Question For Those Who Reject Religion But Believe In God (Buddhists, America)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's no way to define God without referring to beliefs about God. Even the experiential is based on belief.
No . . . it is based on experience. Sorry you have not had any . . . but they are attainable. After my first surprise encounter . . . ALL I knew was that God exists and is loving and accepting. I spent decades forming my understanding of it and the beliefs I now hold.
In my journey out of Christiandom, for some reason I wanted to hang on desperately to a belief in a loving God who cared for us and had a plan for us. One that would reward us with an eternal afterlife etc etc..... It wasn't long until I abandoned that belief for simply a non-descript creator God and then no belief in a God at all.
So I have a question for those of you have have rejected religion but still maintain a belief in a loving, benevolent God. What do you base your conclusion that this God is loving and benevolent on? With all due sincerety and respect, aren't you essentialy just making things up?
If you have no dogma to learn anything about this God, and you have rejected religion, how do you know anything about this God? Again, what do you base this on?
I can understand you hanging on to the concept of a non-descript God, I have no problem with that at all actually.... but it's when you start giving this God attributes for which you have no reason to do so that puzzles me.
I think as has been stated, personal experience has to be at the top of the list for sure. With me I also base my understanding of God on these;
Biblical Archaeology; which has tons of evidence that peice together God.
My Conscious, and my understanding of Consciousness.
A life long study of my Mother. That dramatically reveals God to me.
The earth and the Universe expand my view of God.
My study of Love.
The animal kingdom stunningly reveals God to me.
Answered prayer, which dovetails with personal experience.
Science reveals God to me.
History is a serious validation of God to me.
The bible is stunning verification of God to me, and no religion owns the bible.
My own suffering, and human suffering is an eye opener to God being real to me.
Atheism helps me to learn about God.
The Ontological Arguement points me to God.
The Anthropic Principles reveals God to me.
Creative thinking and Rational Thinking points out God to me.
RNA and DNA explains God to me.
The Law of Entrophy verifys God to me.
Biogenesis explains God to me.
Irreducible Complexity points my Consciousness to knowing God.
The Cosmological arguement convinces my consciousness of God.
I base some of my understanding of God on the historical writings of;
Tertullian
Josephus
Suetonius
Thallus
Pliny the Younger
Lucian
Celsus
Tacitus
Sextus Julius Africanus
Origen
Hegesippus
Clement
Conon
Porphyry of Tyre
Dionysius
Polycarp
Eusebius
Irenaeus
Ignatius
Justin Martyr
Phlegon
Masra Bar-Serapion
Romance teaches me about God
Evil helps me understand God more
I could go on and on with this list, which religion had nothing to do with.
It will be of no help to you . . . but my reasons are based on my encounters with this love and acceptance in deep meditation. It is unmistakable. The beliefs I attach to it are based on a variety of factors scientific and spiritual ("spiritual fossil record) . . . but the loving and accepting attribute is experiential.
This, for me too, in addition to other personal experiences.
No . . . it is based on experience. Sorry you have not had any . . . but they are attainable. After my first surprise encounter . . . ALL I knew was that God exists and is loving and accepting. I spent decades forming my understanding of it and the beliefs I now hold.
I accept that you believe your mystical experiences to be God.
But even if that is true, it's an extreme leap to say that this God that you experienced is the same God who created the universe and sent his only son to earth as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity for all time.
I accept that you believe your mystical experiences to be God.
But even if that is true, it's an extreme leap to say that this God that you experienced is the same God who created the universe and sent his only son to earth as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of humanity for all time.
It is only an extreme leap when in the context you present (admittedly a dominant Christian one). But it is not extreme when you consider that IF GOD EXISTS and our species' purpose is to produce God's consciousness (agape love) in our unique cellular form . . . then it only makes sense that the potential for a Jesus would be in the DNA helix for our species. Our species simply had to evolve to the point where it was possible for Him to manifest. Let's face it . . . if our consciousness is designed to join God's one of us had to be compatible (resonant). Christ achieved that perfect agape love for us ALL despite scourging, crucifixion and death because we "knew not what we did." (THAT is the consciousness I experience . . . pure unconditional love and acceptance . . . and that is why I selected Jesus as the exemplar). His human consciousness was reborn as Spirit (as we all will be) and immediately joined our collective human consciousness to God's consciousness. His Holy Spirit (human consciousness) is available to us ALL within our consciousness . . . if we are sincere enough to listen.
It will be of no help to you . . . but my reasons are based on my encounters with this love and acceptance in deep meditation. It is unmistakable.
Everything is mistakable. Meditation is a useful tool of introspection and cultivation of some nice emotional and intellectual states. A magical phone line to god however there is no reason to think it is and if you felt some pretty emotions while practasing it then that is great for you. However the decades of confirmation bias you enter into since then to prove an explanation for those emotions that you made up proves nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
arguing against God exists . . . while I am simply pointing out the stupidity of claiming that the logical premise is no God (no conscious universe) . . .
Ah the old shift the onus of proof trick. We both know the onus is on you to evidence the existence of a god - not on others to prove a negative. Especially a negative deliberatly constructed to be immune to falsification. But of course anyone who doubts your claims are immediatly ignorant or operating from "stupidity".
It is only an extreme leap when in the context you present (admittedly a dominant Christian one). But it is not extreme when you consider that IF GOD EXISTS and our species' purpose is to produce God's consciousness (agape love) in our unique cellular form . . . then it only makes sense that the potential for a Jesus would be in the DNA helix for our species. Our species simply had to evolve to the point where it was possible for Him to manifest. Let's face it . . . if our consciousness is designed to join God's one of us had to be compatible (resonant). Christ achieved that perfect agape love for us ALL despite scourging, crucifixion and death because we "knew not what we did." (THAT is the consciousness I experience . . . pure unconditional love and acceptance . . . and that is why I selected Jesus as the exemplar). His human consciousness was reborn as Spirit (as we all will be) and immediately joined our collective human consciousness to God's consciousness. His Holy Spirit (human consciousness) is available to us ALL within our consciousness . . . if we are sincere enough to listen.
Mystic, you give yourself away every time.
Whatever caused the universe, whatever runs the universe, anything we might call 'god' is an assumption based really on human ignorance.
Whatever causes the Mystical experience (which is empirically validated) assuming that it is really representing contact with something we might call 'god' (as opposed to just another example of voices in the head, the feeling of a 'presence' the elevation cased by prayer, meditation or pipeweed), is a kneejerk assumption based on religious pump -priming, even in the case of someone who never believed it.
The stuff about consciousness, God is dark matter, the spiritual fossil record and the harping on the Gospel story - a demonstrable fraud, as you surely must have seen from reading (and appreciating, it seems) my posts on the matter, is ad hoc invention of theories designed to prop up a belief - no more valid than Eusebius' desperate attempts to make the Ark float.
We can all see this clearly, but you can't because Faith is getting in the way. I don't suppose that you can step back and see that it's a clever theory and an ingenious theory, but pretty speculative, but perhaps you could see that we can all see where you got to where you are and the repeated splodging of you speculative beliefs over our heads like a cake in a slapstick routine is not instructive; it is getting to be a nuisance.
There is nothing to give away, Arequipa. I am sincerely TRYING to explain my views and the reasons for them, that's ALL. IF you think you understand them and the reasons for them . . . I have been successful in your case . . . whether or not they agree with mine.
Quote:
Whatever caused the universe, whatever runs the universe, anything we might call 'god' is an assumption based really on human ignorance.
As is the assumption that nothing or something OTHER than God did.
Quote:
Whatever causes the Mystical experience (which is empirically validated) assuming that it is really representing contact with something we might call 'god' (as opposed to just another example of voices in the head, the feeling of a 'presence' the elevation cased by prayer, meditation or pipeweed), is a kneejerk assumption based on religious pump -priming, even in the case of someone who never believed it.
Have you experienced it via any of the ways you suggest, Arequipa? Your dismissal of the genuineness of what is "sensed" is understandable to me only if you have NOT experienced it.
Quote:
The stuff about consciousness, God is dark matter, the spiritual fossil record and the harping on the Gospel story - a demonstrable fraud, as you surely must have seen from reading (and appreciating, it seems) my posts on the matter, is ad hoc invention of theories designed to prop up a belief - no more valid than Eusebius' desperate attempts to make the Ark float.
You need to believe that the sincere speculations about God throughout human history with a similar "template" (stripped of cultural, generational, geographic and symbolic differences) is just serendipity . . . to accept your analysis.
Quote:
We can all see this clearly, but you can't because Faith is getting in the way. I don't suppose that you can step back and see that it's a clever theory and an ingenious theory, but pretty speculative, but perhaps you could see that we can all see where you got to where you are and the repeated splodging of you speculative beliefs over our heads like a cake in a slapstick routine is not instructive; it is getting to be a nuisance.
Those who believe they understand my views and the reasons for them need not participate further in asking for clarification then. I have no other agenda than providing sufficient explanation to enable others to do that to their satisfaction, Arequipa. I suspect the "nuisance" factor is related to frustration about a failure of their agenda to promote a different understanding.
I have a friend who considers herself a Christian, but believes that current "Christian" churches have long evolved away from whatever the earliest Christians believed and practiced. Therefore, she believes in none of them. She says that she tries to use the New Testament as her guide, though she does not believe that it is free of errors. Beyond that I have never pursued the topic with her.
Perhaps you should. She may have things sorted out better than you think.
As is the assumption that nothing or something OTHER than God did.
No such assumption is being made. The assumption is that we do not know the answer. That is all. It is something we must work on - discover evidence for - and come to a conclusion.
Making up a conclusion however - then spending decades confirming it to yourself as you admit to doing - gets us nowhere. Declaring that those who notice your made up conclusion is baseless are assuming the negative is also mis-representative.
There are questions we do not know the answer for. Making up a gap filling answer and declaring everyone has the onus to disprove it is just god of the gaps fallacy in action.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
