I'd explain, but it might take all day...
Most of the month, I think.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'd explain, but it might take all day...
I'd agree, except that they more often happen when one is in meditation and entirely calm and at peace.I think mystical experiences can be relegated to psychological processes of the brain, under natural or created stress, or other types of "stimulation".
What is a "default" in the instance of being One-'self'?If a non-theist were to say he "recognized" God in an experience,
would he not then BE a theist, AT LEAST within the space of that recognition?
By default? (regardless of what he/she chooses as a label?)
I'd agree, except that they more often happen when one is in meditation and entirely calm and at peace.
I'd agree, except that they more often happen when one is in meditation and entirely calm and at peace.
Even if so, and I think it is so, the question then becomes is the experience caused by the release of chemicals, or is the release of chemicals caused by the experience?Do you think it might have anything to do with the chemicals that are released when you feel like that?
Since there is no God, there cannot be a vision of God, it can only be hallucination.Let me know - please respond, even if you have NEVER had a vision of God.
Brain works by release of chemicals, be it calm or be it agitation. After all, any brain activity is an electro-chemical process.fantôme profane;1222987 said:Even if so, and I think it is so, the question then becomes is the experience caused by the release of chemicals, or is the release of chemicals caused by the experience?
Since there is no God, there cannot be a vision of God, it can only be hallucination.
What experience?
As a young boy growing up in a Pentacostal church, I was taught that one of the most important evidences of god's calling in a person's life is that the person begins to speak in tongues. After literally years of prayer and wondering why god was rejecting me even though I so desperately wanted to serve him more fully, I was at a prayer service and suddenly began to babble incoherently as if it were not me speaking. I was incredibly overjoyed and filled with energy like I had never felt before and would only years later be able to compare to sex. I continued to have similar experiences, though not with the same intensity or vividness, whenever I prayed.
But only a little while after, one of the first inclinations I had toward disbelief occurred when I discovered that with intense concentration I could reproduce the experience at will, without prayer or any attempt at communion with god involved. This lead to bouts of guilt and remorse for my doubts and unbelief, which eventually turned to complete disgust with the falseness of the experience, though not before a lot of mental anguish. Eventually I stopped attempting to speak in tongues, and (about three years ago) stopped praying entirely. But even now I'm sure that if I wanted to speak in tongues as intensely as I did then, I could speak in tongues again.
So that's my experience with "visions" and how I still managed to turn out atheist.
If I were to number these 1-5, then 1, 2, and 5 definitely apply to my experience. 3 and 4 I am not as sure.-waking
-sober, perceived from a normal state
-not perceived materially through normal five senses
-literal and direct (not a sign, omen, or act)
-there was perceptive content: a sight or presence felt
The key ingredient for me was to want it more than anything. I think my desire to experience speaking in tongues was so extreme that one could consider it an unhealthy obsession. This is something to be careful about; while my actual experience was a positive one, the emotions necessary to bring it about were not as positive.Got any pointers for somebody trying to speak in tongues?
-waking
-sober, perceived from a normal state
-not perceived materially through normal five senses
-literal and direct (not a sign, omen, or act)
-there was perceptive content: a sight or presence felt
If I were to number these 1-5, then 1, 2, and 5 definitely apply to my experience. 3 and 4 I am not as sure.
By "not perceived materially through normal five senses" do you mean not exclusively? My difficulty with this is that most of the sensations I felt weren't strictly within the five traditional senses. I did have the sensation of hearing someone else speak, though using my body to do it.
Keep in mind that I'm referring to visions of god here. Did you have a vision of god while speaking in tongues? In this case, you wouldn't be finding an evidence or experience of god only through a sign (speaking in tongues), but also in the vision. The vision is the concern for now. And most find the latter far more persuasive.Within Pentecostal tradition, speaking in tongues is a sign of god's favor, so I might view this as a sign, but if by this you mean that it was something which could not occur by coincidence, I definitely don't think it could have occurred by coincidence outside of a religious context.
Thanks for the tip.The key ingredient for me was to want it more than anything. I think my desire to experience speaking in tongues was so extreme that one could consider it an unhealthy obsession. This is something to be careful about; while my actual experience was a positive one, the emotions necessary to bring it about were not as positive.
Wow, that's so intense man!! The pentacostals are nuts, but I have to say I kind of love em for it. They are not everybody's cup of tea that's for sure.Also, while many other people describe their religious experiences as happening in quiet and relaxation, my experience was the opposite. When I first spoke in tongues I was surrounded by perhaps 80 people, all praying aloud, some crying, and intense music was playing (not particularly fast, but very loud since I was near the altar). Additionally two people were praying for me aloud directly with their hands on my shoulders and head. Overall I would consider the situation more fervored than relaxed.
Good question, thanks for asking. As you know, with these 5 conditions I am referring to a "vision of god." So the question is if you saw or heard god through your material five senses. I think "traditional" senses sums it up - I think the word material sums it up too. Although I have often had the impression of seeing god or hearing god, this was not through my material, or traditional senses.
Does this make more sense?
Keep in mind that I'm referring to visions of god here. Did you have a vision of god while speaking in tongues? In this case, you wouldn't be finding an evidence or experience of god only through a sign (speaking in tongues), but also in the vision. The vision is the concern for now. And most find the latter far more persuasive.
I guess that would classify my experience as not a vision? Just curious.
To me, a vision means seeing some visible image or form (from an athiest perspective, a visual hallucination). Under this definition, no, I did not experience a vision while speaking in tongues.
Given that definition, I definitely would call my experience a vision. I sensed a presence of someone communicating with me directly, just as you said.
Given that definition, I definitely would call my experience a vision. I sensed a presence of someone communicating with me directly, just as you said.