what is religious experience?
- Thread starter Q25
- Start date
The term "religious experience" is an innacurate label for certain emotions whose cause the claimant has mistakenly assigned to an alleged external supernatural influence.
The claim of a religious experience is either the result of group frenzy (e.g. religious rallies), or self-induced due to ignorance and/or the inability/laziness to think clearly.
The claim of a religious experience is either the result of group frenzy (e.g. religious rallies), or self-induced due to ignorance and/or the inability/laziness to think clearly.
Bridge,
Yes, I agree, it is astonishing how such apparently intelligent and insightful people can abandon their reason when seduced by the idiocy of religion. I think that makes it easier to understand the ‘ordinary’ person who also seemingly easily succumbs to these insidiously irrational concepts. I think it is the duty of those of us who can think more clearly to offer significant tolerance to those that have been so unfortunately beguiled by religion.
no such thing as a 'religious experience'... its a nice statement to exert some sorta spiritual superiority over non believers because you cannot obviously verify that experience thru any sorta logical means except your stupid word.... let them revel in their religious experiences while i go get high on some guitar riffs... at least i can prove that im havin a fantastic experience...
Cris:
How is Religon idiotic?
How is Religon idiotic?
from one addiction to another... sorry, dont take it personally.. but that's how i see it.. one corrupts the body, the other corrupts the mind...
In general terms and not dealing in absolutes, I notice those who are "born again" Christians or have had another type of religious/spiritual awakening, are often very insightful, intelligent and tolerant individuals. They are often less selfish and more willing to make sacrifices to benefit others around them. They have forsaken things like alcohol and drugs, illicit sex or some other vice in order to get into a "right" relationship with their "maker". They do all these things and then they are despised all the more.
As G.K. Chesterton noted:
As G.K. Chesterton noted:
so ppl are willing to delude themselves for a few extra birthday cakes? it doesnt sound like u really believe what you're sayin.. due to ur smiley... but if you do, then this is quite a weak argument to be part of a religion...
what do you mean by 'born again'? ppl who were previously part of a religion and left it to figure out the truth and came back to square one? im sure it would be better for character development bcuz they questioned what was bein told to them instead of blindly believing in em... they might be great individuals, but i think we are digressing from the topic...
haven't had any theists come here and take a stab at the question... at least it doesn't appear that way... but it wud definitely be interestin to see what they have to say about 'religious experiences'
Mrhero,
Yes and the same goes for the placebo effect. A strong belief that something is good or right is well known to generate positive psychological feedback. Just like religion the placebo has null active ingredients. It doesn’t matter whether the religion contains truth or not to have a positive effect.
Bridge,
Once you have determined and convinced yourself that you have found the answer to life and death then you will indeed experience a perceived epiphany. However, while the effects can be positive it need not have, and in the case of religion, does not have any basis in factual truth. The effects are generated purely by a personal conviction that something is true, whether it is true or not is immaterial.
One must also realize that those who are attracted to religion also tend to be those who are attracted to altruistic ideals. It is not that religion necessarily makes people altruistic but rather that many altruists tend to adopt religion as an excuse to be altruistic.
It is called the power of positive thinking, and has well known characteristics but it has nothing to do with external alleged supernatural forces. Buddhists often exhibit many of the same attributes but they do not claim to be in touch with their maker but rather in touch with themselves.
Once you have determined and convinced yourself that you have found the answer to life and death then you will indeed experience a perceived epiphany. However, while the effects can be positive it need not have, and in the case of religion, does not have any basis in factual truth. The effects are generated purely by a personal conviction that something is true, whether it is true or not is immaterial.
One must also realize that those who are attracted to religion also tend to be those who are attracted to altruistic ideals. It is not that religion necessarily makes people altruistic but rather that many altruists tend to adopt religion as an excuse to be altruistic.
Despised seems to be too strong. I see it more like doing some of the right things but for the wrong reasons. I think I find religious antics humorous rather than objects of contempt.
SVRP,
The underlying root basis of every religion is the need to cheat death. All other aspects of religions are the various fantasies on what rules must be followed in this life to improve the quality of life in the next alleged realm. What set of fantasies are followed is generally not determined by objective analysis but mostly by adopting the beliefs of ones’ parents and/or from the particular culture into which one was born.
The major downside to having many people believe that they have found a solution to mortality is that they then stop searching for methods to really cheat death. It is only in recent decades that life expectancy has dramatically risen and where active research is taking place with the hope of finding a cure for the disease of aging. I strongly suspect that if religion had not been so dominant for so long then science would have been able to make far more progress and by now we might have had a real cure for aging.
I really am not attracted to the idea that the only real objective of humanity is that we all go around being nice to each other and then die off fairly quickly afterwards. That seems quite pointless.
But people don’t have long and happy lives. People die after only a few decades after being born and many elderly people live quite miserable lives as their bodies’ age and decay.
The underlying root basis of every religion is the need to cheat death. All other aspects of religions are the various fantasies on what rules must be followed in this life to improve the quality of life in the next alleged realm. What set of fantasies are followed is generally not determined by objective analysis but mostly by adopting the beliefs of ones’ parents and/or from the particular culture into which one was born.
The major downside to having many people believe that they have found a solution to mortality is that they then stop searching for methods to really cheat death. It is only in recent decades that life expectancy has dramatically risen and where active research is taking place with the hope of finding a cure for the disease of aging. I strongly suspect that if religion had not been so dominant for so long then science would have been able to make far more progress and by now we might have had a real cure for aging.
I really am not attracted to the idea that the only real objective of humanity is that we all go around being nice to each other and then die off fairly quickly afterwards. That seems quite pointless.
Kant we all...
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
I find your comments interesting, yet only insofar as that while you are obviously the "hardcore skeptic", as it were, your statements about (or against) religion seem religious themselves. What I am saying is that your dogmatism in your own "belief" (perhaps in your own intellect) seems far more dogmatic than most religious folk. Have you considered justifying, proving, or attempting to explain any of your positions? Or are they claims of "faith"? As I can see (and perhaps I am only blind), you have developed many conclusions off of questionable premises. Not to say that a religious person's premises are valid, but only to say that you seem to say quite the opposite of what any religious person might say simply for the sake of saying it. Explain for me, the ignorant one, how your claims are "rational"....
(By the way, as for your quote [or maybe it is just a statement of your own] on "freedom": would it then stand to reason that if I did not like blue, and you were wearing a blue shirt, that I could take you to court and have you pay a fine because your blue shirt interfered with my alleged "freedom from blue"?)
I find your comments interesting, yet only insofar as that while you are obviously the "hardcore skeptic", as it were, your statements about (or against) religion seem religious themselves. What I am saying is that your dogmatism in your own "belief" (perhaps in your own intellect) seems far more dogmatic than most religious folk. Have you considered justifying, proving, or attempting to explain any of your positions? Or are they claims of "faith"? As I can see (and perhaps I am only blind), you have developed many conclusions off of questionable premises. Not to say that a religious person's premises are valid, but only to say that you seem to say quite the opposite of what any religious person might say simply for the sake of saying it. Explain for me, the ignorant one, how your claims are "rational"....
(By the way, as for your quote [or maybe it is just a statement of your own] on "freedom": would it then stand to reason that if I did not like blue, and you were wearing a blue shirt, that I could take you to court and have you pay a fine because your blue shirt interfered with my alleged "freedom from blue"?)