As You Seek, So Shall You Find?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So, it's just the 'choice' each person makes on what they want to accept and believe. If a person refuses to accept that there is someone or something greater than they are, they usually choose not to accept it and require "physical evidence" before they will accept it.

"Seeing is believing" which is why most people don't believe in the God of the Bible. Maybe try, "believing is seeing" and see if that will work for you.

Using that approach, you can believe -- literally --- in anything. The moon is made of cheese. The earth is a flat disc. Aliens have routinely picked up people and cattle, done weird and frightening things to them, and returned them a short time later-- still alive (mostly).

Or worse: that donald trump is an honest man.

There is absolutely zero limit to what you can think is "true" if you believe first.

That way only leads to madness.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I can see that one might only accept the results of ones own experience: but how many agnostics apply that outside the field of religion? Most people believe the earth is a globe but, before we had photographs taken from space, how many could set out the arguments for that belief? I believe the Four Colour Map Theorm is proved, but I have to take the experts' assurance: the proof would be far beyond my maths!

As for the original point, sometimes it's a case of "as you are sought, so shall you be found." I know of a few cases of people who were not seeking gods, but got found by them. A famous case was Maya Deren, although her experiences of Vodou loa have been (characteristically) excluded from her Wikipedia biography.

 

[Cary Cook]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?

For over 40 years I've been acting on the assumption that a God exists who is in charge of the human species, and wants humans to pray (for whatever reason). I've found that for most "Gimme what I want" prayers, results are negligible.

For about 30 years I've been praying as I think the assumed God wants me to pray. Prioritizing prayers and praying the same ones consistently has caused what appears to be somewhat consistent results, but not the results I expected.

I've found:
Praying for God to make me what he wants me to be caused noticeable stress after a few months. When I persisted in this kind of prayer I got a stress-realated illness.

Praying for relaxation of that stress got results, but caused spiritual boredom - the feeling of not making progress.

Praying for correction of errors appeared to work consistently, but often in a rude backhanded manner.
Praying "Is X true or false?" got less consistent results than praying, "I believe X is true; if I'm wrong, please correct me."

There's more if anyone is interested. But I suspect that in this, as in most public groups, I'll just get people thinking (and possibly calling) me a stupid ******* for wasting my life in this pursuit - and they may be right.

 

[siti]

Basically, how would you know for certain? How would you be able to say, we do (or we don't) see what is really there?

We can't know for certain I suppose, but its a fairly straightforward claim to say that when we see, for example, a solid object, say, a table, it is in fact not really solid at all but mostly empty space with little bits of reality (quarks, strings or whatever) flying around in it in a manner that defies direct and accurate detection via the physical senses or physical instrumentation. We have a fairly decent "map" of this reality, but we have no direct, physical access to the "real terrain". And the "map" is a mental representation (which itself may or may not be physical in its fundamental nature - the jury is very definitely still out on that question). If mystical experience really probes the more fundamental depths of reality, then presumably that reality is fundamentally 'mental' (for want of a better word) and the manifest physical world of everyday stuff - people, buildings, planets, cats, dogs etc. - is all a representation of some deeper 'mental' world that we perceive through our physical senses. Contrarily, if the reality is fundamentally physical and the 'mental world' is some kind of emergent 'holism' then what we actually 'see' is a mental representation of a deeper - but unseen, or at least indirectly seen - material reality. Either way, as Gregory Bateson put it, all we really have is "maps of maps of maps, ad infinitum". A mystical experience may, perhaps, be a more (the most) authentic map - as close to the ding an sich as it is possible to get but still most definitely not the ding an sich itself - its still a map. And once the story of the experience is told, it, itself immediately becomes a second-hand representation - a map of a map - and so on.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

Helped.

Acts of the Apostles 17:25-27....
"25Nor is He served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man He made everynation of men, to inhabit the whole earth;and He determined their appointed timesand the boundaries of their lands. 27God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.…"

From Acts 17:26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

 

[Sunstone]

We can't know for certain I suppose, but its a fairly straightforward claim to say that when we see, for example, a solid object, say, a table, it is in fact not really solid at all but mostly empty space with little bits of reality (quarks, strings or whatever) flying around in it in a manner that defies direct and accurate detection via the physical senses or physical instrumentation. We have a fairly decent "map" of this reality, but we have no direct, physical access to the "real terrain". And the "map" is a mental representation (which itself may or may not be physical in its fundamental nature - the jury is very definitely still out on that question). If mystical experience really probes the more fundamental depths of reality, then presumably that reality is fundamentally 'mental' (for want of a better word) and the manifest physical world of everyday stuff - people, buildings, planets, cats, dogs etc. - is all a representation of some deeper 'mental' world that we perceive through our physical senses. Contrarily, if the reality is fundamentally physical and the 'mental world' is some kind of emergent 'holism' then what we actually 'see' is a mental representation of a deeper - but unseen, or at least indirectly seen - material reality. Either way, as Gregory Bateson put it, all we really have is "maps of maps of maps, ad infinitum". A mystical experience may, perhaps, be a more (the most) authentic map - as close to the ding an sich as it is possible to get but still most definitely not the ding an sich itself - its still a map. And once the story of the experience is told, it, itself immediately becomes a second-hand representation - a map of a map - and so on.

I agree with you for the most part, but I'm not so sure that introvertive mystical experiences (as opposed to extrovertive) are "maps", so to speak. I don't know that they are, I don't know that they aren't.

 

[idea]

I think someone might be on the right path if they are
- uncertain enough to be open to what comes their way, but certain enough to listen.
- willing to listen to spirits which advise actions not in accordance with the receiver's will (you know it was not your will if you fight against the advice)

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

For over 40 years I've been acting on the assumption that a God exists who is in charge of the human species, and wants humans to pray (for whatever reason). I've found that for most "Gimme what I want" prayers, results are negligible.

For about 30 years I've been praying as I think the assumed God wants me to pray. Prioritizing prayers and praying the same ones consistently has caused what appears to be somewhat consistent results, but not the results I expected.

I've found:
Praying for God to make me what he wants me to be caused noticeable stress after a few months. When I persisted in this kind of prayer I got a stress-realated illness.

Praying for relaxation of that stress got results, but caused spiritual boredom - the feeling of not making progress.

Praying for correction of errors appeared to work consistently, but often in a rude backhanded manner.
Praying "Is X true or false?" got less consistent results than praying, "I believe X is true; if I'm wrong, please correct me."

There's more if anyone is interested. But I suspect that in this, as in most public groups, I'll just get people thinking (and possibly calling) me a stupid ******* for wasting my life in this pursuit - and they may be right.

An interesting experiment. At least you are being as open as you are able, in this instance.

It has been shown in psychology studies, that if you meditate on things in life, you can get results.

It could simply be that you praying isn't connecting to anything outside your own subconscious mind, and *that* is how you get results?

Who can say? Not I-- insufficient information for a strong conclusion, apart from pointing out the meditation link.

 

[Cary Cook]

An interesting experiment. At least you are being as open as you are able, in this instance.

It has been shown in psychology studies, that if you meditate on things in life, you can get results.

It could simply be that you praying isn't connecting to anything outside your own subconscious mind, and *that* is how you get results?

Who can say? Not I-- insufficient information for a strong conclusion, apart from pointing out the meditation link.

Agreed. I have never experienced anything in my ASSUMED relationship with a Guy in charge that could not be crossed off as coincidental or psychologically caused.

 

[bubbleguppy]

Idk, I don't know if anyone can ever have "proper", "right", or "true" beliefs about any deities; we can basically only work with hand-me-down mythology which may or may not have been corrupted by those seeking power or be poorly translated, etc. And there is really no hard-and-fast definition of what counts as an interaction with a deity or not! Is the guy on the street corner telling everyone he's God delusional or not? Who knows? Either way, people do not easily let go of their beliefs.

 

[siti]

I agree with you for the most part, but I'm not so sure that introvertive mystical experiences (as opposed to extrovertive) are "maps", so to speak. I don't know that they are, I don't know that they aren't.

The experiences themselves perhaps not, and that's why you can't teach someone how to be a mystic...but our memories and recollections and certainly any relating of them to others are maps - mental representations of the mystical reality encoded in words. And the question we don't know the answer to is whether any mystical experience is ever anything other than mental imagery. I can only speak with any authority at all about my own experiences - and I certainly don't know the answer to that question.

 

[YmirGF]

For over 40 years I've been acting on the assumption that a God exists who is in charge of the human species, and wants humans to pray (for whatever reason). I've found that for most "Gimme what I want" prayers, results are negligible.

For about 30 years I've been praying as I think the assumed God wants me to pray. Prioritizing prayers and praying the same ones consistently has caused what appears to be somewhat consistent results, but not the results I expected.

I've found:
Praying for God to make me what he wants me to be caused noticeable stress after a few months. When I persisted in this kind of prayer I got a stress-realated illness.

Praying for relaxation of that stress got results, but caused spiritual boredom - the feeling of not making progress.

Praying for correction of errors appeared to work consistently, but often in a rude backhanded manner.
Praying "Is X true or false?" got less consistent results than praying, "I believe X is true; if I'm wrong, please correct me."

There's more if anyone is interested. But I suspect that in this, as in most public groups, I'll just get people thinking (and possibly calling) me a stupid ******* for wasting my life in this pursuit - and they may be right.

This "strong" atheist quite likes your approach and respect your effort. At least you seem to be paying attention. That alone is pretty awesome. And that is coming from someone who views prayer (generally) as being the highest form of self-flattery.

I know that I'd be interested in hearing more.

 

[YmirGF]

The experiences themselves perhaps not, and that's why you can't teach someone how to be a mystic...but our memories and recollections and certainly any relating of them to others are maps - mental representations of the mystical reality encoded in words. And the question we don't know the answer to is whether any mystical experience is ever anything other than mental imagery. I can only speak with any authority at all about my own experiences - and I certainly don't know the answer to that question.

Understood and with a plethora of my own experiences under my belt and ongoing, I've moved away from neat compartmentalization. I know I can't really explain it too well and my very remarks will be translated by the understanding of others further muddying my intended explanations. Likewise, I have almost developed a personal ban on using any concepts from the various religions as I don't want to give the wrong idea or have people think I mean something I do not.

When you have to fall back to, "I don't mean that literally", for almost every word... it gets tedious, LOL. I think this is why I find scriptural debates so endlessly amusing. In Biblical discussions I can almost sense Jesus rolling his eyes and screaming, "But I didn't say that!"

 

[Cary Cook]

I know that I'd be interested in hearing more.

Really?! I didn't expect that from an atheist.
If I just start talking about it, I'm likely to bore you with stuff you couldn't care less about. Can you give me an idea of what you want to know?

 

[YmirGF]

Really?! I didn't expect that from an atheist.
If I just start talking about it, I'm likely to bore you with stuff you couldn't care less about. Can you give me an idea of what you want to know?

Whatever is in your heart. Being an atheist does not mean that I am devoid of "spiritual or mystical experience" as I could easily bore any who would care to listen - for many hours - about my adventures into inner reality and how I have managed to interpret those experiences quite often in ways that go against the more common narratives.

 

[Mock Turtle]

For over 40 years I've been acting on the assumption that a God exists who is in charge of the human species, and wants humans to pray (for whatever reason). I've found that for most "Gimme what I want" prayers, results are negligible.

For about 30 years I've been praying as I think the assumed God wants me to pray. Prioritizing prayers and praying the same ones consistently has caused what appears to be somewhat consistent results, but not the results I expected.

I've found:
Praying for God to make me what he wants me to be caused noticeable stress after a few months. When I persisted in this kind of prayer I got a stress-realated illness.

Praying for relaxation of that stress got results, but caused spiritual boredom - the feeling of not making progress.

Praying for correction of errors appeared to work consistently, but often in a rude backhanded manner.
Praying "Is X true or false?" got less consistent results than praying, "I believe X is true; if I'm wrong, please correct me."

There's more if anyone is interested. But I suspect that in this, as in most public groups, I'll just get people thinking (and possibly calling) me a stupid ******* for wasting my life in this pursuit - and they may be right.

I wouldn't criticise anyone for having a religious belief and acting on that. As I've mentioned, probably all too often, it is basically down to one decision as to accepting there might be some divine source for all creation - or not - and where the latter might be atheism but might be, as in my case agnosticism - that is just not asking the question or leaving it undecided. The overwhelming nature and history of religious beliefs tends to support having some kind of belief so I, and many others it seems here, will not condemn you for doing so. It all just didn't make any sense to me - the written material from the past just not being that trustworthy - so I made the opposite decision in not believing the claims of all or any of the religions, but I could be just as wrong as any and I know it. But, without religions in my life, I would say that there is and was less conflict from that direction - there was enough going on elsewhere so that was a bonus. I looked elsewhere for anything that might satisfy my questions - psychology and psychiatry, amongst other areas.

 

[ajay0]

I agree that most of the conditioned beliefs we harbor tend to project the religious visions we have .And yeah, there is a good chance that the ego is also strengthened or maintained by the knowledge of being 'privileged' enough to having had such visions.

This is obviously a sign of incomplete knowledge or wisdom. However there were some such spiritual aspirants who were wise enough to understand their limited understanding through contact with genuine enlightened masters, who were able to help them dissolve their belief-sets completely till they were left with what was truly undissolvable or undecomposed. And thus thereby attain enlightenment.

 

[Riders]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

So?

 

[Riders]

So, it's just the 'choice' each person makes on what they want to accept and believe. If a person refuses to accept that there is someone or something greater than they are, they usually choose not to accept it and require "physical evidence" before they will accept it.

"Seeing is believing" which is why most people don't believe in the God of the Bible. Maybe try, "believing is seeing" and see if that will work for you.

I believe in the true bible God but do you? My bible says Jesus said to the deciples not to rebuke other groups and other religions from healing on his name because if they aren't against us they are for us.

 

[Cary Cook]

Whatever is in your heart. Being an atheist does not mean that I am devoid of "spiritual or mystical experience" as I could easily bore any who would care to listen - for many hours - about my adventures into inner reality and how I have managed to interpret those experiences quite often in ways that go against the more common narratives.

OK. After turning Ctn I started praying to God in Jesus name, and then just to Jesus. Didn't notice any difference in apparent results. Since I never could get comfortable with the intellectual absurdities of Cty, or Bible, or church, I thought I must be doing something wrong. So I started doing everything as rightly as possible. But the more "rightly" I did things, the less I fit with other Ctns, and eventually the stress gave me crohn's disease. I couldn't backslide into atheism or pantheism, because I had already burnt thru that territory before turning Ctn. I found that asking God/Jesus to numb my mind worked, but I never stuck with that because of the spiritual doldrums caused by it.

Ctn apologists appeared to be rational and Ctn at the same time, so I got heavy into that crowd for about 10 years. They taught me enough critical thinking to see that though they couldn't be proven wrong logically, they had to abandon common sense in order to maintain their Biblical inerrancy position.

This is getting too long. I'm going to skip a bunch of stuff, and just say that the only position in which I fit was non-scriptural monotheism.