Ching, which I would call a spiritual/natural philosophy.

 

There are some core mysteries humans will probably never crack - the Origin of the Universe (why is there anything at all?), Life and Consciousness. I could include Free Will, but I tend to lump that in with consciousness.

Edited May 10, 20206 yr by teatime101

3 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

'God', by this definition, is really no different to terms like 'Nature', 'Tao', 'the Path' or 'the Way', according to the Tao Te Ching, which I would call a spiritual/natural philosophy.

 

There are some core mysteries humans will probably never crack - the Origin of the Universe (why is there anything at all?), Life and Consciousness. I could include Free Will, but I tend to lump that in with consciousness.

Consciousness it's a very broad definition, it ranges from having a belly ache, to the intuition of the laws of the universe, and more.

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

while you try to make me feel guilty for expressing them.

Never been my intention. 

 

My intention is however to state that there is not one better way to achieve happiness and serenety. 

Each of us has his own way, and no one in that matter is more competent than another to achieve it. 

The degree of happiness /serenity is  not measurable. 

Each of us feel it in his proper way, no one can pretend that through his way he can reach a higher level than the one using  by another, as no one can feel what another feels. 

Which means that all ways are equal in value. 

 I have my way which I am pleased with, others have another way,

which for me is fine. 

One can of course try different ways, and it is certainly possible that some find a different way than the one they use to, better for themselves. 

That goes of course in every direction.

No one can claim that there is only one correct way to achieve happiness and serenety. 

 

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Never been my intention. 

 

My intention is however to state that there is not one better way to achieve happiness and serenety. 

Each of us has his own way, and no one in that matter is more competent than another to achieve it. 

The degree of happiness /serenity is  not measurable. 

Each of us feel it in his proper way, no one can pretend that through his way he can reach a higher level than the one using  by another, as no one can feel what another feels. 

Which means that all ways are equal in value. 

 I have my way which I am pleased with, others have another way,

which for me is fine. 

One can of course try different ways, and it is certainly possible that some find a different way than the one they use to, better for themselves. 

That goes of course in every direction.

No one can claim that there is only one correct way to achieve happiness and serenety. 

 

Every pig is happy to roll in the mud.

Every philosopher feels sad in seeing the suffering of humankind.

Here there are 2 choices, but there are many others you can choose.

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Every pig is happy to roll in the mud.

Every philosopher feels sad in seeing the suffering of humankind.

Here there are 2 choices, but there are many others you can choose.

Always interesting to read an opinion. 

Edited May 10, 20206 yr by luckyluke

1 minute ago, luckyluke said:

Always intetesting to read an opinion. 

Glad to help ????

 

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Glad to help ????

 

Sorry, you didn't help me with your opinion, I only respect it, as I respect every opinion. 

However I believe that no opinion is better than another in matters which are not measurable and agree by everyone. 

 

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry, you didn't help me with your opinion, I only respect it, as I respect every opinion. 

However I believe that no opinion is better than another in matters which are not measurable and agree by everyone. 

 

Yes, you said that many times.

Having no opinion is like having an opinion, doing no work is like doing some work. Etc

Perhaps you can trick some people, but surely you cannot trick yourself.

^

Sorry, except the first sentence, I don't understand what you wrote. 

5 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

^

Sorry, except the first sentence, I don't understand what you wrote. 

I think i'll give up for today, perhaps tomorrow i'll try again ????