Dear Atheists

[Edward John]

---

---

I don't think you've mentioned it yet, but I am curious.

In your cherry picked version of Christianity, what happens to us nonbelievers after we die?

I believe God is Just and Holy and he will give unbelievers everlasting life. If there is a literal Afterlife...

I don't know where you get that idea from, The Bible and the Catholic church teaches that unbelievers go to hell, by default no matter how good they've been because they did not honour God during their lives unless they were innocently ignorant which St Jerome says are rare. Am not being mean, but just being brutally honest of what true Christianity teachs. Forget what Pope Francis said about Atheist going to heaven, either he means the innocently ignorant atheists can go to heaven or his simply wrong. Remember a Pope is only infallible when he declares something in EX CATHEDRA mode-this wasn't ex cathedra and even if it was it would just be him being dishonest and ignoring catholic teaching, yes Popes can sin too! Despite all of this, however, papal infallibility - and Christ's promise - have never failed the Church. Even certain events in the history of the Church that are considered "close calls" for infallibility have still stopped short of breaching this doctrine.

[Simon Moon]

---

---

I don't think you've mentioned it yet, but I am curious.

In your cherry picked version of Christianity, what happens to us nonbelievers after we die?

I believe God is Just and Holy and he will give unbelievers everlasting life. If there is a literal Afterlife...

Great!

So it doesn't matter if I believe in unevidenced, illogical, irrational ancient myths or not, I still get to heaven.

What if I don't want the deal?

Have you even stopped to think about what unending life would actually mean? It would become hell after some finite period of time.

[ParagonLost]

---

---

I believe God is Just and Holy and he will give unbelievers everlasting life. If there is a literal Afterlife...

Great!

So it doesn't matter if I believe in unevidenced, illogical, irrational ancient myths or not, I still get to heaven.

What if I don't want the deal?

Have you even stopped to think about what unending life would actually mean? It would become hell after some finite period of time.

Yeah good point, the idea that you can only go to heaven if you would just only believe a way of thinking, a kind of allegiance, or neurons smashing in the brain a particular way is nonsensical. I take afterlife as a metaphor.

What does that even mean? We use metaphors to understand ideas or subjects we don't fully get. But the metaphor doesn't make a place like heaven exist? The actual implication is that our human minds can imagine a place  like it even contrary to the evidence of a realm like that existing.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't think it's fair to compare vampire or unicorns with God. For example there aren't many people who say they experience unicorns or fairies.

Not anymore, but fairy belief used to be a majority belief.

[ParagonLost]

---

---

I believe God is Just and Holy and he will give unbelievers everlasting life. If there is a literal Afterlife...

I don't know where you get that idea from, The Bible and the Catholic church teaches that unbelievers go to hell, by default no matter how good they've been because they did not honour God during their lives unless they were innocently ignorant which St Jerome says are rare. Am not being mean, but just being brutally honest of what true Christianity teachs. Forget what Pope Francis said about Atheist going to heaven, either he means the innocently ignorant atheists can go to heaven or his simply wrong. Remember a Pope is only infallible when he declares something in EX CATHEDRA mode-this wasn't ex cathedra and even if it was it would just be him being dishonest and ignoring catholic teaching, yes Popes can sin too! Despite all of this, however, papal infallibility - and Christ's promise - have never failed the Church. Even certain events in the history of the Church that are considered "close calls" for infallibility have still stopped short of breaching this doctrine.

When the Bible may what seems like; imply unbelievers will be in hell, is not my reading of the text. Mark 16:15 and 16:16- The context is in preaching the gospel to the whole world but if they do not hear it or do not understand it they are not condemned. But if they do understand it clearly and reject it they are condemned. Now what Hell is to me is to live in sins without Jesus in  the present body but its an extension. It unfolds into the next life. Atheists are not living in their sins no more than Christians, they are ordinary good folks who are extremely moral.

Jesus excused his executioners in Luke and told the Father to forgive because they do not understand what they are doing. Hell is for Satan, not ordinary good and loving atheists who want to live normal lives. There is also the natural law and our God given nature on what is right and wrong. Everyone has this and since Atheists love their neighbor and full fill the law they are not condemned.

We have the path given to us by the Lord Jesus Christ and it is the straight path. We are promised to be in heaven with him forever and we have instant access to him in this life.

[Minimalist]

I think it's completely fair to compare any god to unicorns or vampires.

Equally fair comparisons are Santa Claus, Mother Goose, flying carpets, winged-horses, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.  All....just like your fucking god...are creations of the human imagination.

[Simon Moon]

I don't think it's fair to compare vampire or unicorns with God.

Sure it is fair.

They all fall into the set of beings who's existence is unsupported by evidence.

For example there aren't many people who say they experience unicorns or fairies.

How would we go about figuring out if people that claim to have experiences with a god, are actually having an experience with a god?

How would you go about discerning the difference of a misinterpreted natural brain state or a god?

[ParagonLost]

I don't think it's fair to compare vampire or unicorns with God. For example there aren't many people who say they experience unicorns or fairies. It's a non word it has no substance in reality. But with God the experience can be knowledge granting, and in fact confirm his existence. Mysticism is a perceptual thing; a participation with divine realities. In the plural because it can be more than one reality. It is filled with phenomenological content and it's directed towards an object. In my case Jesus. Or Christian symbols and language. Phenomenology refers to a person's perception of "meaning" as opposed to the event as it exists outside of his mind. Lets take for example you're a outsider looking in. It's impossible to do, I don't even know how you do something like that but imagine your on the inside then you can be creative and interpret your framework as to what "feels" right or tactility. It must be said that feeling isn't just a emotion I'm talking about but feeling embraced or held.

I think it's completely fair to compare any god to unicorns or vampires. Both are mythical creatures that we have absolutely no evidence for the existence of. As I said before, the fact that a large group of people believe in something or used to believe in something does not give that something any more or less validity. Historically, VAST amounts of the population have been mistaken about many things, often for long periods of time, until the TRUTH was discovered. As of now, we have no scientific evidence for the existence of god, so as far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing.

Who says the experience of god is knowledge granting? You? How do you know this? How do you KNOW that whatever you're experiencing is god? Here's a hint: you don't. Just because you experience something and FEEL/INTERPRET that experience as god does not make it so. How is this so hard for theists to understand? Your personal experience with the world around you doesn't define the world it only defines YOUR experience with the world.

There are theistic and non theistic mystical experiences. Numinous Theistic Mystical Experiences are dualistic in nature and there's a division between characters, You and God 2 separate objects in the experience. Non Theistic can be a experience of filling one with the universe or nature. Sometimes Theistic intimacy can help you declare "I am God".

Do you think you could explain your experience you had on LSD in words. I would imagine it would be hard. I understand that you may believe my experience of the resurrection is not vernacular but self deceived delusions. In my opinion It means three things. 1. Jesus is a divine reality based off experience
2. Jesus is Lord the object of my reality. 3. Jesus was raised from the dead. Spiritual Resurrection.

So what is your point? Some people have mystical experiences. So?

And no, not EVERY aspect of experiences I've had with hallucinogens can be explained in words, what does that prove? Once again I'm not claiming that hallucinations I've had are anything more than what they are: hallucinations.

If your only proof for god is a 'personal vision' of jesus' supposed resurrection, I would advise you to get some psychological help.

Thanks for your post. I think we need to understand the difference between a haullucination and something im calling authentic religious experiences. Shamans would often use entheogens or ayahausca for their religious rituals and this would add a visiual propellant as well as auditory hearing. There are mystical and ecstatic forebearance and what your asking is if they could be considered hallucinations. It's important to note that all I'm talking about takes place within the brain and is not external but biological.

William James defines Mystical Experiences as "real" experiences. But you know what i mean by real? That is real subjective experiences. The left hemisphere of the brain interprets language, and reading, as well as writing as well as things that are rational. The right hemisphere is used for meditiation or sleeping and imagination. I think Fmri scans show that the right hemisphere is also responsible for mystical experiences or fairy tales. William james concludes that our mystical states are like our rational state having both truth and deception in it's qualities. It could also develop illness.

Deikman's essays do suggest that there are people who experience religious fervor but do not practice meditation. This experience can be without drugs but they can also be taken with some kind of drugs. But the important point is that yes mysticall experiences can be frightening and cause harm but they can also be filled with significance and purpose. Kind of like a good or bad drug trip. There are experiences that can go hyper or farther than just emotion and you can feel ego loss.

Sandra Stahlman writes

"Although necessary to be able to discriminate, filter, analyze, describe - to engage the environment actively, it is equally important to be able to be receptive to information we would "normally" disregard. In the receptive mode we are able to see the greater picture, to reconcile difference, to be creative. There is an idea in our culture that the rational mind is preferred, even to the point of exclusivity, over the intuitive/non-rational mind. Deikman points out that our brain was designed to have both complimentary modes, and he believes that when both work together the results are a more healthy being."

[Angrboda]

The next reason is a ideational quality or conceptive. It's a feeling but it's so much more beyond. It turns the experience into a state of knowledge, a kind of comprehension. It does this because your mystical experience is receiving revelation, presage, but whats strange is this experience has a hold of you it has authority. Power and control. But mystical states have impermanence. They don't last long, this is why i believe the Lord Jesus Christ appears to the disciples but the next instant he disappears!

(emphasis mine)

We are used to treating certain phenomenological aspects of experience as veridical without qualification. The feeling of certainty is one of these aspects. It is possible to "feel" that you are receiving revelation from an empty experience that is devoid of any real, true information. I have had a psychotic illness most of my life, and one of the truths I was convinced of before getting on medication was that I needed to kill myself to return to my original plane of existence. Though this belief had the feeling of knowledge, that was just an emotional signal gone wrong. Experiences can "seem" to be revelatory without actually yielding anything. This is a trap we fall into when we automatically assume the truthfulness of such experiences which carry with them the feel of authority. That feel is just an emotional signal and it can be wrong.

[ParagonLost]

I don't think it's fair to compare vampire or unicorns with God.

Sure it is fair.

They all fall into the set of beings who's existence is unsupported by evidence.

For example there aren't many people who say they experience unicorns or fairies.

How would we go about figuring out if people that claim to have experiences with a god, are actually having an experience with a god?

How would you go about discerning the difference of a misinterpreted natural brain state or a god?

I think they are brain states Simon, but all you have to do is read various religious traditions and understand what they are saying. I mentioned knowledge because of it's pragmatic benefits. In turn you receive empathy, compassion, happiness. Again the model can be theistic or non.

---

The next reason is a ideational quality or conceptive. It's a feeling but it's so much more beyond. It turns the experience into a state of knowledge, a kind of comprehension. It does this because your mystical experience is receiving revelation, presage, but whats strange is this experience has a hold of you it has authority. Power and control. But mystical states have impermanence. They don't last long, this is why i believe the Lord Jesus Christ appears to the disciples but the next instant he disappears!

(emphasis mine)

We are used to treating certain phenomenological aspects of experience as veridical without qualification.  The feeling of certainty is one of these aspects.  It is possible to "feel" that you are receiving revelation from an empty experience that is devoid of any real, true information.  I have had a psychotic illness most of my life, and one of the truths I was convinced of before getting on medication was that I needed to kill myself to return to my original plane of existence.  Though this belief had the feeling of knowledge, that was just an emotional signal gone wrong.  Experiences can "seem" to be revelatory without actually yielding anything.  This is a trap we fall into when we automatically assume the truthfulness of such experiences which carry with them the feel of authority.  That feel is just an emotional signal and it can be wrong.

Hi Jormunganr, I think if the body is mentally unprepared or sick mystical experiences wont make much sense. They might be a disaster. But I'm not referring to psychosis or an impaired relationship with reality and all its symptoms. The problem is that hallucinations are interwined with mystical experiences and personality disorders that they are judged now with so much scrutiny.