How can a person be sure that they have made the right decision about God?

I'm not saying it is the case. I am saying that in terms of the kind of certainty Signal seems to be after, it could be the case, however offensive it may seem. Can we rule things out because they offend our sensibilities?
unbridled "it could be" is a poor tool for the pursuit of certainty

In any case, it is not my belief system, but there are a number of belief systems out there where there is not a single absolute truth, or really the absolute truth is on a meta level and people may experience radically different realities within what seems like a singular one with certain specific rules.
you got an example
I mean would you categorize this as possessing a radical meta level (assuming that not everyone shares his aspirations) or is it more than capable of being relegated to minor subcategory of reality?
 
unbridled "it could be" is a poor tool for the pursuit of certainty
I think probing certain notions of certainty and how one achieves it are useful. I am not sure that coming at ideas from outside or above is as useful as it seems. Hence my 'it could be'. I'll keep my bridle off, thank you.

Will it turn out that your sense of what makes for a poor tool is relevent only certain tiny contexts?

How does Signal evaluate this?

EDIT: there is a way in which what I suggested could be aligned with your concern here. Getting those who come from a more Eastern perspective (you - I hope that is a fair, vague description) to see themselves from the perspective of Christians and vice versa - to bring two certainties head to head, that is....does not

1) even begin to cover the bases, even if, miraculously a common certainty developed between the two groups
2) gives no hand hold for Signal's certainty.

It was already 'could it be' at a radical level, since it hid within in certainties about what is minor and what is major,
or if it didn't......

you got an example
I mean would you categorize this as possessing a radical meta level (assuming that not everyone shares his aspirations) or is it more than capable of being relegated to minor subcategory of reality?
Minor and major seem fairly useless concepts given the way certainty is being looked at. If the fundamentalist Christians are right, your position, while seeming to have much support, is really rather minor, in the end. Your position is a bit more complicated, as far as I can gather, so I cannot simply say the reverse is also true, but some of their ideas are pretty minor, instantly if you are correct. However popular they are.

As far examples many new agers talk about us creating our realities and certain multiverse formulations by physicists either could align with these or point in that direction as possible.
 
Last edited:
When you are awakened to experience god, you'll know it. Experiencing god is a no brainer. Getting there requires honesty and humility. A sincere desire.
*************
M*W: People can be 'awakened' to experience a lot of things. For example, I've recently become 'awakened' to learn Spanish. Why? No reason. I don't have to. It's not for any purpose other than the sheer act of learning it. I took it in college a million years ago, but I was forced to. Now, I'm doing it because I've been 'awakened' to do it. It seemed to be the right thing for me to do. Another example... I've also been 'awakened' to read the classic novels I refused to read in college. No reason. Don't have to. Not that I've never read a classic, but I want to read and appreciate what the authors have put into their works. I'm reading Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence. No particular reason. Nobody is going to test me on it.

That's what I would call a personal 'awakening.' It's not an earth shattering decision, just a personal one.

Having an 'awakening' isn't a 'spiritual' experience, but I believe it is an experience that one consciously thinks of. IOW, there are no supernatural forces in the universe that give one that 'awakening.' It comes out of the conscious mind, and you act on it or you don't. When one is 'awakened' to experience god, it is something they obviously want to do. It's something they've given thought to. It's not supernatural, and it's no accident of the universe. One chooses to experience god from what they were taught as a child. It could be from the fear that was instilled in them about religion. They may feel they better be 'awakened' to god or 'else.'

Experiencing god is a no brainer, if that's what you want to believe. I believe it requries conscious thought no matter what you are 'awakened to'. The ecstacy you may feel in your 'awakening' to god is no different than my 'awakening' to learn Spanish or read a classic novel.
 
Yes. Jesus said "I Am The Way..." Disbelieve Him at your peril.
Of course he said that to specific people and there are many ways of interpreting that. He could have meant the way for them. He could have meant that the spiritual state he was in was something they could mimic -. but we cannot being distant in time. And so on. It is amazing how banal and potentially incorrect interpretations of translations of stories become rules that people kill other people over.
 
lori,

When you are awakened to experience god, you'll know it.
Only if there is independent verification. If that is absent and the thoughts are only in your mind then how will you tell the difference between what you think you know and the more credible explanation that you are deluded?

Experiencing god is a no brainer.
Choosing to believe fantasies are true is the no brainer. And without independent evidence of your god you are unable to show me any difference between your god and pure fantasy.

Getting there requires honesty and humility. A sincere desire.
And above all the ability to use reasoned thinking and to not confuse fantasy with reality.
 
too late for what?

Accept Jesus as one's personal Lord and Savior of course, in the right variation, of course. Convince yourself that it is love to burn in hell for all eternity. And so on.


I could talk about the problems with fideism, objectivism, solipsism, empiricist reductionism, and other fancy philosophical terms, as I have done for a long time. But the problem of God rarely exists in that way. It usually exists in the way it is captured in post no. 27 in this thread. This is where it is at.


I want you to fight. Use your skills for something good. Not with those pale, harmless atheists. Even the worst atheist is nothing in comparison to a bad theist.
You claim to have the more superior position on theistic topics. So I want you to set things straight with people who present God in a way that can make people insane.
Hatred of God can spread because those fire and brimstoners are left unchallenged. It is up to people like you to do something about this.
 
Especially since at every moment of our lives we can see that the highest ontological element is not our will, desire or values.

I mean suppose someone gets cancer, raped, fails their exams or plummets to their death while trying to fly off a 50 story building. Is that simply because they didn't believe strong or enough ... or is it because we are contextualized by greater elements than our individual will?

Exactly. So how does it matter what our individual will is?


unbridled "it could be" is a poor tool for the pursuit of certainty

Sure. But how can one bridle it?

You like to point at values. But there is no guarantee that one's values are the right ones, or that acting in line with one's values will lead one to true happiness.

In fact, many atheists and Christians basically argue that a person's values are completely irrelevant, in the pursuit of anything.

Personally, I feel no safety or reassurance that acting in line with my values will bring me to anything good or right.
 
Last edited:
Can we rule things out because they offend our sensibilities?

Exactly. Which is the position of many atheists and Christians: one's own sensibilities do not matter, whatever they are; but one needs to align oneself with how things really are - that "the concept of God and soul are redundant" or that "it is love that God tortures many of His children in hell for all eternity".
 
EDIT: there is a way in which what I suggested could be aligned with your concern here. Getting those who come from a more Eastern perspective (you - I hope that is a fair, vague description) to see themselves from the perspective of Christians and vice versa - to bring two certainties head to head, that is....does not

1) even begin to cover the bases, even if, miraculously a common certainty developed between the two groups
2) gives no hand hold for Signal's certainty.

It was already 'could it be' at a radical level, since it hid within in certainties about what is minor and what is major,
or if it didn't......

Minor and major seem fairly useless concepts given the way certainty is being looked at. If the fundamentalist Christians are right, your position, while seeming to have much support, is really rather minor, in the end. Your position is a bit more complicated, as far as I can gather, so I cannot simply say the reverse is also true, but some of their ideas are pretty minor, instantly if you are correct. However popular they are.

So how is one supposed to decide between the two?

I am caught in the vaccum between the two philosophies.

If I ask the Christians for advice, I get the standard answers to pray, to "listen to my heart", study the Bible and so on. Which I have already done to the point of being ready to blow my brains out.

If I ask the other side, I also get standard answers in line with their tradition. Much of it I either cannot do, don't understand, my execution of it isn't good enough, or I am hampered in my efforts by Christianity.

Both of them more or less deride me.
Neither seems to be able or willing to relate to my problem.

The one I can turn to the least is God Himself - because in order to approach Him, to formulate a prayer, I would already have to choose one or the other side.
 
So how is one supposed to decide between the two?

I am caught in the vaccum between the two philosophies.

If I ask the Christians for advice, I get the standard answers to pray, to "listen to my heart", study the Bible and so on. Which I have already done to the point of being ready to blow my brains out.

If I ask the other side, I also get standard answers in line with their tradition. Much of it I either cannot do, don't understand, my execution of it isn't good enough, or I am hampered in my efforts by Christianity.

Both of them more or less deride me.
Neither seems to be able or willing to relate to my problem.

The one I can turn to the least is God Himself - because in order to approach Him, to formulate a prayer, I would already have to choose one or the other side.

*sigh*

You are asking the WRONG kind of folk:rolleyes:

Listen to the enlightened not those who only 'believe what they believe' in fundamentally literal terms. He's not an atheist and he actually uses the word 'ontology' correctly in his sentences:p (no offense LG)

http://fora.tv/2010/03/11/Sam_Keen_In_The_Absence_of_God
 
Last edited:
Thank you, Lucy. I have heard dozens of such talks and read such books.
They are nothing to a view like that of Photizo, Lori, Sandy, or Adstar, though.

I find Photizo's etc. views to be absurd, morally repugnant - but I cannot prove that they are wrong. They derive their strentgh from the fact that absurdity is irrefutable.
 
Thank you, Lucy. I have heard dozens of such talks and read such books.
They are nothing to a view like that of Photizo, Lori, Sandy, or Adstar, though.

I find Photizo's etc. views to be absurd, morally repugnant - but I cannot prove that they are wrong. They derive their strentgh from the fact that absurdity is irrefutable.

Why do you have to prove anything?:shrug:

I mean why do you have to find evidence for or against?

The reason why I can listen to a man like Keen is because I am struck by his intelligence and joy, he's an example of someone who says 'yes' to life as it is and finds the religious in it. This is something that brings you back to yourself which is where you will find the experience. Why show evidence to those who are deaf, dumb and blind? Its a waste of your precious time and you will not learn anything more from them than what you would from simple observation of how they rock and roll in a conversation about the beliefs of others. They are rigid.
 
Why do you have to prove anything?

I mean why do you have to find evidence for or against?

Because I am afraid that I will burn in hell for all eternity if I don't do otherwise.


The reason why I can listen to a man like Keen is because I am struck by his intelligence and joy, he's an example of someone who says 'yes' to life as it is and finds the religious in it. This is something that brings you back to yourself which is where you will find the experience. Why show evidence to those who are deaf, dumb and blind? Its a waste of your precious time and you will not learn anything more from them than what you would from simple observation of how they rock and roll in a conversation about the beliefs of others. They are rigid.

I don't know how or where you get this self-assurance from, but I don't have it.
I think it would be nice to be so sure of myself, to be able to say, without a trace of fear or guilt "I am this, I am not that".


Why did all the world's problems have to come together in my mind, in me.
 
Signal: Because I am afraid that I will burn in hell for all eternity if I don't do otherwise.

Are you serious? Were you, like Sam Keen raised in a traditional christian home?

Signal: I don't know how or where you get this self-assurance from, but I don't have it.
I think it would be nice to be so sure of myself, to be able to say, without a trace of fear or guilt "I am this, I am not that".

Well with some things you can say that 'I am this, I am not that'. Self-assurance is a little bit like courage, its not a state you are in at every moment of your life. Rather I would say that you allow doubt to exist, you don't have to be sure of anything in order to take action, the fear of making mistakes only leads to paralysis and eventually neurosis. What wonder or awe could you possibly find in life, what mystery is there to discover if you package up your thoughts into a neat bind where no doubt exists? Intelligence stagnates within such neat binds, so does creativity. The assurance you would find in a already digested pre-fabricated belief system is only there to absolve you of responsibility. Its attractive because it offers freedom from fear. Your doubt leaves you feeling fearful and fragile but instead of simply accepting that fear and the feeling of being lost which is part and parcel of the human experience (and should be embraced) you are seeking to bypass the very things that would connect you to the human experience (fear, doubt, pain, suffering, desire, joy, discovery, excitement, love etc). No one, not even myself, lives without a trace of fear or guilt. But there is a way to reconcile one to these and there is freedom in that.

Signal: Why did all the world's problems have to come together in my mind, in me.

Well don't you think that is being a little self-absorbed? A little narcissistic? Who the hell do you think you are that 'all' the worlds problems are there for you to consider? Its a part of living not a burden placed on your shoulders. The world will NEVER, nor should it ever, be without problems and still be considered essentially 'life' or 'alive'. That world would be a dead world. This world without problems is a world without wonder, grace and all the things you would like to experience, ones solutions is dependent on ones problems, the joy we feel is countered by suffering, embrace them both. Can you imagine the boredom there would be in a world without obstacles and tragedy? Its an infantile notion to think that life or the world should be without problems, chaos, order, solutions, suffering, pain and terror, joy, passion, mistakes, failure etc. I mean what would lead you to 'rising to the occasion', testing your mettle, struggling for solutions, overcoming and yet experiencing loss? What would lead you to wisdom? Not to mention the triumph, glory and momentary relief and elation one experiences as they find their way out of some struggle and survive scars and all. To seek ways of escaping terror is simply not accepting life, yourself, others and the world as it is on its own terms. Those who couch themselves in an air tight belief system are simply toddlers in the game of life.

I like to think of them like newborns. Newborns are incredibly restless and uncomfortable if they are not wrapped tightly. Their arms and legs fling about and there is no security for them. All you have to do to settle them down is wrap them tightly in a blanket and they calm right down.

Like I said, 'newborns';)

Signal skepticism is a sign of intelligence as you will always challenge your own beliefs and ideas you find in the world. To not be able to live and act in the face of terror and doubt will only lead to neurosis. You can only live by embracing it all.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can acknowledge that 'something' that I don't understand created the Universe. The conditions before the Big Bang are inscrutable to me, and it could have been 'caused' by something (or nothing). I don't know.

However, I believe that natural reasons explain the entire observable universe, and that everything works without any Divine Intervention
 
Back
Top