How to Authentically Experience God

[athoughtfulman]

So what does the muslim experience? Is it your god, another form of your god, or another god?

Muslims experience a minor god.

You seem to have a belief in god that isn't mainstream christianity. Muslims experience a minor god? But it's actually god? Whatever happened to jesus being the one true god; all others being idols?

Christianity and islam are by definition, mutually exclusive.

Even though they are both Abrahamic.

What are you saying? That because they're both abrahamic, they are not mutually exclusive? There mutually exclusive in that they worship different gods. To a muslim, a christian is an infidel; to a christian, a muslim is going to hell.

Christians follow the way of jesus, but muslims see jesus only as a prophet. They follow mohammed and allah. Both can't be true. It is either none or one. So why is yours right? What makes your 'personal experience' of god any more certain than a muslims?

Both are opposite, but the basic idea is the same. It's all just religion after all. & this is monotheistic religion, is what I meant.

You're not answering the question. The basic idea may be the same but again, they are mutually exclusive. What evidence there is to support a god applies to both religions. Now, don't avoid the question - what makes your personal experience of god any more certain than a muslims?

Or is christianity simply 'more real' to you? In that case, you're delusional.

throwaway comment > dustbin

Again, you are avoiding my questions. The least you could do is answer them with something. It was a valid comment for I have spoken and heard hundreds of christians say something along the lines of "it just seems more real to me".

You've stepped away from reason and fact. You say you have faith, yet faith is just an admission that there is no evidence. If there is evidence of something, faith is impossible; its nonsensical.

Show me your logic, because to me it appears that you are bypassing your brain to come up with that.

So: faith, something we have to have if we have no proof, is something we have to have proof of? Are you really tagging your name to that?

Oh, c'mon. Faith is an admission that there is no evidence. Think about it. When there is evidence of something, we believe in it, simple. When there is no evidence of something, we use faith to believe in it. Currently christians all around the world including you keep making the claim that we don't need evidence to believe in god, yet if ever a shred of evidence of god is found, every single one of them would jump on it.

You're complicating it. Faith is present when there is a lack of evidence. Simple as that.

There is empirical evidence of the sun, hence we know the sun's there. No one says that they have faith the sun is there, or that we revolve around it, or that it wont rise in the morning.

So you don't NEED faith in the Sun, it's empirically provable.

You DO NEED faith in God, because he ISN'T EMPIRICALLY PROVABLE.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

The last stupid argument the religious have is 'faith'. If we were to argue with faith as satisfactory evidence, absolutely anything could be proven real.

You're the one that wants to argue with faith = fact. IT ISN'T.

What isn't? Faith doesn't = fact? Obviously. Which is my whole point about faith. Since it is not based on fact, why utilise it at all?

Go see my undefeated <oops, joke#2> thread on evidence where I explain the futility of that search.

Again another joke, highlighting that you aren't answering my questions.

Thanks for the insight, although I don't see your logic. I didn't mean that one actually, as far as I'm concerned, the IDEA (because that's all it is) is still undefeated.

Undefeated? Says whom? I suppose you do. But I hardly think anyone else would agree with you. And when I was reading it, you are doing the same thing you are doing here, avoiding questions with light jokes and misdirection.

The futility of the search for evidence of god? Sure. It means his not real. There is a futility in the search for the easter bunny, santa claus, unicorns, and so on. Why is the search for your god any less futile?

I don't know, you're the one doing the searching, you tell me!?!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You know what I'm asking, but you're unable to provide a satisfactory answer so you misconstrue the question.

I'll rephrase myself: Since you think you've found god, can you please explain why your revelation of him is more valid than a child's belief in the easter bunny?

Acting on base human instinct isn't anti evolution. Denying our human nature is surely?

I'm not talking about human nature, I'm talking about maturity. People seek religion because it brings up feelings of protection and loss of ego that they felt as a young child. How is this productive? It's more like a bad habit. Just because we feel more comfortable doing something (IE religion), does not mean it's good for us.

I know what you said, no need to repeat yourself. See my answer.

Once again, your answer does not answer my question. Human nature is a very vague word. So unless you can define it, denying our 'human nature' could mean anything. What exactly is our human nature? And what exactly are our bad habits, our addictions, our temptations, etc? Are they simply part of our human nature too?

As I said, I'm talking about maturity. Why is it productive to return to the processes we used as small children? Isn't this just taking a step backwards, when we should be going forwards?

Human nature? If you're a christian, you must believe in some sort of original sin, you know, the reason jesus came to save you. If we're sinners, then why would our human nature be a good thing to follow? Our nature is sinful, and destructive, according to the bible. Denying the human nature is what many christians advocate, thinking that this makes them more holy.

So if original sin exists in adam, why is human nature a good thing to follow. Answer me that.

Nice play on words. Back to the subject..

Once again, avoiding the question. It is the subject. You believe the bible, so you believe in some concept of sin and that we need jesus to save us. If sin is present, why is it a good idea to use our 'human nature' to justify anything? Wouldn't that just be more sin?

Atheism is destructive (which can also be good to eek out truth). Religion is constructive.

This is where most people misunderstand atheism, as you have just done.

You've got it mixed up - atheism is not destructive; religion is. Take a look at the last 2000 years and all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion. Many times when science made a discovery, the church would hush it up, discredit, burn the person or the papers, and ultimately try to get ride of it. Why? Because the person's discovery had negative implications in the authenticity of their religion. Religion has tried to deny any science that discredits their religion. Religion has been at the forefront of keep humanity in the dark ages (ironically, it was the church who ruled during that time).

You were a Christian yet you don't understand what Christianity is. Christianity is an aim, and not a destination. Whatever people do, they do as people. To aim to be like Jesus is not to do bad stuff, but the opposite. People are scared, hungry for power, greedy, Christ-likeness is the opposite of this.

Of course I understand what christianity is. But that is irrelevant. Religion maybe be constructive when idealised, but the vast majority of our history shows otherwise. For all practical purposes, christianity is destructive. It might have done a good thing here and there, but compared with the rest of its history, the idealised version falls down.

To aim to be like jesus is to want to be good. Christlikeness is becoming like christ, in love, peace, and spirit. I understand that. But the example religion provides us is far removed from that definition.

Atheism is constructive because it is evidence based. It is not a belief in anything, it is simply non-belief. An atheist can do many evil things, but he doesn't do any of them in the name of atheism. Atheism has no dogma; no set of beliefs. It is simply belief in observable, tangible reality.

Atheism's only goal is the destruction of religion. SCIENCE is constructive, but that has nothing really to do with atheism. You apply one rule to Atheism it appears but change the rules to apply to Christianity/ religion. Can you see that?

Atheism has no goals. It is the absence of belief. If atheism destroys religion, it will do it by science, not by belief. It has no agenda, it is simply the desire to follow the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads us to believe that god cannot and is not real, then that is where we must go.

It seems you, like many christians don't understand atheism.

Would you say it was right or wrong to wan't to follow the example of Christ as opposed to not? Our society mirrors Christian values so you'd think most westerners would welcome the ideology. In my mind (no comments please ) our present zeitgeist seems to suggest that those values suggest an evolutionary goal.

Again, I repeat my question from my last post: Is there anything atheism can't do that religion can?

Christianity has love which is all powerful and trumps atheisms hate every time. See Aesops Fable of the man with the sun and the wind.

Now that is a big claim. A love that trumps atheists every time you say?

One example is during the Renaissance the Inquisition burned free thinkers alive. Can you mention ONE MOMENT when atheists have burned anyone alive for their beliefs? Just one tiny moment? And christianity did a lot of it. It was not a one off.

Or would you like to avoid the evil and look at the good? As stated earlier, atheists run charities just the same as christians.

Or a modern example. Homosexuals are, for the most part, rejected by the church, however they are free to do as they wish among atheists since we have no code about proper sexual conduct. I am aware that there are churches for homosexuals, but these are scattered far and wide.

Why keep religion if atheism can do it just as well, if not better? The example of christ is a good ideal to aspire to, but do you know that buddhism and jainism had well developed systems of morality similar to jesus' message, except that they thought of it hundreds of years before jesus! Jesus isn't the only one with a nice, pretty message.

Like I said, and you trashed, I see similarities between faiths. Atheism is a pathetic sham in comparison, yet it has merit in stripping away the crap, which is why I appreciate talking with atheists/ agnostics.

Similarities between faiths? So what? That just means they're similar. It has absolutely no bearing on whether they are real or not. A pathetic sham? You're not talking about the suppose lack of moral in atheists are you?

Again, let's avoid being idealistic about this. For all practical purposes, atheism is far more capable of being moral than christians or religious people are. There is no agenda, no people who are downright evil, no special rule that we cannot break, hence we are better equipped to help society. However the example that religion provides for us over the last 2000 years has demonstrated that it is clearly incapable of taking society forward.

Skip the idealistic idea that christianity is about love and becoming like jesus. It might be, but it's expression in society is far from desired.

Our society mirrors christian values? As well as vilifying homosexuals, slowing science, discouraging birth control, etc. You might want to know too, that the christian states in the US have a higher crime rate than the other states. So what is christianity actually meant to do again? Oh that's right - make people better people.

See above.

Again avoiding the question. Think about it. If the christian states have a higher crime rate than the other states, does that mean they are not really christians after all? To you who is very idealistic about his religion, open your eyes and take a look around. Christianity is not doing what you claim.

Seems like it's doing more harm than good.

Sure, you can list all the good things done in the name of religion. Take charities for example, they help, feed, protect people all around the world. But why does a charity need religion? Many charities are refused access to certain countries because of their religious worldview. Charities could be more effective if they were atheistic, hence save more people.

Then there's all the bad that's been done in the name of religion which would probably send this site offline if I posted it.

Oh and, I'd avoid the jokes. They're not making you look any more intelligent.

In some countries atheism would land you in the same hot water. The statement doesn't hold water.

See above again.

Apologies for trying to make light of this conversation. You are obviously a very serious young man. Sometimes it's nice to keep some sensible hold on your feelings.

Whether that statement holds water is irrelevant. You've just shown that atheism is just as well equipped to deal with the problems in our world.

You avoided my questions at least 5 times, answering with misdirection and misconstruing what the point was. You have shown yourself incapable of providing satisfactory answers to almost any of my questions; you seem to skip through and choose the ones you want to answer. Anything that has an easy answer, you'll provide your opinion, but anything that poses difficulties for you and your belief, you skip.

Please don't try to belittle me because I'm young. I'm always up for a good argument, but you seem to avoid one. I would expect you to know more about these things than me, but all the evidence here is to the contrary.