God experience can change atheists

[atanu]

I disagree. We might be able to agree upon some language using analogies, metaphors, etc., but there is currently no way for one individual to experience the experience of another...And no description or artistic expression is going to really bridge that gap.

But sir, The non dual experience — characterised by loss of subject-object distinction and the accompanying unbroken peace — is commonly known across religions.

 

[atanu]

*** Mod Post ***

Please be reminded of rule 6:

6. Illegal Activities
Advocating or discussing personal engagement in illegal activities or criminal organizations (such as hate groups or terrorist groups) is prohibited in all areas of RF. Illegal activities are defined based on United States law, and include but are not limited to: drug use, theft, piracy, vandalism, and all violent crimes. Voicing opposition to illegal activities and criminal organizations, or debating changes to current criminal law, may be acceptable at the discretion of the RF staff.

Sorry.

I, of course, have no access to any chemical substances and neither I suggest use of any.

Meditation is an wholesome activity and it fosters self control by and by, if not anything else.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

I don't like the taste of mango, but that's just me. And if I have to use psychedelic aids to have some sort of "spiritual experience," then I'd rather not. Remember, what such drugs do is alter my own brain so that I can "experience what isn't available to me in the reality I find myself in." Which makes such an experience, in essence, a lie. Who needs it?

 

[atanu]

I don't like the taste of mango, but that's just me. And if I have to use psychedelic aids to have some sort of "spiritual experience," then I'd rather not. Remember, what such drugs do is alter my own brain so that I can "experience what isn't available to me in the reality I find myself in." Which makes such an experience, in essence, a lie. Who needs it?

I, of course, have no access to any chemical substances and neither I suggest use of any.

Meditation is an wholesome activity and it fosters self control by and by, if not anything else.

I recorded finding of a study. You may reject or consider it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But sir, The non dual experience — characterised by loss of subject-object distinction and the accompanying unbroken peace — is commonly known across religions.

Yes, people have agreed that many humans have very similar experiences that we label "the non dual experience." Describing it to one who has not had a similar experience does not result in the non-experiencer experiencing the experience. Such description is meaningless to the non-experiencer, and the experiencer should understand that.

 

[atanu]

Yes, people have agreed that many humans have very similar experiences that we label "the non dual experience." Describing it to one who has not had a similar experience does not result in the non-experiencer experiencing the experience. Such description is meaningless to the non-experiencer, and the experiencer should understand that.

Yes. That is the point. Thanks.

 

[atanu]

You seem to indicate that belief, not necessarily the target of belief, is important in some way or form.

Correct?

I have no problem with that, since I am confident that the belief in supernatural things is a naturally selected trait.

Ciao

- viole

It is not belief in supernatural. It is experience of dissolution of subject-object division and consequently knowing the non dual as the Real, beneath the mental-physical objects that tend to cover up the non dual.

 

[atanu]

The above is a very ambiguous statement. It also is grammatically incorrect. These two points led me to question the alleged source: April 23, 2019 , Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

It turns out the author is a well-respected researcher, Roland R. Griffiths, on the effects of psychedelics. However, he is also a strong god believer.

The article has some statistics regarding the number of participants but nothing regarding the number of atheists.

The vague opening paragraph apparently accomplished what the author wanted: give the impression that even atheists can come to see god whether naturally or with the usage of psychedelics (WHICH I AM NOT ADVOCATING).

Note the clever wording of the paragraph...
"a survey of thousands of people"
"more than two-thirds of atheists"

Well, if the survey was "of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God", how many were atheists? Correctly, none would have been atheists. What is 2/3s of none?

However, this intentionally vague and misleading wording accomplishes what the author intended. It gives people like Antanu a reason to start a forum thread with the header:
God experience can change atheists

If atanu had bothered to read the article he would have seen the article mentions atheists only twice. Never does tha article say how many of the thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God were atheists. That is either shoddy research or intentionally misleading rhetoric.

But atanu isn't alone. The article was reprinted by many groups who believe that even hardened atheists are desperately looking for god.

For the record, we aren't.

I have read the paper and the related article — both the links. Are you sure that you are not expressing your bias??

 

[Skwim]

In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God, Johns Hopkins researchers report that more than two-thirds of self-identified atheists shed that label after their encounter, regardless of whether it was spontaneous or while taking a psychedelic.

Experiences of 'ultimate reality' or 'God' confer lasting benefits to mental health


Survey of subjective "God encounter experiences": Comparisons among naturally occurring experiences and those occasioned by the classic psychedelics psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT

...

As I always say the stupendous taste of mango can be known only by eating a mango.

If read carefully, in particular "In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God,"it's apparent that this was a very select group of atheists: ONLY those atheist who had already concluded they had experienced god. None were atheists who had some kind of personal experience, but concluded it was not with god.

 

[atanu]

You really don't give up, now do you, @atanu ?

Ha ha. India is relatively poor, overpopulated, hot, and dirty but is blessed with ample supply of divine mangoes. I am very persistent that all must taste the divine mango before dying.

 

[atanu]

If read carefully, in particular "In a survey of thousands of people who reported having experienced personal encounters with God,"it's apparent that this was a very select group of atheists: ONLY those atheist who had already concluded they had experienced god. None were atheists who had some kind of personal experience, but concluded it was not with god.

View attachment 28596​

.

The report says some proportion of the studied atheists.....

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes. That is the point. Thanks.

okay...

 

[osgart]

So God is the default reality! God must be thoroughly alone since ever past til life was created.

And lo, and behold, the unanticipated birth of evil comes with the creation of new life.

God is an unenviable position. I cant imagine a more lonely position!

And then enemies arise that hate God, and thence forward God has to take on omniresponsibility for everything every soul does and is, and has to deal with every effect and ramification of everybody's actions and intentions.

You would think that God would have equals, and companionship with such.

You would think God would have a tremendous desire for equals to Godself.

Yet there is only going to ever be one God, and God's followers will worship and praise God forever and ever, and never draw equal to God, and none shall be his eye to eye friend.

Something is missing in this story!

The concept of God is a lonely proposition!

Of course God has no needs. God is self content! Yet God creates life, with God's desire for life is not any kind of need. It is only that God loves.

How perfect, and ideal is God that evil arises in the creations God made?

God's intentions were to have none evil!

Those intentions didnt bear out to be!

The God story is most definetly an interesting one. But what if reality is vastly different?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

What most people do not realize is that the Bible says no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. So the Father has decided not to draw some people. It is not their fault and we should not try to change them.

 

[Skwim]

The report says some proportion of the studied atheists.....

Not at all. It says:

"People over the millennia have reported having deeply moving religious experiences either spontaneously or while under the influence of psychedelic substances such as psilocybin-containing mushrooms or the Amazonian brew ayahuasca, and a portion of those experiences have been encounters with what the person regards as "God" or "ultimate reality."​

Which has no bearing on those atheists who shed the label.

.

 

[joe1776]

I don't like the taste of mango, but that's just me. And if I have to use psychedelic aids to have some sort of "spiritual experience," then I'd rather not. Remember, what such drugs do is alter my own brain so that I can "experience what isn't available to me in the reality I find myself in." Which makes such an experience, in essence, a lie. Who needs it?

I can't agree with your conclusion that such an experience would be a lie.

We most likely see conscious reality in the left side of our brain. A few inches away, in the right side, there's something going in in the powerful unconscious. We see some of its effects in reality as intuition, dreams, the placebo and nocebo effects, and so on.

In an amateur volleyball tournament one evening, I spent two hours in a state that athletes call "the zone." My ego was a spectator watching my body perform at its peak.

When Jill Taylor, a brain scientist, had a stroke that shut down a portion of the left side of her brain, she was left with an oceanic feeling. Mystics might call it "oneness" I suppose.

I suspect that some drugs break down the barrier in our brains between the conscious and unconscious worlds. I don't think we can jump to the conclusions that what we might experience of the unconscious would be lies or delusions. I suspect that the unconscious mind is in touch with a "greater reality."

I also suspect that the founders of religion knew no more about the mysteries of that greater reality than you or me.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I disagree. We might be able to agree upon some language using analogies, metaphors, etc., but there is currently no way for one individual to experience the experience of another...And no description or artistic expression is going to really bridge that gap.

I think that as humans we have a lot in common with each other and experience the same or similar sentiments just in varying degrees.

But take for instance when Christians read about Jesus they all become inebriated with love for Him. It might be in degrees of intensity but it’s a fairly similar experience although not identical.

I think as humans we all have experiences within the human framework so can identify with one another in belief.

So members of the same mindset will have one common understanding. That’s why I believe humanity can unite if they have a basic common understanding amongst them. But not identical.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I disagree. We might be able to agree upon some language using analogies, metaphors, etc., but there is currently no way for one individual to experience the experience of another...And no description or artistic expression is going to really bridge that gap.

But we can and often do reach common agreement through common understanding. If we didn’t have a common understanding we couldn’t function financially or as a human race in any form or manner.

We are all human so although not identical there is enough in common to have a common understanding between each other.

Imagine if we had a worldwide common understanding how we could use that as a basis for world peace. It doesn’t mean we are identical just that as human beings we have a lot in common.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think that as humans we have a lot in common with each other and experience the same or similar sentiments just in varying degrees.

But take for instance when Christians read about Jesus they all become inebriated with love for Him. It might be in degrees of intensity but it’s a fairly similar experience although not identical.

I think as humans we all have experiences within the human framework so can identify with one another in belief.

So members of the same mindset will have one common understanding. That’s why I believe humanity can unite if they have a basic common understanding amongst them. But not identical.

I think 2 people from very different backgrounds will have very different experiences. My renter, fresh from Delhi, and myself would be an example. We go outside at +10, and he is totally freezing, while I'm comfortable. There are so many cultural contexts at play, that some folks truly experience the same thing totally differently. I would vomit eating some foods, whilst some other person would be licking their lips.

 

[atanu]

Not at all. It says:

"People over the millennia have reported having deeply moving religious experiences either spontaneously or while under the influence of psychedelic substances such as psilocybin-containing mushrooms or the Amazonian brew ayahuasca, and a portion of those experiences have been encounters with what the person regards as "God" or "ultimate reality."​

Which has no bearing on those atheists who shed the label.

.

Please refer to the paper and tables 13 and 14 therein. I have excerpted below:

As rated retrospectively, before the encounter experience, the Non-Drug Group, compared to the Psychedelic Group, was less likely to identify their religious orientation as atheist (3% vs. 21%) or other (50% vs. 67%), but more likely to identify as a monotheist (47% vs. 12%) (Table 13). In both groups, identification as atheist decreased significantly from before to after the experience (3% to 1% and 21% to 8%, respectively) (z-test of proportions, p≤0.05 for both groups). The proportion of participants in each group that identified as atheist before the encounter but no longer identified as atheist after the encounter (74% and 67%, respectively) was not significantly different. In the Psychedelic Group, identification as monotheist significantly decreased and identification as Other significantly increased from before to after the experience (p≤0.05). The proportion of the Non-Drug Group identifying as monotheist or Other did not differ significantly from before to after the experience.