on discussing god and religion

Why should I waste my time redefining what I have stated over and over? A direct experience is one that is not preceded by its own descriptions. The event happens; the descriptions follow.

Some would say that the only direct experience of God is when God becomes visible in human form or speaks in human language. Anything less does not count.

I think that’s what she’s asking.

Well, like you, atheists had a particular set of personal experiences pertaining to God and religion. But, unlike you, they were not propelled by these experiences to believe in the existence of a God, the God, my God.

Or, like me, they once had a set of experiences that propelled them to believe in God and religion. But then tumbled into another set of experiences that yanked God and religion out of their life.

And the aim of this thread revolves around individuals, one by one, examining [and then describing] the manner in which they connect the dots between the behaviors that they choose “here and now” on this side of the grave in order to attain that which they would want their fate to be “there and then” on the other side of the grave.

And, for overwhelming preponderance of religious folks, that involves one or another rendition of Judgment Day.

I challenge you to note something [anything] that I have posted on this thread suggesting that you are not entitled to a set of personal beliefs with respect to God and religion.

That is the straw man here in my opinion.

And you are either able to reconfigure your own personal experiences and faith and belief into an argument that nudges atheists in the direction of God and religion or you are not.

But, ultimately, in my own opinion, the bottom line in a philosophy venue has to revolve around the extent to which you are able to demonstrate that what you believe “in your head” about these things is that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Nope, for me it still revolves more around this…

Figuring out the extent to which any particular investigation is or is not an actual autonomous undertaking. Until we can know for certain that this very exchange that we are having is not only as it ever could have been, it might just be.

Then what?

Yes, but how is that limitation embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein pertinent to conflicting goods/value judgments? How do we ascertain when the data that we accumulate encompasses all of the data that would need to be accumlated in order to transend the existential parameters of “I” out in the is/ought world? The world that generates the overwhelming preponderance of human conflicts.

Here we have the historical data, the cultural data and the experiential data that any particular individuals back then accumulted in the course of living his or her personal life. How then is this integrated into the most reasonable point of view? Either with respect to a God or a No God world?

Imagine for example the “struggle” being endured right now by Christians in Puerto Rico. They may read the Bible from cover to cover, but who among them are saved and who among them will perish. Or, perhaps, wish that they had. To actual flesh and blood human beings this sort of “general description” of “projection” only takes them so far. But most Scriptures won’t really take them much further. So they take their own particular “leap of faith” to a narrative most likely to comfort and console them. While at the same time convincing themselves that their faith is not just about comfort and consolation.

My aim on this thread is to reconfigure “general description” conjectures of this sort into accounts of particular behaviors chosen in particular contexts in which God and religion figured into the calculations.

In other words, to what extent can we grapple with these individual experiences so as to intertwine them into a more measured, a more sophisticated conjecture regarding “what really happens”.

And [in my way of thinking] this always revolves around knowledge/beliefs that we either are or are not able to take “out of our heads” and convince others to share in turn. And then the extent to which together we can demonstrate substantively to more still that it is a reasonable way in which to assess “reality”.

After all, what else is there with respect to these particular relationships?

Again, back to the obvious:

1] there is a God or there is not a God
2] if there is a God, He either judges our behaviors on this side of the grave or He does not
3] if He does judge our behaviors on this side of the grave, we either take that into account in choosing our behaviors or we do not

All this thread does is to allow those who do believe in God to describe the manner in which their faith and/or understanding of Him can possibly be translated into descriptive words that encompass the existential parameters of these relationships.

As they go about the business of living their lives from day to day in a world in which they are likely to bump or thump into others who embody conflicting religious convictions.

And the only way in which I could construe this as futile is to insist that anyone who does factor God and religion into their value judgments and behaviors on this side of the grave are necessarily wrong because my own assessment here is necessarily right.

And not, in other words, just another existential contraption like theirs.

Sure, you can define the Real God into existence and insist that all logical discourse must then revolve around the assumption that logical discourse revolves around your definition of the Real God.

The tautological God? [-o<

That would be true if you did not pass judgement on their posts. Once that happens, then it’s no longer “all this thread does”.

In fact, you cut and paste posts from other threads and put them here specifically in order to comment on them. :open_mouth:

And you can continue to babble ignorance and stupidity, but look where it is getting you.

Biggie doesn’t care that it gets him nowhere, playing his game in nowheresville has always been his goal.

And to think I once actually took satisfaction in reducing folks down to this sort of, uh, retort. :laughing:

Again, with respect to what really motivates me here [subjunctively], I’m still convinced it more or less revolves around whatever this means:

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest.
John Fowles

Human psychology [I suspect] will always be more than I can handle. And not just my own.

On the other hand, I have engaged in discussions with folks like Bob here, in which the “judgements” are kept to a minimum.

All it really takes is a respect for each other’s intelligence. And a willingness [on my part] to forgo polemics.

Unless of course by “judgement” you mean something else? :wink:

Where is there to go? There is no ‘there’ other than an imaginary place in a deluded mind.
I’d contend that this is the game we’re playing here; pretending there’s somewhere to go, some place to get to.

There’s that “deluded” word again. :evilfun:

For me the direct experience was like an electric shock in one instance and like a calm ripple of a stream in another. God does not come to me and speak to me in English, yet I’m aware of God’s presence when he does make it known. I know all this seems rather vague to a diehard nonbeliever such as Iamb. He still wants to be persuaded by those who believe that this life merits an afterlife of reward or punishment. For me, that’s infantile religiosity. Buddhism has moved far beyond that in basic religious psychology. For me a combination of Christianity and Buddhism is the best possible religion for the 21st century.

Ierrellus"

I once had an epiphany (not a God one) that almost seemed to be like a calm ripple of realization flowing over me. It was unexpected - but I wouldn’t call it an electric shock.

How did the electric shock part came in - did it actually feel like an electric shock?

Oh, I certainly that God would not speak in English to you. You might doubt in that instant, don’t you think?
He? What He? Why can we not strip off this paternal aspect?

What are you usually doing when the Presence comes to you?

We all seek the holy grail in one way or the other. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a symbol for what is holy - though holy simply means whole, in harmony.
I suppose that one can say at-one-ment - as some say.

I’m a die-hard agnostic. lol
He’s a philosopher. Wouldn’t that be a legitimate challenge?

But there are many people who do believe that.
Why do you think that is?
As far as the infantile religiosity goes, Ierrelus, you called God a He. I might say that that is infantile religiosity. Wouldn’t you? :-"

Life after death. Buddhists believe in a cycle of death and rebirth called samsara. Through karma and eventual enlightenment, they hope to escape samsara and achieve nirvana, an end to suffering.

So couldn’t you say that Buddhism is somewhat the same? How far removed is it?

But isn’t Christianity also somewhat the same? The powers that be preach that there shall either be a reward or punishment after death.

:evilfun:

Arc,
I did not intend to use the word “he” in reference to God in a paternalistic fashion. It’s only because there are so few words that describe an entity that is a force. As I have often said before in these threads, I believe God is he, she, it, father, son, mother, daughter—all possible personal relationships.
I will no longer attempt to describe my God experiences,
Buddhism is not into dualism as in afterlife reward or punishment.

From another thread…

[b][i]Body Decomposition Timeline

24-72 hours after death — the internal organs decompose.

3-5 days after death — the body starts to bloat and blood-containing foam leaks from the mouth and nose.

8-10 days after death — the body turns from green to red as the blood decomposes and the organs in the abdomen accumulate gas.

Several weeks after death — nails and teeth fall out.

1 month after death — the body starts to liquify.[/i][/b]

Another, more detailed rendition of it:

aftermath.com/content/human-decomposition

Now, in the context of God and religion, one can’t help but wonder why on earth a God, the God, your God would require – choose? – that it all to unfold in precisely this [ghastly?] manner.

It is almost as though God may well be constrained Himself by the immutable laws of matter.

And how does a mere mortal even begin to wrap his or her mind around that?

When the house is empty, it begins to decay. According to Plato, the soul that was in that house is “freed from prison”. But that was just an idea in Plato’s mind, even though billions of rational people have believed it is true.

Umm, what is “autonomous”? Autonomous or independent from what? If it is science, then it seeks an objective answer rather than a subjective one. If you question such an investigation outright, you will never be satisfied.

Those are a lot of words, but do they mean anything in the end? How will anyone quieten your insecurity and requirement of absolute certainty? I can’t and I doubt that anyone on earth can . it’s called the human dilemma!

Who is “demanding”? We make assumptions from our own experience or that of others, and have to live with that. The best “God experiences” fail to give a maintenance guide for life, but they give assurance much like the comforting hand of a mother, or insight into something that has been mystifying us. Inspiration helps us proceed, but it doesn’t complete the journey for us, and judgement day is probably a confrontation with what we fear. But who knows?

I can’t begin to imagine the “struggle” of those people in Puerto Rico. I know that in my own small “struggles”, inspiration came when I needed it most. However, do I have a right to assure others that this will happen? How can I be sure?

Well, good luck with your reconfiguration then … sadly you don’t just have one operating system to reconfigure, but probably 7.442 billion

Yes, Plato believed this of the soul “in his head”. And, sure, many, many folks deemed rational since have believed in one or another rendition of it.

Some from within particular religious denominations, some in embracing a more ecumenical ideal, some rooted in one or another Spinozan/deistic narrative, and others in embracing one of the countless “New Age” agendas.

The “soul” certainly seems to engender lots and lots and lots of converts.

And why wouldn’t it? It is, after all, a belief in the soul that allows one to believe in turn that it is as a soul that we attain immortality, salvation and divine justice.

And very, very few things comfort and console mere mortals as much as believing that does.

On the other hand, there are also many, many folks deemed rational who do not believe in the existence of a soul.

And, “here and now”, “I” happen to be one of them. And, really, all that folks like me can do is to engage in discussions in places like this with those who do.

I just happen to be someone who draws that crucial distinction between what we claim to believe is true “in our head” and that which we are able to demonstrate that all reasonable men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

And not just regarding the soul.