AB517

nor did it appear by chance

AB517

marmalade,

Did you have a spiritual experience?
can you describe it? if not to personal.

thank you

marmalade

I have thoughts along these lines sometimes. I agree there might be an intelligent order. But, even if so, it doesn't follow that its conscious or more specifically that its an all-powerful monotheistic God of the Christian sub-category.

I do feel amazed at the world sometimes. Existence itself can feel like a miracle. That things exist at all, and that they exist in such an ordered way. That humans can build complex things like computers and that they work fairly consistently. Its so easy to take it all for granted.

Even if its evolution, its still freaking amazing. And, anyways, evolution and intelligent design aren't necessarily in conflict. Likewise, the truths of various religions aren't necessarily in conflict if you look into them deeply enough.

marmalade

Certainly. I'd rather talk on the level of direct experience.

I have had what felt like spiritual experiences, but I don't precisely know what this means. I do know that the term 'spiritual' means many things to many people. In my opinion, if the 'spiritual' exists, then every thing and every experience is spiritual. But thats not what you're asking for.

Yes, I have had deep and profound experiences that have permanently altered my way of perceiving reality, and how I relate to others. No, I don't feel saved. I wish I felt saved. I'm a bit cynical about the concept of being saved.

I have had many different 'spiritual' experiences, but mostly my experiences of the spiritual is more mundane. This mundane level is what I often refer to as 'faith in faith' and along with this just a basic sense of wonder and awe. This mundane level is an awareness of the potential of reality, and the high weirdness of being alive.

By mundane I mean that I'm often aware of the 'spiritual' even if I'm not feeling it deeply and profoundly in any given moment. When I am feeling it more fully, it feels like being connected to something greater. I have meditated for many years and this usually focuses on my heart. When I feel genuinely centered in my heart, many experiences can come from this. Sometimes its expansive as if I'm in living relationship with all of the world. Sometimes its a feeling of utter emptiness as if was glimpsing beyond the ephemeral nature of reality.

These more intense experiences aren't common, but they aren't entirely uncommon either. Its not difficult for me to get some sense of this whenever I turn my attention to it. However, I don't turn my attention to it enough for sure. These experiences can be quite bewildering and challenging sometimes. They aren't negative experiences, but I've never figured out how to integrate them into my everyday life.

I've had many specific experiences I could tell you about and I would do so willingly, but I'd have to give you a short synopsis of my life to explain them to you. Most recently, I went through a phase where I was searching my heart deeply. This led to some of the most profound experiences in my life.

At the moment, I've hit a slight dry spell, and am feeling uninspired. I've struggled with depression for much of my life. Its hard for me to say what my 'spiritual' experiences mean to me, and hence agnostic. This might give you some clue why other people's declaring certainty annoys me to no end.

Does that satisfy your curiosity? Was there anything particular you wanted to know?

marmalade

This cuts to the heart of the matter. Geshtinnanna said, "It's kind of ignorant and arrogant. And it's annoying.." That sums up how I often feel when in this kind of discussion. Is this thread an intelligent discussion or an opportunity for prosyletizing? I don't know you very well godlovesyou, and so that is a sincere question. What is your true motivation for being here?

As an agnostic forum, this board is open to all views. Nonetheless, a central value for most agnostics is rationality, and so I would assume a central standard for discussions on this board would be rationality.

Many agnostics not only are open to other views, but seek out to understand other views. One Christian(Paul) in another thread claimed that he was genuinely interested in other views. I don't know if he is genuinely interested, but I have my doubts that most Christians visiting an agnostic or atheist forum are motivated by sincere open-minded curiosity.

I'm sure there are some Christians who visit here because they're questioning their religious beliefs, but I'm guessing that this isn't the majority(?). I suspect that many Christians come here seeking to prosyletize whether that means seeking to convert or simply seeking to witness... it comes out to the same difference. Basically, it means no rational discussion will happen.

I've read some apologetics and I might read any links to apologetics that any Christian offers. However, I don't feel very motivated to do so if they don't return the favor. As was said, for some Christians, it goes against the dogma of their religion to read non-Christian writings. Even for the Christians who aren't so constrained, I have yet to meet a literalist Christian(on-line or otherwise) who was willing to carefully study any information that I offered.

The reason is partly because there is very little rational response they can give to much of the mainstream Biblical scholarship, and so it would endanger their convictions if they actually thought about it beyond a superficial perusal. Any criticism they could offer, I could throw several back ad infinitum. Plus, if someone really wants to believe, then rational discussion has no benefit for them, but rather their whole worldview is threatened by it.

As I see it, an agnostic has the advantage over either theists or atheists. There is no easier position to defend than agnosticism. As an agnostic, I can speak to a theist using theological terminology, and I can speak to an atheist using more philosophical terminology. A hardcore theist is forced to not give full credibility to rational argument, and a hardcore atheist is forced to not give full credibility to religious experience.

An agnostic can speak from many perspectives, but an agnostic need not defend any particular perspective. If they so wish, an agnostic can simply argue against another's claim. For instance, an agnostic can simply put the responsibility for historical proof of Jesus back onto the Christian. Since there is no historical proof, the agnostic's job is fairly easy. The agnostic just has to keep pointing out the obvious. As an agnostic, it really matters not whether Jesus existed historically or not. I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist historically, but the literalist Christian has to prove that he did... if he wants to be considered rational that is(which is a big if in many cases).

The theist and the atheist can project their sense of conflict onto the other. The difficulty of an agnostic position is that one must incorporate this sense of conflict within oneself. My spiritual leanings and my rational leanings don't always mesh easily, but I'd rather struggle with trying to balance them as equally useful rather than dismissing one or else attempt make one superior.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm not arguing against Christianity as a general category. What I'm arguing against is literalist Christianity. I'm not directly arguing that literalist Christianity is false even though I am arguing that its morally and socially problematic. My most central argument is simply that literalist Christianity can't be proven true.

Astreja

For the sake of argument, let's play with the hypothesis that this world was formed by sentient beings. How do you know it was your particular god and not someone else's god(s)?

In fact, why does it have to be a 'god' at all? Perhaps technologically advanced aliens did it. For all we know (or can know), one of us here on the board built the place and then came down with amnesia.

marmalade

People have been trying to prove God's existence for thousands of years. No one has yet succeeded.

How is the probability of consistency proven? A system is either factually and internally consistent or it isn't. Probability is meaningless outside of statistic data which isn't attainable with the subjective nature of interpreting holy texts.

What are the details of this method?

Which religions? Which facts? What source material and scholarship are you basing all of this on?

Intuitively not everyone knows that there is a higher being. I'm not an expert on this matter, but I'm fairly sure that not all scientific theories propose a beginning. Besides, a claim of a beginning implies absolutely nothing about what came before it. What is your standard of reasonable doubt? What research are you speaking of?

I'm not familiar with this author or his book. Would you mind summarizing some of his arguments? Is there some good info on the web?

I haven't been studying it as long as you, but so far my research has brought me to a different conclusion. How do you define a true contradiction? What would be a false contradiction?

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, but it seems this could apply to other religions.

Not really. The people who wrote the New Testament knew of the Old Testament. They probably used it as source material. It was in their interest to make their writings seem to fulfill Old Testament prophecies.

Many ancient cultures had some amazing knowledge based on their observations of nature. I've never heard that the Judeo-Christian tradition was outstanding for its time. I'd actually think that the Greeks, Indians, Egyptians, and Babylonians were more advanced than the Jews in this respect.

Like I already said, this isn't unusual. Anyone who believes something strong enough will have these kinds of experiences no matter what religion they adhere to.

I'd like to hear all your reasons if you're feeling in a sharing mood.

I suppose that is true for everyone.

I agree.

I haven't chosen not to decide. I have merely chosen not to decide according to your limited choices. As an agnostic, I see many choices beyond believe or not believe. I'm very committed to my perspective if you hadn't noticed.

I have, and I continue to do so.

I have read some, and I'm somewhat familiar with the more popular apologetics sites. When I research subjects, I look at all sides. I wouldn't be a very good agnostic if I didn't. As I further study this issue, I will look into apologetics more thorougly. I must admit that I don't foresee my views drastically changing because I doubt I'll find any truly new and insightful arguments for Christianity. So far, you haven't presented me anything I hadn't seen before.

This is most definitely not something I need to be told. I could have written word for word what you wrote there about this. Here is one for you: is there a greater meaning in life than questioning life? I'll also add that your character will determine your idea of life.

Could you expand on this claim?

How can God reveal himself to you not through your own experience? How can you know the Bible not through your own experience? Even if God appears right before your face, its still your eyes and perception that filters him through your experience. Even if you listen to a preacher reading the Bible to you, its still your listening and thinking that filters it through your experience.

Even you said that: "And my final evidence is experience."

I don't rely on experience alone. I've studied many religions and thinkers. I've had many discussions with people of varying views on life. I've been a part of various religious and spiritual groups. I base my faith on the bible, and the gospel, and jesus christ. And I base my faith on everything else I've ever studied. My faith excludes no source of potential wisdom. My faith is an attitude and a way of being.

I take very seriously your statement of the danger of relying on spiritual experience by itself. Its also dangerous to rely on anything by itself. The Bible is dangerous when taken out of context of all of the religious development across many cultures.

godlovesyou

[quote=marmalade;19913]i wont respond to all your questions . i think it would not change your mind. jesus said: preach the gospel to all creature. who will belief, will be saved, who won't believe, will be condemned. the gospel itself is enough someone to believe, so extend to much in inumerous arguments , wont make sense. jesus said also : who will hear my voice, will recognize me and believe in me. you read the gospels, but they don't wake faith in you ? then probably you will never believe in Jesus Christ, whatever argument someone will serve you.

marmalade

I looked back through the whole thread and noticed a repeating theme of rationality. Its obvious that rationality means something very different for you, but I'm not clear on what that meaning is. Your comments here seem a bit contradictory. My interpretation is that you at least partially conflate the terms 'rationality', 'proof', 'faith' and 'revelation'. Another repeating theme is that it works and this seems to also be a part of your definition of 'proof' and thus of 'rationality'.

What are your definitions of these terms?

http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nd_rationality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

marmalade

Won't... or is it you don't have any good responses to them(besides repeating your belief claims)?

I thought it didn't matter to you whether you changed my mind. I don't care about whether I change your mind, but I still enjoy a discussion anyways.

Why is the last ditch response of evangelists one of threats of condemnation(ie hell, damnation, etc)? You seem to be a moderately nice person, but its unclear to me whether love is truly greater than fear in your mind. Which one is your outward behavior of niceness motivated by?

I actually like the fundamental message of Christianity once the dogma is pared away. Its just your gospel of damnation doesn't wake faith in me.