What is your justification for believing in a God?

[John Cuthber]

Did it not occur to you that actually answering might help convince me that you are not trolling?

[Moontanman]

naught naughty boys, play nice nice....

[zapatos]

Did it not occur to you that actually answering might help convince me that you are not trolling?

No, I have to admit that taking the time to prove myself to you did not occur to me. If you wish to think of me as a troll I guess I'll just have to live with that.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

John Cuthber and zapatos,

Both of you stop with the attitude and just chill out.

[tar]

Perhaps this is not such an easy topic to discuss, as I thought.

 

I was sort of hoping for an "around the campfire under the stars" type of conversation a group of humans could have together.

 

Seems people are pretty set in their beliefs, and are not too anxious to let a line of argument in, that would potentially undermine any of their own reasoning, or strengthen the argument of a contrary point of view holder.

 

And of course, I am no different. I, like everyone else, has had a lifetime to think about this stuff.

 

And I, like everybody else, think my reasoning is sound.

 

Not likely either, that any two of us has had the same series of life experiences, and not likely that any two individuals have had the same collection of insights.

 

Wouldn't mind the "around the campfire, just a bunch of diverse humans finding common ground" type of discussion. But I am not that hopeful for such a thing, at the moment.

Edited April 19, 2012 by tar

[zapatos]

Perhaps this is not such an easy topic to discuss, as I thought.

 

I was sort of hoping for an "around the campfire under the stars" type of conversation a group of humans could have together.

I am not much of an 'around the campfire' type of person. I tend to take things at face value and do not see or seek out hiddden meaning. I'm always happy to entertain a new line of argument, but if I have to do mental gymnastics and kind of look with my eyes half closed, it usually does not interest me.

[tar]

Yes, I am sort of the opposite. I have a line at work that I use, because it is so true, its funny. "I can make any simple thing complicated."

 

By the time I take everything into consideration...it's the next day. The world has moved on to other stuff, and I'm still on the previous thing. I am very happy with myself...but it doesn't seem to hold much value to anybody else. But I suppose it is a good thing to like yourself. You sure wind up spending a lot of time with that particular person.

[BlackJack21]

My justification for believing in god is personal experience. I believe that the universe as we know it is a single, higher being that we refer to as god. I believe that our perception of reality which is constructed of 4 dimensions (3 of space and one of time) and processed as a continuous stream we call consciousness is just a small offshoot from a larger pool of the consciousness of that higher being. We are all connected to each other through conciousness. We are all essentially that being, god, experiencing our self in a singular, subjective reality. I don't advocate psychedelic drug use but my perception of our world has been shaped by LSD and DMT. Once you've experienced the way the world really works for yourself, you'll have all the justification you will ever need. You are god.

[mississippichem]

I don't advocate psychedelic drug use but my perception of our world has been shaped by LSD and DMT. Once you've experienced the way the world really works for yourself, you'll have all the justification you will ever need. You are god.

 

I would argue that what you experienced is just your neurons firing out of control because you are completely intoxicated on hallucinogens.

 

I've done my fair share of drugs in the past [used to be a musician, give me a break guys ]. It never leads to enlightenment or insight. Only false notions of revelation induced by an intense yet artificial emotional experience.

 

True insight requires logic, rigid objectivity and a sober mind not easily swayed by sensory perception. Hallucenigenic drugs offer none of that. If anything they offer the opposite.

[Villain]

In reference to Moontanman post #435:

 

I think one of the biggest problems with 'by accident' reasoning is that it lacks a web of sorts. The web that I am talking about in this case is something that would provide intelligent motivation, intelligent in the brain sense of the human body. The human brain is the centre that controls the body, without it the arms don't move and no food (fuel) is taken in etc. and then the question of 'why did cells end up forming an animal/human/plant etc., what made them decide to work together, why don't they just go it alone?'. How does one get from elements to personality or a functioning being? By accident is almost impossible to comprehend IMO, not impossible completely though.

 

# 438:

 

The world that we live in is a commercial world, there are people who will use anything possible to make money and benefit themselves. As far as I can tell Christianity is probably the most relevant to you in this regard, the Christian Bible however has Jesus telling His disciples to leave their material possessions and follow Him, there are many other passages that confirm letting go of material possessions. My point is that those that are using Christianity to enrich themselves are not practising the religion but using it as a mask. It is not the religion's fault but the individual that is masquerading falsely behind the religion.

 

Confusing or transferring people's actions to God is a mistake.

 

 

 

 

[scourge]

Hmm: within many religions the way one lives one's life is of utmost importance - the same applies to those that may call themselves humanists. I do not include those religions for which salvation is pre-determined, but for those other religions in which temporal works of mercy, kindness, and compassion are part and parcel of religious observation then I cannot agree with you that this life is insignificant. Perhaps I would agree that some religions state that personal happiness should not be paramount in this life - but not that the community's well being is insignificant.

 

On your counterpoint: the thought of eternal life is not quite the same as life after death and neither of them really impinge on my consciousness to an important degree. The reason it worries me is that thoughts of eternal life in others' minds does affect me and the community at large. I would prefer to live in a world where no decisions made by anyone are influenced in the slightest by thoughts or desires of eternal life or life after death.

 

Sorry i about that i was actually unclear, By that i meant quality of life.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps this is not such an easy topic to discuss, as I thought.

 

I was sort of hoping for an "around the campfire under the stars" type of conversation a group of humans could have together.

 

Seems people are pretty set in their beliefs, and are not too anxious to let a line of argument in, that would potentially undermine any of their own reasoning, or strengthen the argument of a contrary point of view holder.

 

And of course, I am no different. I, like everyone else, has had a lifetime to think about this stuff.

 

And I, like everybody else, think my reasoning is sound.

 

Not likely either, that any two of us has had the same series of life experiences, and not likely that any two individuals have had the same collection of insights.

 

Wouldn't mind the "around the campfire, just a bunch of diverse humans finding common ground" type of discussion. But I am not that hopeful for such a thing, at the moment.

 

 

Hmmm, around the came fire talk? Something like, "like wow man, what if, like, our entire universe is, like, one atom in the finger nail of a giant and one atom in our finger nail is, like, a universe too man" ?

 

Sorry i couldn't help myself...

 

My justification for believing in god is personal experience. I believe that the universe as we know it is a single, higher being that we refer to as god. I believe that our perception of reality which is constructed of 4 dimensions (3 of space and one of time) and processed as a continuous stream we call consciousness is just a small offshoot from a larger pool of the consciousness of that higher being. We are all connected to each other through conciousness. We are all essentially that being, god, experiencing our self in a singular, subjective reality. I don't advocate psychedelic drug use but my perception of our world has been shaped by LSD and DMT. Once you've experienced the way the world really works for yourself, you'll have all the justification you will ever need. You are god.

 

 

I would argue that what you experienced is just your neurons firing out of control because you are completely intoxicated on hallucinogens.

 

I've done my fair share of drugs in the past [used to be a musician, give me a break guys ]. It never leads to enlightenment or insight. Only false notions of revelation induced by an intense yet artificial emotional experience.

 

True insight requires logic, rigid objectivity and a sober mind not easily swayed by sensory perception. Hallucenigenic drugs offer none of that. If anything they offer the opposite.

 

 

I think there is something to this, I have read, and I will if anyone is interested try to find a link to this, that it has been theorized that at least some of what we now call religion came from shaman who used psychedelic mushrooms and herbs to contact the spirit world. In at least one case study the shaman would eat the mushrooms and then everyone would drink his urine to get the filtered effects of those mushrooms... eeewwww... but hey it was Siberia and the winters were long and boring and mushrooms were scarce and this way they could be used over and over...

[mooeypoo]

Hmmm, around the came fire talk? Something like, "like wow man, what if, like, our entire universe is, like, one atom in the finger nail of a giant and one atom in our finger nail is, like, a universe too man" ?

 

Sorry i couldn't help myself...

 

No, that's around the joint talk.

Around the campfire talk is just a casual conversation done in a civil manner without condescension, mocking and personal attacks.

 

Both sides need to take a step back here and breathe. We don't have to agree on everything and we can still discuss the matter, if we start by having some respect to one another regardless of our points of view, the entire debate will go a lot smoother, and we'll all be able to learn about each other's reasoning.

 

I am not staff in this thread, so this isn't about rules or regulations. This is about respect and civility. Tar's comment was right on spot; this was supposed to be a friendly chat about religion.

 

With due respect to "my side" of the argument, we don't seem to be doing a whole lot better when it comes to being emotionally invested and lashing out.

 

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

I was kidding mooey, i thought a little humor might lighten things up a bit...

[mooeypoo]

I was kidding mooey, i thought a little humor might lighten things up a bit...

 

I know, and I'm not talking about you specifically, but in the thread in general it's tough to separate between a harmless joke and sounding like you're mocking.

 

In any case, it wasn't just you, your post just raised the issue in my mind.

 

~mooey

[seriously disabled]

I find some religions to be scary. They create wars. Also people kill in the name of their God. Heaven and hell are two crazy houses. You have to die first to see your God. Give me a break.

 

The only religions that make sense to me, morally speaking, are Buddhism, Hinduism and maybe even Daoism and Confucianism.

 

Islam, Christianity and Judaism however hold no value to me because these religions seek to control and scare people into conformity and do not liberate them from their suffering, like Buddhism does.

Edited April 19, 2012 by seriously disabled

[HuMoDz]

I find some religions to be scary. They create wars. Also people kill in the name of their God. Heaven and hell are two crazy houses. You have to die first to see your God. Give me a break.

It's not religion; it's the ideals. It doesn't need to be a religion, any kind of ideal can be used as an excuse for mass murder. Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Lots of people would kill or die for their country, whatever the reason would be.

 

My reason for not believing in certain religions is: how a omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, "omni-omnic" god would allow suffering to exist? This argument cannot "disprove" certain religions, though. Lots of them do not have these kinds of deities.

Edited April 19, 2012 by HuMoDz

[zapatos]

[/size]

It's not religion; it's the ideals. It doesn't need to be a religion, any kind of ideal can be used as an excuse for mass murder. Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Lots of people would kill or die for their country, whatever the reason would be.

 

My reason for not believing in certain religions is: how a omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, "omni-omnic" god would allow suffering to exist? This argument cannot "disprove" certain religions, though. Lots of them do not have these kinds of deities.

I'd even say that it is not the ideals, it is the people. The ideals, religions, etc. are just a convenient mechanism for people to use that allow them to act out their true nature. Stalin and Hitler were willing to kill to gain and hold power. If religion was not available to be used as a talking point, then it would have been economics, the evil neighbors across the border, skin color, etc.

 

I imagine religion actually changes some, but I'm more inclined to belive that people who gravitate to religion do so because religion allows them to act out who they really are, whether for good or bad.

[tar]

Moontanman, and Mooey,

 

Well I was about to answer the "universe in a thumb" line, with "something like that", till Mooey came to the defense of the intent of my post, and after the LSD post and others, I might suggest that it may be useful to accept that we all may not have to be sober, or drunk, or high, to still enjoy the discussion, the warmth of the fire, the beauty of the stars, and the companionship of other humans.

 

I prefer to be sober myself. Gave up getting high and "tripping" after finding the experience rather unsettling, back when I was 18. And I gave up getting drunk, after a history of several blackout experiences (none of which caused any problems that I know about) left me thinking that between the danger of doing something stupid, killing brain cells, and the expense of the liquor, it was probably something I should do without, (That was back in 1980 when I was in the U.S. Army in Germany).

 

So for better than 30 years, I have been able to think about this stuff, with a clear head, AND any "advantages" that being in those states might have had, are also in my memory/toolchest to draw upon, if and when required.

 

To the LSD/mississippichem that you, Moontanman, refered to I would agree with your points, up to the point where you discounted any value at all to feeling you "are god". 'cause when you think about it, there really is no other possibility. The insight is true, but the implications are many and varied. Some rather comfortable, and some, rather frightening. Some rather workable, and some quite impossible. Sorting those things out, might be what I have been "working on" for the last four decades.

 

Current conclusions on the matter, that I have drawn, are probably included, every time I post.

 

I am after understanding both the things that really make us part of "all reality" and the things that make us individuals, that are in it.

 

It is important that we recognize both, because...that is the way it is. We can't contain it all, nor can we do without it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Moontanman]

A completely new wrinkle in trickle down economics?

 

http://www.skepdic.com/urine.html

 

In Siberia, some found drinking urine was a way to continue the hallucinogenic and spiritual effects of special mushrooms:

 

In many regions where the fly agaric was consumed, it was a very expensive article of trade-so expensive that frequently a tribesman traded a reindeer for one or two mushrooms. At certain times and in some areas, the mushrooms were naturally rare and hard to find. During the long Siberian winters, the more affluent tribesmen were able to store up supplies of the dried mushrooms in large quantities for winter consumption. The poorer individuals, none the less anxious to use the agaric, were often frustrated by the cost and limited supply of the plants.

 

Whether as a result of this scarcity or not, these people discovered that the urine of an intoxicated person was capable, when drunk, of inducing a similar intoxication in another individual. The effects from the urine are said to be only slightly less inebriating than of the dose of the mushroom itself. An early account of this curious practice states of the Koryaks that "when they make a feast, they pour water on some of these mushrooms and boil them. They then drink the liquor, which intoxicates them; the poorer sort, who cannot afford to lay in a store of these mushrooms, post themselves on these occasions round the huts of the rich and watch the opportunity of the guests coming down to make water and then hold a wooden bowl to receive the urine, which they drink off greedily, as having still some virtue of the mushroom in it; and by this way they also get drunk."

 

Also it has been suggested that spaces inside deep caves can cause some of the same effects on humans due to the sonic qualities of the caverns. All of these things were considered holy to these people, plants that contain natural DMT can evidently bring upon a perceived close encounter with god or gods. It is suggested that the rituals performed deep inside caves by early man were religious in nature and fueled by hallucinogens and the caves themselves. Behaviors like fasting and chanting mantras or prayers over periods of time while depriving the body of food and water can have similar effects as well. It's rather unsettling to think that our first ideas about god could have come from these practices. it is also true that some animals will consume some of these plants and fungi and then retreat to a safe place and go into a deep slumber, the desire for intoxication is not limited to humans and it makes you wonder what animals get from these experiences...

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

Trickle down.

 

Might have some scientific, real stuff behind it.

 

Follow this logic, if you will.

 

Much life on Earth gets its energy from the energy the sun gets rid of. Sort of piss de sol.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Something about caves I like myself, but not tight places in them, I am a bit claustrophobic. But its interesting that Mohammed got his messages from God when the angel Gabriel would speak to him in the cave.

 

The "evidence" that people have of God, if of this sort, where anybody else can easily dismiss it, from a scientific point of view, as an halucination, or drug induced fantasy, or chemical malfunction of the brain, is not an easy thing to prove as "real".

 

And I am sure that all of reality is not affected substantially by a monk reaching nirvana on mountain top.

 

Or by any one person's epiphany.

 

But there remains the absolutely true, scientific fact, that whatever account I might have of reaching an understanding with the universe, and what ever account any other human has, no matter what the circumstances, the two have two actual provable, repeatable, unarguable components. A human and reality.

 

If either one of us claims a connection with the universe, it is certainly a justifiable claim. Our very atoms have a history as long and intricate as the universe's, and the patterns in our brains that mirror the world, include impressions made by photons pissed by suns hundreds and millions of light years away, that have been urinating in this direction, constantly, for billions of years.

 

We are not "actually" the whole universe, but we certainly contain an impression of it. And every neuron that takes part in the feat, IS an actual, scientifically existant thing.

 

To have an "ideal" one must indeed add a bit of fantasy to the facts, and project such fantasy back upon the universe.

 

But there is "something" already built into the process, that is nothing but real, from the neurons and their configuration, to the greater reality that the neuron configuration is of.

 

The figuative is of the literal. The literal, on the other hand, exists with no help from the human imagination.

 

But the follow up conclusion would be that you can certainly know God, but you can't make one up.

[Villain]

If we continue, in this line of thought we might ask what is happening to the Ego (in the Freudian term, concious mind in more modern terms) when such a substance is taken. My initial thought would be that it would be suppressed. The concious mind is fully set in what we call 'reality', lets call it the material world, in the sense of what is appealing to our five senses. If God was to communicate with us the concious mind might block this communication as 'crazy'. We could also have access to knowledge that was within us but not available directly to the concious mind. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everyone should get high, but I don't think that dismissing the outcome of such an experience is completely warranted either.

 

There is a movie in which one of the characters says: 'Your'e not yourself today', to which they reply: 'How am I not myself?'. Say it a few times and ask yourself the question. Can you ever not be yourself? Then how much does my concious mind stop me from knowing? Perhaps we can ask 'How is my personality limiting my access to truth or knowledge?' and this can work both ways i.e. for religious and non-religious. Don't let your personality decide what is considered truth and don't let it limit you either. If you don't hold your personal ideals in the concious mind, the information can be accessed before it is consider as truth or false. If you read something with the idea of 'this is not true', then you will never access the truth of the information being presented.

 

This might sound like obvious advice but how many of us can honestly say that we don't bring in a bias when reading the opposing opinion?

 

 

 

Edited for spelling and punctuation

Edited April 20, 2012 by Villain

[BillW]

It seems to me that it is rather convenient to discount the LSD experienced users point of view by saying "You were intoxicated therefore it dosn't count". It seem like he's had a very compelling experience that lead him to that theory. I'm backing that justification due to my own personal experiences. While it has been many years since I was able/willing to use my body and mind as a exotential testing ground, I too had very similar experiences with psychotropic substances. I can vividly remember specific "trips" where I could feel that same linked consciousness. I can already hear the backlash that this will bring but I have shared the same concious space with another individual while on LSD. For a prolonged period of time we could hear each others thoughts. This led me to a great deal of research into whether other LSD'ers have had the same experiences. I found that this is actually a regularly reported phenomenon. I don't use these sorts of drugs anymore as I have a family and all the responsibilities that go along with that. In the years after I got into meditation. After years of practice, I have learned to go deep inside of myself and have had very similar experiences to those I used to have with LSD/DMT/"magic" mushrooms. Those same ideals of I am the universe and you are too I still hold as the true nature of our lives. Now that I can knock out the I was high so it dosnt count counterpoint, what do you say then?

[Arete]

...what do you say then?

 

There seems to be a rather straightforward explanation for one having experienced apparent telepathy whilst under the influence of a powerful hallucinogen - i.e. that one is hallucinating. Whilst conducting fieldwork in the tropics I managed experience some spectacular dysentery and subsequently some vivid hallucinations. Now either God was using Entamoeba histolytica to show me the workings of the cosmos, or perhaps I was extremely dehydrated, feverish and delirious and hallucinating was my brain's way of trying to help me cope.

[mississippichem]

After years of practice, I have learned to go deep inside of myself and have had very similar experiences to those I used to have with LSD/DMT/"magic" mushrooms. Those same ideals of I am the universe and you are too I still hold as the true nature of our lives. Now that I can knock out the I was high so it dosnt count counterpoint, what do you say then?

 

 

I would say that you are still using inductive reasoning to justify your subjective experience as insight into an objective reality.

 

Meditation and psychedelic drugs both give you a strong sensation or feeling. Those forms of informational input do not lend themselves to valid conclusions. I may feel angry, sad, happy, or connected to my friend but that says nothing about the way the universe works (except for a strong statement about neuropsychology).

 

Often times our emotions are erroneous. If I told you that I pushed your car off a building [assume you believe me] you would be furious. Once you went out to the parking lot and saw that your car was still there you may be thinking "Oh that mississippichem is such a trickster" or you may feel like the joke wasn't funny at all but annoying. The point being, that you felt angry about something that never occurred and the emotion you feel after that anger is dependent on your personality and how you feel about my personality. It's all subjective.

 

Now I don't think this can be done practically but the only way to test whether or not you are god or to test whether or not there is a god at all is to define a set of criteria that you would have to observe to reject the null hypothesis (You are not god or there is no god). Then conduct the test with a lot of controls and analyze the data quantitatively.

 

Otherwise we can just claim anything about some nebulous experience we had and call it evidence. I saw a a Ferrari the other day in my small (population ~150,000) town. Nobody here is that rich, must've been God.