What is Your Personal Experience of Your God?

[ippy]

Rose you posted this:

"All too often (at least on the Internet ) being an Athiest seems synonymous with being closed and narrow minded and seeing any deviation of opinion as "irrational ".

What is rational about believing in any unsupported idea?

ippy

It's not the believing, because no one has to believe anything, it's the unwillingness to explore different answers or look into different things.

Nothing wrong with exploring/looking for diferent answers, surely the answers that have some kind of backing, are better than those without or close to zero backing? Couldn't this view be filed under common sense?

ippy

It depends who backs them
The consensus of Rednecks is often mistaken for common sense.

Is that what your Tarot cards are telling you Vladicus, surely your horoscope's more accurate than Tarot cards?

ippy

I don't do Tarot or Horoscopes. You are being deliberately offensive.

What was that one about casting stones? Wasn't it supposed to be, although nobody knows for certain, a chippy of some sort, a redneck, said it.   

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Dear Outrider,

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

Boy! you need a heavy dose of Armstrong, try finding out about your subject before you brand it fairytales and pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

Now come on, Gonners, be grateful to O for wanting to help us little people see the truth...one true wayism seems to be the in thing.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

We've come to that realisation and we'd like to help other people realise that truth. Most of us aren't ideological anti-theist (sorry Vlad) but as a practical anti-religious tactic, the most effective method is to ensure that religions get fewer recruits, and the best way to achieve that is to help people to realise that religions are just fairy tales with pointy hats.

Boy! you need a heavy dose of Armstrong, try finding out about your subject before you brand it fairytales and pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

I have learnt about religion, and it's all fairy tales and pointy hats, regardless of whether there's actually a god behind them on not.

Whether the idea of god constitutes a fairy tale... it's a myth, I strongly suspect, just as the Roman gods and the Norse gods and the Babylonian, Sumerian, Inca, Aztec and who knows how many other mythos' gods were. That might fall into the same class as fairy tales, but it would be uncharitable to classify them all as fairy tales, but formalised religion - that's fairy tale all the way.

O.

[Rhiannon]

Does Armstrong say otherwise? 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon, ( and I think I am also answering Dear Outriders post )

I think I can bypass Armstrong's strong credentials as she is without a doubt the most well informed and unbiased writer on religion of this century.

Her writings on the subject of Mythos and logos, her studies regarding mythos, it goes much deeper than the description of fairytale, in fact if I have understood properly mythos was as valuable a way of thinking as logos ( logical thinking ).

(please remember that this is my way of explaining, I am not a well educated man, handsome and wind swept, just not educated ).

A typical example would be The Book of Job, a terrific myth that not only tells you of a mans trials and tribulations but that this story is timeless, it happens again and again.

And please Outrider I might be thick but even I know we can disregard God and the Devil playing games with Job.

These Myths had a purpose, to take you out of yourself, to teach, to inform, to make you actually think about life and what it was all about.

Oh and in case ippy is lurking, all myths not just Biblical.

Armstrong also states that over time the term myth has been modernised, into what Outrider now classes as a fairytale, but through intensive research of greats such as Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Confucius, she has shown that myth thinking was invaluable.

Logos was 2+2=, Mythos was how we lead our lives, how we treat our fellowman.

Hope the above helps, but maybe there is on the forum someone more scholarly than me who can explain better.

Not fairytales Outrider but there may have been some pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

Dear Rhiannon, ( and I think I am also answering Dear Outriders post )

I think I can bypass Armstrong's strong credentials as she is without a doubt the most well informed and unbiased writer on religion of this century.

Her writings on the subject of Mythos and logos, her studies regarding mythos, it goes much deeper than the description of fairytale, in fact if I have understood properly mythos was as valuable a way of thinking as logos ( logical thinking ).

(please remember that this is my way of explaining, I am not a well educated man, handsome and wind swept, just not educated ).

A typical example would be The Book of Job, a terrific myth that not only tells you of a mans trials and tribulations but that this story is timeless, it happens again and again.

And please Outrider I might be thick but even I know we can disregard God and the Devil playing games with Job.

These Myths had a purpose, to take you out of yourself, to teach, to inform, to make you actually think about life and what it was all about.

Oh and in case ippy is lurking, all myths not just Biblical.

Armstrong also states that over time the term myth has been modernised, into what Outrider now classes as a fairytale, but through intensive research of greats such as Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Confucius, she has shown that myth thinking was invaluable.

Logos was 2+2=, Mythos was how we lead our lives, how we treat our fellowman.

Hope the above helps, but maybe there is on the forum someone more scholarly than me who can explain better.

Not fairytales Outrider but there may have been some pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

The power of myth/parables/fable to convey concepts and allegories is fine, I'm more than happy to accept that idea, and the very real possibility that the Bible was intended in that fashion - that's what I was calling 'myth'.

Religion, though, is the fairy-tale version - the version where Alice really went down the rabbit-hole, the version where Cinderalla's pumpkin changed back at midnight but her glass slipper didn't, the version where Jesus really walked on water... that's fairy tale, that's just Lord of the Rings with less research and (marginally?) more adherents.

I can accept that there are some beneficial ideas in the Bible, as a work, I just don't think it's a history, and religion (as opposed to faith) does. Religion scares me, generally speaking faith doesn't.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Stuck on the miracles, like most atheists on here, Jesus, focus on the man, his message.

To paraphrase Einstein, no myth was a powerful as the life of Jesus ( or words to that effect ).

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon, ( and I think I am also answering Dear Outriders post )

I think I can bypass Armstrong's strong credentials as she is without a doubt the most well informed and unbiased writer on religion of this century.

Her writings on the subject of Mythos and logos, her studies regarding mythos, it goes much deeper than the description of fairytale, in fact if I have understood properly mythos was as valuable a way of thinking as logos ( logical thinking ).

(please remember that this is my way of explaining, I am not a well educated man, handsome and wind swept, just not educated ).

A typical example would be The Book of Job, a terrific myth that not only tells you of a mans trials and tribulations but that this story is timeless, it happens again and again.

And please Outrider I might be thick but even I know we can disregard God and the Devil playing games with Job.

These Myths had a purpose, to take you out of yourself, to teach, to inform, to make you actually think about life and what it was all about.

Oh and in case ippy is lurking, all myths not just Biblical.

Armstrong also states that over time the term myth has been modernised, into what Outrider now classes as a fairytale, but through intensive research of greats such as Socrates, Plato, Buddha, Confucius, she has shown that myth thinking was invaluable.

Logos was 2+2=, Mythos was how we lead our lives, how we treat our fellowman.

Hope the above helps, but maybe there is on the forum someone more scholarly than me who can explain better.

Not fairytales Outrider but there may have been some pointy hats.

Gonnagle.

The power of myth/parables/fable to convey concepts and allegories is fine, I'm more than happy to accept that idea, and the very real possibility that the Bible was intended in that fashion - that's what I was calling 'myth'.

Religion, though, is the fairy-tale version - the version where Alice really went down the rabbit-hole, the version where Cinderalla's pumpkin changed back at midnight but her glass slipper didn't, the version where Jesus really walked on water... that's fairy tale, that's just Lord of the Rings with less research and (marginally?) more adherents.

I can accept that there are some beneficial ideas in the Bible, as a work, I just don't think it's a history, and religion (as opposed to faith) does. Religion scares me, generally speaking faith doesn't.

O.

Fairy tales - the real thing mind, not Disney Princess - belong very firmly with myths and fables. Clarissa Pinkola Estes is an expert on the archetypes found in fairy tales and how they relate to patterns in our lives.

I don't think your idea that you can 'help' people become atheist is much of a runner - for starters it sounds so patronising that I want to chew my own fist off with embarrassment - but I do take your point about religion being frightening. You should be cheered by the emergence of the new spiritualities that adopt a live and let live attitude to life, as well as secular adoption of spiritual practices such as yoga and mindfulness meditation.

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

Stuck on the miracles, like most atheists on here, Jesus, focus on the man, his message.

To paraphrase Einstein, no myth was a powerful as the life of Jesus ( or words to that effect ).

Gonnagle.

That's fine, Gonners, you want the ethics and ideas to stand out, and I hope I've made it clear in the past that I think there's a great deal of creditable ethical output in the New Testament.

However, not all people who claim to be Christian tow that line, not all are prepared to take the messages and leave the myth alone.

It's not that I'm 'hung up on the miracles', particularly, it's just that I have no problem with people claiming there's the basis of some solid morality in their.

O.

[Outrider]

Fairy tales - the real thing mind, not Disney Princess - belong very firmly with myths and fables. Clarissa Pinkola Estes is an expert on the archetypes found in fairy tales and how they relate to patterns in our lives.

I shall add her to my ever-increasing reading list

I don't think your idea that you can 'help' people become atheist is much of a runner - for starters it sounds so patronising that I want to chew my own fist off with embarrassment

In the main I'm not hopeful myself - if people have grown up to believe these sorts of things then their thought patterns have already been shaped to avoid putting importance on evidence anyway. All we can hope is that we're putting the questions out for coming generations to make up their own minds with all the options in front of them.

but I do take your point about religion being frightening. You should be cheered by the emergence of the new spiritualities that adopt a live and let live attitude to life, as well as secular adoption of spiritual practices such as yoga and mindfulness meditation.

And I sound patronising Meditation has its place, I suppose, though I've never really felt the need for it. Just the idea of describing anything as 'spiritual' makes me cringe a little, it's a term that just comes across as meaningless.

Secularism from a social a political standpoint has to be the practical way forward, I think, and that includes allowing people to be 'spiritual' if that's their wont - 'so long as ye harm none...' as the pagans would have it, I believe.

O.
[/quote]

[Rhiannon]

'So long as ye harm none' is Wiccan - but it's the same as my maxim, 'do as you would be done by. I also have a wishful thought that 'what goes around comes around'.

O, you seem to want to help me to stop being a theist, which is patronising; I have no intention of offering to 'help you to be spiritual', but given that it seems likely that a need for some kind of spirituality is hard-wired in many of us a loose, tolerant, personal version is better than an organised religion with its demands for special treatment, dogma and tribalism?

There's a lot of evidence (the real kind) of the benefits of mindfulness meditation for health, both mental and physical. I did a link elsewhere a couple of days ago but if you want to look at the evidence of the benefits of it from a secular point of view you could look at the work of Jon Kabat Zinn, Mark Williams and Danny Penman. Yoga will keep you flexible like nothing else.

[Outrider]

'So long as ye harm none' is Wiccan - but it's the same as my maxim, 'do as you would be done by. I also have a wishful thought that 'what goes around comes around'.

My bad.

O, you seem to want to help me to stop being a theist, which is patronising; I have no intention of offering to 'help you to be spiritual', but given that it seems likely that a need for some kind of spirituality is hard-wired in many of us a loose, tolerant, personal version is better than an organised religion with its demands for special treatment, dogma and tribalism?

I'm not sure I want anyone to stop being a theist, per se, I want the theists to stop being part of formalised religious structures. On a practical basis I don't think theists will simply give up the structures of their religion, but I do think that with information in the public domain they will struggle more and more to recruit newcomers.

I'd suggest that it's something of a step from the evidence for an in-built inclination towards 'spirituality' to the presumption that there is therefore a need for spirituality, as the many, many perfectly happy and healthy people with no real spirituality can attest to.

There's a lot of evidence (the real kind) of the benefits of mindfulness meditation for health, both mental and physical. I did a link elsewhere a couple of days ago but if you want to look at the evidence of the benefits of it from a secular point of view you could look at the work of Jon Kabat Zinn, Mark Williams and Danny Penman.

Rest, relaxation, hobbies, these are all shown to have beneficial mental and physical effects - I wonder if anyone's reviewed whether these 'spiritual' practices have any more effect than those component parts. Which is not intended to devalue them, just to perhaps 'demystify' them.

Yoga will keep you flexible like nothing else.

Well, not like nothing else - fifteen years of Ju Jitsu gave me a stretching routine that's probably as good as anything short of circus shows and Olympic gymnastics

O.
[/quote]

[Rhiannon]

There's nothing mystical about mindfulness. I'm a veteran of intensive CBT and TA and rest, relaxation, self-care and hobbies are indeed part of the prescription for recovery both for physical and mental pain. The difference with mindfulness is that it teaches you to accept things as they are by becoming aware. No chanting, no looking for anything, no woo, just awareness of the breath, the body, our surroundings, movement, others, acceptance.

It's clear we don't all have an in-built need for the numinous, but some of us do, and going for that outside of formal religion strikes me as a good thing.

I don't need anything to be flexible - I'm hypermobile.

[Jack Knave]

If it's not a choice then why are atheists apparently trying to force it on everyone else?

We are not trying to force it on others. We are trying to get you to see FOR YOURSELF that without you knowing it, your ability to reason has been misled by culture and/or religious teaching into reaching a false conclusion.

Leonard, Rose's position is based on her personal experiences. You can't get someone to negate their experiences - only by bullying and peer pressure - because regardless of the validity of the explanation of the perceived events of that experience the judgement-value of what they understood by it can't be removed, just as you can't remove the way you feel, or change to being not you.

[Jack Knave]

No, it's not a con, its just a subjective experience that hurts nobody and that may or may not arise from stuff within our culture (not religion btw, nothing in Rose' story fits with conventional religious dogma). What harm does it do?

More to the point .. what good does it do?

Surely it is better to just accept not knowing than to put your own (or cultural/religious) interpretation on an experience.

The interpretation is what they feel they are being told or revealed about their own lives, about who they are. The true interpretation is NOT some explanation about it being about this religion or that, or this symbolism and some other. The actual figures, or what not, in the event is pretty much neither here nor there.

[Jack Knave]

Ah, thus speaks the master race.

It is entirely possible that somewhere in the future medical science will find a way to reduce the genetic inclination to be credulous.

It would be nice if humans could be immune to believing nonsense. We could still have all our romantic myths, but not be daft enough to believe them true.

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

[Shaker]

You mean kill imagination.

No, not given the universe of difference between "This is imaginary; I know it to be so perfectly well but it is fun, can help creatively and may lead to real and true insights" and "This is true; this is real; this really happened ... despite the utter absence of evidence for it."

Artistic works are born of imagination, but the people who recognise that are those who are the most likely to point out to you that people may very well argue about but don't persecute, torture, maim and kill each other over a preference for Patience Strong over Geoffrey Hill.

There are reasons for that.

[Jack Knave]

You mean kill imagination.

No, not given the universe of difference between "This is imaginary; I know it to be so perfectly well but it is fun, can help creatively and may lead to real and true insights" and "This is true; this is real; this really happened ... despite the utter absence of evidence for it."

Artistic works are born of imagination, but the people who recognise that are those who are the most likely to point out to you that people may very well argue about but don't persecute, torture, maim and kill each other over a preference for Patience Strong over Geoffrey Hill.

There are reasons for that.

I was really referencing Leonard's use of genetic engineering to remove our imagination. He used the word 'credulous' but these are just words and in reality the functions are entwined and if it was possible to remove our credulous side it would affect our other creative functions as well.

[Leonard James]

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

No, I don't mean kill the imagination ... I mean get rid of the inclination to believe imagined things are true, i.e., supernatural gods.

[Rhiannon]

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

No, I don't mean kill the imagination ... I mean get rid of the inclination to believe imagined things are true, i.e., supernatural gods.

Len, don't you see you are saying you know what is good for us with every bit as much certainty in your own rightness as the most fundamentalist Christian who wants us to see the light? There's no difference, no tolerance.

[ippy]

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

No, I don't mean kill the imagination ... I mean get rid of the inclination to believe imagined things are true, i.e., supernatural gods.

Len, don't you see you are saying you know what is good for us with every bit as much certainty in your own rightness as the most fundamentalist Christian who wants us to see the light? There's no difference, no tolerance.

Rhi how would you go about convinvcing people like Len/ippy that these supernatural things really exist and somehow have some sort of interplay with our lives.

Don't forget to keep it simple just in case your answer goes 40 feet over my head, (why 40 feet)?

ippy

[Rhiannon]

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

No, I don't mean kill the imagination ... I mean get rid of the inclination to believe imagined things are true, i.e., supernatural gods.

Len, don't you see you are saying you know what is good for us with every bit as much certainty in your own rightness as the most fundamentalist Christian who wants us to see the light? There's no difference, no tolerance.

Rhi how would you go about convinvcing people like Len/ippy that these supernatural things really exist and somehow have some sort of interplay with our lives.

Don't forget to keep it simple just in case your answer goes 40 feet over my head, (why 40 feet)?

ippy

I have zero interest in convincing you of anything. But I don't expect you, Len or anyone else to tell me what is best for me, not least because there is no evidence that you are correct that it would be in my best interests, or anyone else's, not to have any kind of belief or spiritual practice.

[ippy]

You mean kill imagination. Have fun with that!!!

No, I don't mean kill the imagination ... I mean get rid of the inclination to believe imagined things are true, i.e., supernatural gods.

Len, don't you see you are saying you know what is good for us with every bit as much certainty in your own rightness as the most fundamentalist Christian who wants us to see the light? There's no difference, no tolerance.

Rhi how would you go about convincing people like Len/ippy that these supernatural things really exist and somehow have some sort of interplay with our lives.

Don't forget to keep it simple just in case your answer goes 40 feet over my head, (why 40 feet)?

ippy

I have zero interest in convincing you of anything. But I don't expect you, Len or anyone else to tell me what is best for me, not least because there is no evidence that you are correct that it would be in my best interests, or anyone else's, not to have any kind of belief or spiritual practice.

Proving a negative, well, I don't know about that?

I don't want you to convince me of anything but it might do some good for you; if you asked yourself how you can, or could justify/explain or find a convincing way of substantiating that there is anything in these beliefs you hold.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Ok, here's a positive. Prove being an atheist is better for me and my wellbeing.

As for the rest, you're trying to tell me what is best for me through telling me what to think. Been there, done that, when I had this thing called 'religion'.

[Nearly Sane]

If one is the type of atheist that thinks all beliefs in gods are detrimental to cogent thought, then it is axiomatic that being an atheist is better. It isn't a question of demonstrating it.

Thankfully, for me, I find such veneration of the simple lack of belief to be as ridiculous as wearing white after Labor Day.