God experience can change atheists

[ecco]

I was about 19 years old, a fan of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series and was keenly aware of the historical hypocrisy of the Church. I was a math and physics major at a school associated with the Holy Cross only because I had a scholarship and it was near my home. I took introductory courses in the world's religions and the Old and New Testament. I was not at all a participant in religion but I was curious about some of its philosophical ideas. I also loved epic fantasy and science fiction and I could see that there was something in common between Tolkien and Star Wars with the Gospels and the stories in Genesis. I also gained my first focused exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism through that world's religions course.

By the time I had my first God experience I was very interested in the beliefs of religions but by default a huge skeptic of Christianity and organized religion in my part of the globe.

I was also an atheist at age 19 and had been for around ten years. There is no way in the world I would have considered going to a"school associated with the Holy Cross".

Had you previously studied Genesis and the Gospels and come away with a feeling of "this is a lot of nonsense" or with a feeling of interest to find the right religious niche? Being skeptical of Christianity and religion does not make you an atheist, it makes you a skeptical person.

You didn't say at what point in your life you came to the conclusion/realization that god(s) were just the creation of man's imaginings.

 

[Quintessence]

...that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

Please reword this into a comprehensible sentence.

Not sure if you're serious, but to reword...

... there is plenty of evidence for various gods that would satisfy obstinate skeptics. Especially once you get outside of highly abstract god-concepts like that of the Bible.

 

[Quintessence]

See? You do not even know what God is to me.

Don't sweat it. It's what some folks do when they encounter diversity. If they can't reconcile it with their preconceptions, they deny that it exists. It is what it is.

There's a lot to dissect here in this topic of yours, but I've refrained from going in all those directions that are relevant. I will note this though - I posted up a thread somewhat recently in a DIR about how our culture really tends to gaslight people on religious experiences. Some of the conversations around here remind me of these issues. It's weird how so many are challenged by trusting in themselves and their experiences. I suppose that happens because we've all been burned, but who can you trust if not your own faculties and discernment? Our lives are centered on our personal experiences and can be no other way. And we all have to live with ourselves, always. The real question is what stories we want to tell. Our experiences are what they are and denying that we had them is not useful. It is the interpretation where discernment comes into play.

But I digress...

 

[QuestioningMind]

See? You do not even know what God is to me.

All I can go by is what you have written... God is reality of one’s existence-consciousness,

If that's NOT your definition of God then you shouldn't have stated as much.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not sure if you're serious, but to reword...

... there is plenty of evidence for various gods that would satisfy obstinate skeptics. Especially once you get outside of highly abstract god-concepts like that of the Bible.

Well, I'm a skeptic and I have yet to be presented with ANY evidence that I find satisfying. Maybe it doesn't work with me because I'm not an OBSTINATE skeptic?

Care to share what YOU consider to be evidence for various gods that would satisfy obstinate skeptics?

 

[Quintessence]

Well, I'm a skeptic and I have yet to be presented with ANY evidence that I find satisfying. Maybe it doesn't work with me because I'm not an OBSTINATE skeptic?

Care to share what YOU consider to be evidence for various gods that would satisfy obstinate skeptics?

It should be self-explanatory, but apparently you missed the important part of my earlier post:

... except this is not actually true? Most gods throughout human history are deifications of various aspects of reality that clear evidence bars easily for even the most obstinate skeptic.

In case those words didn't make sense to you, the simple version is that all things are gods or have been deified at some point in history. The gods include the air you are breathing right now, the ground beneath your feet, the emotions you experience reading this, the abstract principles that allowed the keyboard you are using to exist, and anything else you could name. "God" is just a title. It's a label applied to something. Folks disagree on what that label ought to be applied to, and those represent relevant cultural differences. But if we take things on the whole, you are basically asking me to give you evidence that reality and everything in it exists. All reality and all things in it have been viewed as gods by humans.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It should be self-explanatory, but apparently you missed the important part of my earlier post:



In case those words didn't make sense to you, the simple version is that all things are gods or have been deified at some point in history. The gods include the air you are breathing right now, the ground beneath your feet, the emotions you experience reading this, the abstract principles that allowed the keyboard you are using to exist, and anything else you could name. "God" is just a title. It's a label applied to something. Folks disagree on what that label ought to be applied to, and those represent relevant cultural differences. But if we take things on the whole, you are basically asking me to give you evidence that reality and everything in it exists. All reality and all things in it have been viewed as gods by humans.

Okay, so in your opinion God is nothing more than a word people have applied to things that they imagined were god entities in the past. So you offer absolutely no verifiable evidence for any God... you simply state that God is nothing more than a title that people have used to describe various things they didn't understand.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Shad]

Without chemicals, it is difficult and is a lifelong endeavour (or as we believe of many lifetimes). It is not easy to maintain attention on one's own mind without a bit of wavering.

You missed my point. You are using chemical induced fantasies as if it were genuine experience rather than an experience people labels as a "God experience". If I start labeling whatever I want as a God experience does that mean anything to anyone not me?

Think about it this way. An old friend from HS 20 years ago (had not seen him for that long) is now so drugged up that he talks with aliens and freaked on me for not believing him. Like the chemical induced God experience his experience of aliens do not say much besides "Stop doing drugs"

 

[charlie sc]

I don’t know why so many people are having difficulty accepting this study.

 

[viole]

I know nothing will be left. Do ‘Things’ have reality of their own?

If I beat you on the head with a baseball bat, you will suddenly realise they do.

Ciao

- viole

 

[wandering peacefully]

The poster I replied to wrote: "Feelings" (as in Taylor's "oceanic feeling") are, in the view of many neuroscientists, little more than the outputs to various algorithms hard- and soft-wired into our brains....

I read this as implying that such things as the oceanic feeling were illusions in the opinion of scientists. I reasoned that they could not possibly know this with the tools available to them. Merely, watching the same part of the brain light up during meditation only informs them that the same area of the brain lights up during meditation. It doesn't help them interpret the effects of meditation.

I liked your post. That's very interesting.

I don't see it as it an illusion either. So I guess I agree with you there. An illusion is something that seems real to the one experiencing the event, but isn't real.

Experiences in non-duality can be attained by most people I think with the learning and practice of techniques. That experience is a real feeling. An illusion wouldn't be a good description of the experience. But as it is such a different way of experiencing consciousness, and every individual will come away with varying thoughts or ideas about what is felt, it still will remain a subjective experience. And the several words found which do represent the collective part of the experience are very limited. Beyond those words the feelings are unique to each individual. I agree, scientists are not really into analysis of the subjective experience as much as the mechanisms of how the brain works when the experience is happening. As it should be.
Thanks a lot. I'm glad you liked my post.

 

[wandering peacefully]

True. But is that the point??

I think it is the point. At least as a partial piece of evidence in opposition to the assumption in the OP. I do understand how some atheists might become spiritual after experiencing non-duality and loss of ego. There is not a thing wrong with that. It is all in how a person chooses to think.

I still have a bit of a hard time understanding going from atheist to believer but I just have to take people's word for it if they say it is true.

 

[atanu]

If I beat you on the head with a baseball bat, you will suddenly realise they do.

Ciao

- viole

I know that. An ignorant can smash a light bulb and think that light is dead.

 

[atanu]

All I can go by is what you have written... God is reality of one’s existence-consciousness,

If that's NOT your definition of God then you shouldn't have stated as much.

But you do not understand 'existence-consciousness', since it is evident that you have not experienced yourself at the level of the witness of the mind-senses. You can be a physical body or you can be a witness of all that happens.

That requires meditative discipline or grace.
..
Why do you not simply say "I do not agree with the study?". The point of the thread is that an actual experience can only change your mind.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

And any such experience is absolutely worthless when it comes to verifiable evidence for UFO's.

You took the words right out of my mouth.....so we agree?

 

[atanu]

Don't sweat it. It's what some folks do when they encounter diversity. If they can't reconcile it with their preconceptions, they deny that it exists. It is what it is.

There's a lot to dissect here in this topic of yours, but I've refrained from going in all those directions that are relevant. I will note this though - I posted up a thread somewhat recently in a DIR about how our culture really tends to gaslight people on religious experiences. Some of the conversations around here remind me of these issues. It's weird how so many are challenged by trusting in themselves and their experiences. I suppose that happens because we've all been burned, but who can you trust if not your own faculties and discernment? Our lives are centered on our personal experiences and can be no other way. And we all have to live with ourselves, always. The real question is what stories we want to tell. Our experiences are what they are and denying that we had them is not useful. It is the interpretation where discernment comes into play.

But I digress...

Thank you. The thread was actually only about a paper. But it touched some nerves.

I do not mind recording my view from time time if those help some to question their assumptions.

 

[atanu]

I still have a bit of a hard time understanding going from atheist to believer but I just have to take people's word for it if they say it is true.

That seems to reinforce my point that till one has a direct proof/subjective personal experience, one will doubt statements of others. That is a good thing, in my opinion, if one keeps up an open mind.

 

[joe1776]

That seems to reinforce my point that till one has a direct proof/subjective personal experience, one will doubt statements of others. That is a good thing, in my opinion, if one keeps up an open mind.

Reasonable skepticism is a good thing, IMO. Unreasonable skepticism is simple bias.

Because of one personal experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible but scientists who want to study them not only won't get their projects funded but they risk their reputations for even showing interest. A little over a year ago, over a hundred scientists signed a petition aimed at breaking down the bias against such studies. Brian Josephson, a Nobel winning physicist, heads up the group, but I haven't heard of any progress.

 

[ecco]

Reasonable skepticism is a good thing, IMO. Unreasonable skepticism is simple bias.

Because of one personal experience with each, I know that precognition and telepathy are possible but scientists who want to study them not only won't get their projects funded but they risk their reputations for even showing interest. A little over a year ago, over a hundred scientists signed a petition aimed at breaking down the bias against such studies. Brian Josephson, a Nobel winning physicist, heads up the group, but I haven't heard of any progress.

This is the same argument complaint that Creationists make.

 

[wandering peacefully]

That seems to reinforce my point that till one has a direct proof/subjective personal experience, one will doubt statements of others. That is a good thing, in my opinion, if one keeps up an open mind.

Except the part where I was a Christian believer for the first 20 years of my life. Then I went through a nature based spiritual phase for the following 15 years until I just couldn't accept belief that all my "experiences" were anything more than wishful thinking and coincidence. I do try to pretend once in a while when an experience happens but it just doesn't work anymore. I sometimes do miss that belief. Who wouldn't want to believe there is something out there somewhere? Certainly nothing religions have to offer but some type of consciousness we don't understand yet. It's a little tough not to have that backup but I have learned be peaceful and satisfied without it.