Do you believe in God and why

[Rimmer]

A number of quite abusive posts have been removed, also replies.

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I agree with you that precise definitions are required in order to have clear communication and promote scientific exploration. However, I also think we have a big problem here, trying to define something that is by its very nature undefinable.
While IMO it is not possible to define God, at least not for any scientific purpose, it is possible to define God in the way it manifests in our perception/consciousness. In fact, these characteristics have been categorized by researchers (William James first and Douglas W Shrader later) and are as follows:

 

It seems obvious to me that all those 'manifestations in some people's perception and consciousness', which you mention, are not necessarily any more than just experiences and feelings. Such experiences might be very difficult to define in any precise manner because they are simply unusual.

 

An example could be Saul's (St Paul's) conversion to Christianity. A sudden light from heaven flashed around him, on his way to Damascus. That seems very likely to have been a lightning strike. It wasn't close enough to kill him, but it did cause temporary blindness, and affected his mind so that he reversed his beliefs about Jesus.

 

This effect of a 'close' lightning strike on the mind is well documented, and understandable. Lightning can cause a one-time flooding of the brain, with neurotransmitters that are released from the dying neurons. The flooding can then cause a permanent change in the dopamine and serotonin neurotransmitter systems, which results in a rewiring of the neurons, which causes a significant change, or even reversal, of the person's  views, motives, and interests.
 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

The different states of mind on psylocibin are really interesting in terms of working out how  consciousness works and what makes us us. 

I know those who took mushrooms and the short term effects of feeling like it was significant and seeing strange things.  I am guessing its not good for some people. 

Some might have considered it a link to a different world but given it is, by definition, actual chemicals affecting body chemistry, it is probably a link to other parts of our own self, and the basis for a stronger argument that there is no god rather than that there is a god . 

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

It seems obvious to me that all those 'manifestations in some people's perception and consciousness', which you mention, are not necessarily any more than just experiences and feelings. Such experiences might be very difficult to define in any precise manner because they are simply unusual.

 

An example could be Saul's (St Paul's) conversion to Christianity. A sudden light from heaven flashed around him, on his way to Damascus. That seems very likely to have been a lightning strike. It wasn't close enough to kill him, but it did cause temporary blindness, and affected his mind so that he reversed his beliefs about Jesus.

 

This effect of a 'close' lightning strike on the mind is well documented, and understandable. Lightning can cause a one-time flooding of the brain, with neurotransmitters that are released from the dying neurons. The flooding can then cause a permanent change in the dopamine and serotonin neurotransmitter systems, which results in a rewiring of the neurons, which causes a significant change, or even reversal, of the person's  views, motives, and interests.
 

Good points. I won't discuss Saul's conversion, firstly because I know next to nothing about his story and secondly because there are so many more recent cases that are much better documented, even under scientific scrutiny. In any case, I don't think that the blinding flash of light should be taken literally.

I can understand that from the outside one might confuse a genuine mystical experience with some kind of "feeling". Yes, there is definitely an emotional response to the experience: feelings of bliss and ecstasy, feelings of unity, feelings of exhilaration, ...but those are consequences of the experience, not its cause.

What do you mean by "just experiences"? What else should it be?

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Such experiences might be very difficult to define in any precise manner because they are simply unusual.

Sure they are unusual. It is very rare that someone will have a spontaneous experience (no meditation, no substances). I personally know a guy I worked with who had a very bad mountaineering accident and nearly died. He recovered somehow (although with a severe physical and speech handicap) and he told me he had such a mystical experience. He  was never religious or spiritual, just a normal guy with a love of nature.
It is less unusual though for those who meditate regularly, and even less unusual for those who take entheogenic substances (with the right intention, not just for fun). For example, during the Good Friday experiment I mentioned earlier, 60% of those who participated clearly had an experience that could be classified as mystical. 

What do all these different cases have in common? They all presuppose a dissolution of the ego.

When the ego dissolves, something else emerges. It was there all along of course, but could not be perceived because we are so busy jumping from one thought to another without end. 
Some call it God, The Universe, Cosmic Consciousness, Brahma, the Holy Spirit, Yahweh, whatever....it doesn't matter...it all comes from the same force.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The different states of mind on psylocibin are really interesting in terms of working out how  consciousness works and what makes us us. 

I know those who took mushrooms and the short term effects of feeling like it was significant and seeing strange things.  I am guessing its not good for some people. 

Some might have considered it a link to a different world but given it is, by definition, actual chemicals affecting body chemistry, it is probably a link to other parts of our own self, and the basis for a stronger argument that there is no god rather than that there is a god . 

It is true that psilocybin and other such psychedelic (lit. "soul revealing") substances affect our brain chemistry, but we should be careful not to fall in a reductionist trap. The vehicle we have at our disposal to experience the Divine is our body, there is no way around it.

Psilocybin is like the plutonium that powers the flux capacitor (brain) and sends the DeLorean (body) through time. But neither the plutonium, nor the flux capacitor, nor the DeLorean produced time.  ???? 
 

 

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

 Some call it God, The Universe, Cosmic Consciousness, Brahma, the Holy Spirit, Yahweh, whatever....it doesn't matter...it all comes from the same force.

Of course it matters. I'm reminded of a quote from Mark Twain. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."  ????
 

[Sunmaster]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course it matters. I'm reminded of a quote from Mark Twain. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."  ????
 

Thanks for the warning, but until a better explanation comes along, I'll stick with what I know to be so. ????

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

He recovered somehow

Yeah WOW unbelievably 'recovered somehow'! Impossible to imagine, since no one previously ever recovered from a "bad accident" before. 

 

PUH-LEASE! 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Yeah WOW unbelievably 'recovered somehow'! Impossible to imagine, since no one previously ever recovered from a "bad accident" before. 

 

PUH-LEASE! 

Erm, please read the post again. Did I say he recovered due to divine intervention? Looking pretty silly right now, don't you? ????

 

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

60% of those who participated clearly had an experience that could be classified as mystical

Yeah sure. Based on what? Could be described as anything anyone wants to label it. Needs more than subjective preconceived confirmation bias. Geez. 

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Erm, please read the post again. Did I say he recovered due to divine intervention? Looking pretty silly right now, don't you? ????

 

You're burying yourself. 

[Sunmaster]

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

Yeah sure. Based on what? Could be described as anything anyone wants to label it. Needs more than subjective preconceived confirmation bias. Geez. 

It was a double blind experiment with clearly defined parameters as to what could be categorized as a mystical experience. 
Anything else I can help you with?

 

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

You're burying yourself. 

You're looking in a mirror mate. I called out your silly reply and now you're drowning in embarrassment. Pathetic 

[Skeptic7]

31 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It was a double blind experiment with clearly defined parameters as to what could be categorized as a mystical experience. 
Anything else I can help you with?

 

OK, it was a legit experiment. The Doblin followup was anyway. On that I stand corrected. 

 

Now what you can help me with is to explain how these so-called "mystical" experiences taking place naturally inside the human mind and body, right here on planet Earth, induced by psylosibin or placebo, have any link to any god(s)? Or even why anyone would make such a connection? Just labeling it "god" is the real issue and not at all a compelling argument. 

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

It seems obvious to me that all those 'manifestations in some people's perception and consciousness', which you mention, are not necessarily any more than just experiences and feelings. Such experiences might be very difficult to define in any precise manner because they are simply unusual.

 

An example could be Saul's (St Paul's) conversion to Christianity. A sudden light from heaven flashed around him, on his way to Damascus. That seems very likely to have been a lightning strike. It wasn't close enough to kill him, but it did cause temporary blindness, and affected his mind so that he reversed his beliefs about Jesus.

 

This effect of a 'close' lightning strike on the mind is well documented, and understandable. Lightning can cause a one-time flooding of the brain, with neurotransmitters that are released from the dying neurons. The flooding can then cause a permanent change in the dopamine and serotonin neurotransmitter systems, which results in a rewiring of the neurons, which causes a significant change, or even reversal, of the person's  views, motives, and interests.
 

While we don't KNOW that in the case of Saul/ Paul, even if it was a lightning strike, the believers that think God intervenes in human lives will have no problem accepting that God caused that lightning strike to happen.

While I don't think that God intervenes in our affairs I also don't believe that Paul was a real Christian, given his influence on the early church was not really what the Christ taught. All that stuff about homosexuals etc isn't very "love others and forgiveness" is it?

I read a theory that Paul was a Roman 5th columnist sent to subvert the church and bring it under state control, which I tend to believe, and if so, he could just have made the whole thing up to be accepted by the Christians.

 

Of course none of us actually know the truth, so it could have been the real deal.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The different states of mind on psylocibin are really interesting in terms of working out how  consciousness works and what makes us us. 

I know those who took mushrooms and the short term effects of feeling like it was significant and seeing strange things.  I am guessing its not good for some people. 

Some might have considered it a link to a different world but given it is, by definition, actual chemicals affecting body chemistry, it is probably a link to other parts of our own self, and the basis for a stronger argument that there is no god rather than that there is a god . 

Nothing you wrote is an argument that God does not exist.

If one believes that God created everything, then everything that exists was created by God, so no "argument" can persuade us that God does not exist.

 

Just how are chemicals affecting brain operation significant compared to a being that can create the universe?

When I think about God I think about the night sky with mega more stars than I can see, and the wonder of that creation, but seems some want to reduce creation to something quite insignificant and rather irrelevant in the great wheel of life.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While I don't think that God intervenes in our affairs I also don't believe that Paul was a real Christian, given his influence on the early church was not really what the Christ taught. All that stuff about homosexuals etc isn't very "love others and forgiveness" is it?oforg

In fact Paul appears to be quite controversial compared to other apostles, and i agree that, the way i perceive Christ and Christianity, the message of love and forgiveness leaves no space for hate and persecution. 

Imho, the Roman empire, in adopting christianity as the official religion, corrupted some of the old texts to fit with its purposes and goals.

[Sunmaster]

10 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

OK, it was a legit experiment. The Doblin followup was anyway. On that I stand corrected. 

 

Now what you can help me with is to explain how these so-called "mystical" experiences taking place naturally inside the human mind and body, right here on planet Earth, induced by psylosibin or placebo, have any link to any god(s)? Or even why anyone would make such a connection? Just labeling it "god" is the real issue and not at all a compelling argument. 

I'd be happy to.

 

The first thing to keep in mind is that we have to shift the research from objective (analyzing brain chemistry, recording brain wave patterns, physiological changes like heart rate and blood pressure etc), to subjective analysis. Just like any other psychological event, this too has to be explored from the inside out (as opposed to from the outside in), by analyzing and categorizing personal experiences.

Now, there are 2 ways to do that: 1 is through your own personal experience, i.e. you take a mind expanding substance and observe the changes in your own mind, and 2 by evaluating the testimonies of others who went through such experiences.

Let's take option number 2. By observing the short, mid and long term psychological changes in individuals who claim to have had mystical experiences, researchers were able to identify a number of characteristics that are common to all such experiences. 

1) ineffability (inability to capture the experience in ordinary language),

2) noetic quality (the notion that mystical experiences reveal an otherwise hidden or inaccessible knowledge),

3) transiency (the simple fact that mystical experiences last for a relatively brief period of time),

4) passivity (the sense that mystical experiences happen to someone; that they are somehow beyond the range of human volition and control),

5) unity of opposites (a sense of Oneness, Wholeness or Completeness),

6) timelessness (a sense that mystical experiences transcend time), and

7) a feeling that one has somehow encountered “the true self ” (a sense that mystical experiences reveal the nature of our true, cosmic self: one that is beyond life and death, beyond difference and duality, and beyond ego and selfishness).

This is where it gets interesting.
The subjects tell of very profound and lasting changes in their core beliefs, giving them a new outlook on themselves and life in general. Things that previously seemed unrelated and random, suddenly "click into place" and make sense. Anxiety, especially about death, loses its grip and as a consequence, life becomes much more relaxed. They report increased creativity, increase in psychological, emotional and physical wellbeing, reduced stress, peace, a sense of inner bliss that isn't dependent on outer circumstances, a strong sense of belonging, increased self-esteem, self-trust, and self-acceptance, clarity in your life purpose...
Who in their right frame of mind would not want this??

I think you would agree that whether these changes are a product of our own mind or come from another source, they deserve to be explored....no, they MUST be explored for the wellbeing of all humankind.
I recommend reading a number of personal accounts to get a better understanding of what goes on inside these people.
Here are a couple to start with:
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/members/sigs/spirituality-spsig/a-personal-experience-of-kundalini-sarah-sourial-editedx.pdf?sfvrsn=31808fe9_2

https://innerspiritualawakening.com/rajiv-agarwal/my-journey/

We shouldn't get stuck on labeling these experiences as "God". The connection you're talking about comes from the subjects themselves, because of 1) ineffability, the limitation of language we can not convey the magnitude of the experience. So, for a lack of a better label, people call it God. You could just as well call it "Life Force" or "Pinnacle of Human Evolution".

The ability to access these (mystical) states are 100% natural and inherent to every human being on Earth and the benefits are there for the taking. 

Hope this helps.

[Sunmaster]

Years ago, Bertrand Russell wrote that the person who has had mystical experience is above logic. He has been there; he knows. While it is true that such experience carries its own affirmation, the mystic feels himself intensely one with humanity, and therefore he seeks continuously for ways to communicate to others the realities he has found. He keeps on trying to describe in rational terms what may be beyond reason to comprehend. In the context of our scientific age, therefore, the mystic welcomes the help that science can give to furnish a natural (not a supernatural nor a psychotic) explanation for his intuitive insights. Fortunately, not all scientists regard mystical experience as merely aberrant; some believe it may disclose phases of man’s knowing process. For is the only valid knowledge scientific or rational? Northrop has indicated that there are two kinds of knowledge: theoretic, which is scientifically verifiable, and aesthetic, which is immediately apprehensible. Complete knowledge requires a synthesis of the two. Thus, to understand mysticism properly, we should have scientific observation and facts, and experiential knowledge, which delivers values. In such an enquiry into subjective states, the personal experience of the mystic—the testimony of a life—should be admissible as valid evidence.

THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE: FACTS AND VALUES by CLAIRE MYERS OWENS

 

[Skeptic7]

59 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

We shouldn't get stuck on labeling these experiences as "God

Agreed, but since that is the topic of this long-winded thread, it seems that is what is being claimed. 

 

Don't misunderstand...these topics are interesting and even fascinating...more so to some than others (I prefer ornithology and etymology)...and deserve further investigation, it's still a giant leap to conclude that there is any correlation to such a thing as "god" 

 

In fairness, the thread is about "belief", (so up to the believers), but is just so broad and vague and subjective a term and

isn't usually a sound pathway to what's actually true when related to attributing anything to any "god". Seems before a "god" can be claimed or credited...such a thing would have to be demonstrated first. 

 

You wrote..."The ability to access these (mystical) states are 100% natural...". On this we are in total agreement, it seems. But when it comes to attributing these experiences to "god"...that is where the claim loses it's cred. 

 

Mysticism is such a broad, vague, subjective and unclear term. Much of the scientific community eschews it and even scholars, based on this from Britannica.com... 

The traditional conception of mysticism was finally abandoned by academic scholars in the 1970s. Since then, some scholars have rejected the category of mysticism as a fiction, while others have enlarged it to encompass all religious uses of alternate states of consciousness.

 

And this from Vocabulary.com... 

 

mysticism 

Mysticism is a religion or religious belief based on union or communion with a deity, or divine being. Mysticism is what lets you transcend the physical to experience enlightenment — let's just say you'll recognize it when it happens.

Mystical, mysterious, and filled with wonder, mysticism is easily associated with crystals, New Age theories, or the occult (the supernatural). The truth is that many faiths, including Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, have their own forms of mysticism, placing an emphasis on spiritual connection and union, and the mysteries of religion over dogma or rigid rules. Outside of religion, mysticism is applied to cryptic, obscure, or irrational thought — leaning toward mystery and wonder, rather than logic.

[ivor bigun]

Just to let you all know that although i started this thread so long ago and rarely post on it ,i do read it religiously. oh sorry i dont believe in religion.

[Sunmaster]

14 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Just to let you all know that although i started this thread so long ago and rarely post on it ,i do read it religiously. oh sorry i dont believe in religion.

Oh, what a relief, thanks for letting us know. ???? 

 

"oh sorry i dont believe in religion."
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense... It's like saying you don't believe in cars. 

Maybe you mean you don't believe in the core teachings of the various religions? Compassion, love, solidarity, respect...?
Or maybe you don't believe in the allegories, parables and symbols religions use to convey deeper meanings? That would be like saying you don't believe in George Orwell's Animal Farm. Of course the animals are not real animals, but the deeper meaning is very real.

????‍♂️

[Skeptic7]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Oh, what a relief, thanks for letting us know. ???? 

Yes...Whew! 

???????????? 

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Agreed, but since that is the topic of this long-winded thread, it seems that is what is being claimed. 

 

Don't misunderstand...these topics are interesting and even fascinating...more so to some than others (I prefer ornithology and etymology)...and deserve further investigation, it's still a giant leap to conclude that there is any correlation to such a thing as "god" 

 

In fairness, the thread is about "belief", (so up to the believers), but is just so broad and vague and subjective a term and

isn't usually a sound pathway to what's actually true when related to attributing anything to any "god". Seems before a "god" can be claimed or credited...such a thing would have to be demonstrated first. 

 

You wrote..."The ability to access these (mystical) states are 100% natural...". On this we are in total agreement, it seems. But when it comes to attributing these experiences to "god"...that is where the claim loses it's cred. 

 

Mysticism is such a broad, vague, subjective and unclear term. Much of the scientific community eschews it and even scholars, based on this from Britannica.com... 

The traditional conception of mysticism was finally abandoned by academic scholars in the 1970s. Since then, some scholars have rejected the category of mysticism as a fiction, while others have enlarged it to encompass all religious uses of alternate states of consciousness.

 

And this from Vocabulary.com... 

 

mysticism 

Mysticism is a religion or religious belief based on union or communion with a deity, or divine being. Mysticism is what lets you transcend the physical to experience enlightenment — let's just say you'll recognize it when it happens.

Mystical, mysterious, and filled with wonder, mysticism is easily associated with crystals, New Age theories, or the occult (the supernatural). The truth is that many faiths, including Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity, have their own forms of mysticism, placing an emphasis on spiritual connection and union, and the mysteries of religion over dogma or rigid rules. Outside of religion, mysticism is applied to cryptic, obscure, or irrational thought — leaning toward mystery and wonder, rather than logic.

Well, in the past 422 pages of this thread we have discussed all sorts of things, many of those much less related to the OP's question than what we are discussing now, so I think we're still on track.
Actually, I think we are as close as we can get in finding a common ground between the two sides of the debate. The fact that you agree with one of my posts is an astonishing testimony to that. ???? 
(I'm interested in etymology as well)

[Skeptic7]

Big Bertrand Russell fan, so here's a few appropriate quotes... 

 

“Mysticism is, in essence, little more than a certain intensity and depth of feeling in regard to what is believed about the universe.”

 

"A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it."

 

I believe that when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive."

 

“It is not rational arguments but emotions that cause belief in a future life.”

 

 

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."

[Skeptic7]

35 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Well, in the past 422 pages of this thread we have discussed all sorts of things, many of those much less related to the OP's question than what we are discussing now, so I think we're still on track.
Actually, I think we are as close as we can get in finding a common ground between the two sides of the debate. The fact that you agree with one of my posts is an astonishing testimony to that. ???? 
(I'm interested in etymology as well)

Think it's actually the second time we've agreed, or I've agreed with you...but who's counting?!? ????

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm interested in etymology as well

Now this is hilarious, because while in my haste (and because of small text), I mistakenly selected "etymology", while what was intended was "entomology"!

 

b-u-g-g-e-r me! How's that for a Yank's use of etymology??? ???? 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

In fact Paul appears to be quite controversial compared to other apostles, and i agree that, the way i perceive Christ and Christianity, the message of love and forgiveness leaves no space for hate and persecution. 

Imho, the Roman empire, in adopting christianity as the official religion, corrupted some of the old texts to fit with its purposes and goals.

Indeed. The Romans were not big on forgiveness.

[canthai55]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Maybe you mean you don't believe in the core teachings of the various religions? Compassion, love, solidarity, respect...?

In my view the "Core Teachings" of all organized religion is blind obedience in Dogma on pain of terrible suffering, both now and in the future after death.

Both tools to keep the people in line and exert control over their actions.

Compassion, Love, Solidarity, Respect - do not even enter into it.

dog·ma

/ˈdôɡmə/

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Think Heaven, 70 Virgins, Olam Ha-Ba, etc

 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

In my view the "Core Teachings" of all organized religion is blind obedience in Dogma on pain of terrible suffering, both now and in the future after death.

Both tools to keep the people in line and exert control over their actions.

Compassion, Love, Solidarity, Respect - do not even enter into it.

dog·ma

/ˈdôɡmə/

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Think Heaven, 70 Virgins, Olam Ha-Ba, etc

 

Just as well I don't belong to a religion then.