Out of body religious experiences

[TomOfSweden]

Tom, just a quick question, how is saying I don't know giving crediblity to anything?

At least it's honest, which none of the other theories are. They are if you will a leap of faith. A leap of faith right out into the dark. It's deeply deluded and very very sad.

This is the main problem that atheist have, they are sure that there is no god, so they close their minds to the possiblity. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is no proof on either side of the debate, and refuse to make up their minds without proof.

You'll probably be able to find an atheist who can identify with that description if you look hard enough. I've never met one. Most, if not all atheists I've spoken to have based their choice of faith on available evidence. Super-naturalists don't have any. It's at best hearsay and "experiences" completely impossible for anybody or anything else to verify. I think most atheists simply reject that kind of evidence. They want something more tangible to take the "leap".

The only reason why I don't identify with agnostics is because it in common usage takes away any platform to attack the deists. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. The problem of the term is that it imagines a world where theism is on one side, atheism is on the other and agnostics are on both sides. As if the theists have a point worth taking into consideration. I reject that model of the world completely. I deny that we even know which side we're on. I think it's a stupid debate because we have so little information. It's like going to a small village in Congo and drawing conclusions about all Africans...In the tenth dimension. Why?!? What could we possibly think we can figure out? We're still on the fact finding stage still. We don't have enough information to even start working out anything.

Do you have an open mind about gravity? Do you worry about flying off into space one day? Do you worry about molecular cohesion seizing so that you sink into the pavement one day? Off-course not. Because you believe in science.

For some reason you've kept an open mind about this one little tiny detail of science because you want to cling to an ancient scientific theory of the nature of the world. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But be honest about it! Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

[Flaming_Redhead]

Be honest about the fact that you have no idea if it's true or not. This is what you think is right. Fine. You'd like to go to heaven....but you have no idea! It's like going to the races and betting on a horse. If it wins, great. If it loses....well...that's.....great to. The important thing is that you understand that it's betting on a horse. It's just that with the scientific knowledge we have today, your odds really really really suck. If you tell people that you know god exists. It makes you a liar. If you don't understand it, it makes you an idiot.

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

Tom, you know what happens when you assume....ass...u...me. *smiles* I go to church occasionally. I don't hold with religion on principal because I think all are missing some key element, like Jesus, or adding something they shouldn't, like legalism. That's another debate. I don't reject other religions because they all contain, as you pointed out, the same basic commandments as Christianity. Just because they have a different name for God than I do doesn't mean that's not his name.

Right about what? I don't know what Satanists say, but if they prefer to bet on a horse that's already lost....I suppose that's their perogative.

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Red"]I have no idea if it's true or not. Happy? If I'd rather believe that I was created out of love by a divine being rather than the theory that I am descended from apes, that's my perogative. I understand perfectly that I'm betting on a horse. However, I'd rather take my chances betting for than against.

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

[Rhabbi]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think.

And exactly where did you get that statistic? I can cite numerous scientists who believe in God, either as Christians or Muslims. and I am sure thaere a few who are Hindus also, not to mention the other religions.

I believe that if suicide bombers aren't sure whether they'll get the 72 virgins or not might have helped keeping the New York skyline as it was.

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

[TomOfSweden]

Would it have Tom? If they actually believed that, why didn't they believe the rest of what the Koran teaches? They did not crash those jets into the WTC because of a belief in an afterlife, they did it because they oppose the freedoms we have in the United States. Yet they spent a few months here enjoying the benifits of those freedoms, which they could not get where they were from.

It was not religon that cause 9/11, it was economics and suppression. They resented what we have, and tried to take it away from us. The saddest part is that they have succedded to an extent. We are a country now that is willing to exchange freedom for a sense of security. Makes me want to move to out, but there is no where else to go.

erm...That's a theory. Considering that Osama Bin Laden held a speech where he addressed just this and denied it. I think it's safe to say that it was an erroneous conclusion of the Bush administration and they where wrong to voice the theory.

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

But that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not the suicide bombers thought that the sacrifice was worth it. I would assume that sacrificing yourself for anything becomes a lot less attractive if there's no after-life.

[Rhabbi]

According to Osama they attacked USA because they wanted USA and the CIA to stop meddling in the middle-east. This is what he said. It wasn't because they hated US freedom. Osama said that if they hated freedom they would have attacked Sweden. Which to me makes sense. When it comes to laws USA has a lot less freedom than we do. So much for that theory. Why would Al-Qaeda have a problem with US freedom? I don't get it? Have you given this any thought at all?

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

[TomOfSweden]

Why would they attack Sweden? If they attacked Sweden would they have gotten the public support in the middle east that they did? Of course not. And it is our freedoms that allows us to "interfere" in the Middle East.

On that question, exactly what interference is he talking about? The time we went into the Saudi Arabia at the invitation of his family? And then stayed there at the continued request to monitor the satus of Saddam Hussein? And defend them against the threat that he posed?

I suggest you read up on US foreign policy history. I don't think that what Al Qaeda is in any way justified, but I have no problems understanding their motivations. Muslims have no problem with the American way of life, wealth or their freedom. Why should they? It makes no sense.

There's a radio show on the BBC that you can download called "Death to America". It deals with all this. Whether or not US intervention in international politics has been good or bad I think we need another thread for, but the fact that they have intervened is undeniable. People always get pissed off when others intervene. Just human nature.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ve/6588603.stm

[Flaming_Redhead]

The prerogative here is whether you want to lie to yourself of go with 99,999% of all scientists think. Since I'm not a scientist I'll go with the majority of what they think. I don't have the required education to make my own scientific theory. I have a degree in logic, but that doesn't really help me in the evolutionary science debate. I strongly believe that knowing when to shut up and listen when one is out of ones depth is a virtue.

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

[TomOfSweden]

How do you know I'm lying to myself? You sound like one of those commercials...4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentyne sugarless gum....lol Scientists are not infallible. They're constantly changing their theories. They tell us something is bad for us and that we should avoid it. A few years later, they tell us that is isn't as bad as they first thought, and, in fact, there really was no danger. How foolish did everyone feel who had believed the earth is flat only to discover that it's round? I think people are drawn to religion because in a changing world their Bible, Koran, etc., remains the same.

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

[Flaming_Redhead]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

[TomOfSweden]

People want something to believe in, and they don't want that something to be constantly changing. People like going to church and singing the same old hymns because it's familiar. It's a type of sanctuary from their hectic lives. They want God to be the same no matter what else is going on.

*smiles* The pope? Is he somebody special?

*wanders off muttering something about the whore of Babylon*

This is two separate issues. One is that we want ever constant traditions and recognisable social patterns. I agree here. The other is just wishful thinking. We all know that the world is rarely the way we want it. Assuming it is because of lack of evidence either way is....children's logic.

[Guest 91108]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates? ...

I think the fact that scientific theories change is what makes them so shakey to start with. there is no fact in a theory. if it changes then the known "facts" were false and at best not complete. that "shakiness" is the same thing you get when someone spews out words with out having never given those words any thought.. and noone understands them .. it's not communication because they grunted....
science is just as fallible as faith.
In time .. they all can be shaken.

[Sir_G]

WHAT?!?!? The fact that scientists change their theories all the time should add to their credibility, not retract from it. The fact that the world in the religious texts doesn't change, doesn't that indicate that they aren't open to new information and updates?

Off-course scientists aren't infallible. anybody claiming they are should be avoided like the plauge, (like the pope for instance hint hint)

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Here's a brief definition of religion:

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors.

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[4] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions. (Tom I note you have a Degree in Logic. Could it be that your primary world view is based on logic ie. it's your religion? And therefore you struggle with the idea of Faith etc. I know you are a Star Trek fan. Even the Vulcan's grudgingly accept that humans whilst highly illogical do have something going for them with their passions, beliefs, and emotions.)

There is no difference in believing that science has the answers than believing in, as you put it, some supernatural force. Scientists are just as fanatical as the next person. I've seen them turning blue in the face over a THEORY. A proven theory - no, just a theory. Einstein's theory of relativity is still that, a theory. We accept it as fact though today because string theory hasn't got enough disciples yet. No doubt the person who can give the most convincing argument there will become the new scientific messiah of this millenium. Religious texts may not change but they way they are interpreted certainly does.

(My Scientific God has just been shattered I just read that Einsteins theory of relativity is obsolete.) A lot of what science comes up with these days are THEORIES but we blindly say "OK I'll go along with that..." because they are scientists. Yet I can come up with a theory and be laughed out of my own house. What's the difference. Do numbers, degrees, and fellowships make them anymore or less credible than Saint Maria Francis Qui Gon Kenobi?

I think the bottom line is that we live in a changing world. Both science and religious beliefs will change and evolve whether we like it or not. One of my favourite quotes comes from the Matrix where Morpheus is on the mat before Commander Loch over his religious beliefs:

Loch: Dammit Morpheus not everyone believes what you do!

Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

[TomOfSweden]

This is an interesting point you raise Tom, however, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone advocating science as their basis for life, and what they believe in I'd be a very rich man. They claim science is the answer to all the worlds problems. Some are very dogmatic, others almost fanatical about their belief in the science "GOD".

Einstein was proved wrong a long time ago. Actually, he tried to work around the problems of his theories even before he'd published them.

I don't equate being religious with believing in anything supernatural at all. To me it's just a common set of rituals and values. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's very healthy. People who believe in the "super-natural" I call "super-naturalists".

[tessa]

My goodness I'm talking around in circles I think I just disappeared up my own bum. It's ok though the string theory is hanging out I'll just pull on that and I'll be right.

Mung beans mortals!

G

I appreciated all of your post, Sir G, but this part- priceless.

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You seriously asked and I seriously answered. Then you replied with...

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

Due to the phrasing, I'm not sure I correctly comprehend what you are asking here, so I will refrain from answering this question from you. However, I do know that I wouldn't include in my reply the comparison of anything with "bullshit", as I'm pretty sure it would be going against Forum rules to do so.

Originally by TomOfSweden
If we're to have a theological discussion, we need something to work with, don't we? Something we know is true.

What is true? How do we know it's true? Because it's been proven in a scientific manner? Anything can be "proven" scientifically given the right (wrong?) conditions. Because we see it with our own two eyes? Seeing is most definitively not believing. Ask the eye-witnesses to a crime what the bad guy was wearing and you'll get as many different answers as there are colors in the rainbow. Because our faith allows us to believe in it? Well, that's not one you particularly care to ponder, so I move on. Because it's what we perceive as true? Self-peception of what's true is as close as we mortals will get to it, in my opinion.

Or perhaps what's "true" is spoken as such because someone with too many letters after their name calls it a "proven theory"- what an oxymoron. Again, in my opinion.

Speaking of those type morons (will she, won't she?...will she, won't she?), here's another one for you from Tennyson's Idylls of the King:

"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."

It's a thought.

[tessa]

Here's a serious question. I've made an assumption of people who go to Church. I've made an assumption that they reject other religions. I've made an assumption that Christians deny that the Satanists may be right. Is that the case?

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not. But I will say this. I've witnessed for myself pure, unaffected evil. It's real and it's among us. I'm a Christian and while I won't say whether some Satanist is right or wrong, I know that evil is. But I also know that good is, too.

Yin and yang- the unity of opposites.

And I'm with Red (again). While the Pope may be a nice guy and all, I don't happen to ascribe to the notion that he has any more in-road to God than any of us do. No offense to any who believe differently, just as I hope no one wishes to offend me for my differences.

We get to believe as we believe. Sometimes, it's just that simple.

[gagged_Louise]

If Christians deny that Satanists may be right, I'd have to ask which Satanists they've been talking to as there are as many "denominations" of Satanism as they're are in Christianity. Seems as if even the Dark-siders can't figure out what's true and what's not

"Some /other Satanist groups/ are into burning down churches and the like, but that's something I regard as highly unsatanistic activities."

-said by the leader of a Norwegian Satanist cult, interviewed on radio about his beliefs and other Satanists and pseudo-Satanists.

Well spoken, Tessa!

[TomOfSweden]

You can make any assumptions you want about people who go to church. But how about instead, you make a hypothesis about them, and then do the research necessary to prove to yourself whether it's true or not? Leave the assumptions to the lesser folks. You're better than that, Tom. That's my researched-based hypothesis being put to good use, hmm?

I don't know if all people who go to church reject other religions. I'm sure there are some who do, just like I'm sure there are some who don't. I am a "people who go to Church" person and I fall into the latter category- the non-rejecting kind (just saying in case you didn't care to look up a couple lines of text there).

So basically you call yourself belonging to a religion without denying that it could all be bullshit?

I know there's plenty of practising atheist Jews, so it doesn't seem contradictory to me.