what is religious experience?

Originally posted by Cris
This is a debate forum not a Christian church pulpit.

Where is it stated that this is a debate forum, as far as i can see it is a discussion forum which can be used to debate, please correct me if i am wrong.
The name of this thread is called "what is religous experience," is there anything wrong in relaying a particular religous experience to shed light on what it actually is?

The bible is a great source of information and certainly contains some wisdom. Using that in a religious debate is essential to many of the discussions here.

Earlier you stated,

I have suggested that the bible is based on and is entirely mythical in every significant detail. And there is no reason to believe anything else.

Please make up your mind. :rolleyes:

Neither should this place be used as an excuse to give Christian testimony, which is what Mark is doing.

It may be a testimony, but it is well within the context of the subject matter as it is a "religous experience," be it christian or otherwise.

Neither is proselytizing welcome here.

How could he be proselytizing when the name of the thread specifically asks "what is religous experience", how would you prefer one to explain such an experience?

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Jan,

This is a debate forum not a Christian church pulpit.

Where is it stated that this is a debate forum, as far as i can see it is a discussion forum which can be used to debate, please correct me if i am wrong.
Yes good point, but I think you are splitting hairs somewhat. Would you agree though that we wouldn’t want this to become a Church pulpit?

The name of this thread is called "what is religous experience," is there anything wrong in relaying a particular religous experience to shed light on what it actually is?
I agree. But that isn’t Mark’s intent. He wants to show his personal experiences as a way to demonstrate his beliefs in the power of God. The topic title is then stretched to fit his agenda.

The bible is a great source of information and certainly contains some wisdom. Using that in a religious debate is essential to many of the discussions here.

Earlier you stated,

I have suggested that the bible is based on and is entirely mythical in every significant detail. And there is no reason to believe anything else.

Please make up your mind.
Greek mythology, for example, contains some superb wisdoms and are often quoted as such. A fictional illustration can easily be used to demonstrate wisdom. There is no contradiction in my statements.

Neither should this place be used as an excuse to give Christian testimony, which is what Mark is doing.

It may be a testimony, but it is well within the context of the subject matter as it is a "religous experience," be it christian or otherwise.
I won’t strongly disagree. But Mark has many such stories. I wanted to avoid the topic being used as a personal publication depository rather than exploring the nature of religious experience. But topics do go of course here, and that is often not so bad. But also as Mark himself pointed out, his last story was long and had more detail than we really needed. His emphasis is on sharing HIS experiences rather than exploring the nature of religious experience.

Note that the topic is ‘What is religious experience’, not ‘What are your religious experiences’, so in this context, testimonies like Mark’s are technically outside the topic scope.

Neither is proselytizing welcome here.

How could he be proselytizing when the name of the thread specifically asks "what is religous experience", how would you prefer one to explain such an experience?
Hmm, well I hadn’t intended that to be linked to Mark, it was meant as a standalone statement as a reminder. But realistically that is what Mark is trying to do. The tactic of giving testimonies is a tried and trusted Christian mechanism used in proselytizing.

Of course if someone started a thread called ‘What are your religious experiences’ then this little discussion we are having becomes somewhat irrelevant, so I don’t see much point in taking this any further. If I was really nasty I’d edit and censor such posts, and I haven’t done that yet or ever intend to.

My intention is to encourage real debate and discourage preaching and proselytizing. And I believe my comments to both Mark and TheVisitor are consistent with that goal.

Love

Cris
 
Originally posted by Cris
... it was meant as a standalone statement as a reminder.
...If I was really nasty I’d edit and censor such posts, and I haven’t done that yet or ever intend to.
My intention is to encourage real debate and discourage preaching and proselytizing.
Don't you thoink all this is a bit condescending, Cris? like I was mentioning before?
 
Originally posted by Cris
...but I don’t think I have denied the existence of such experiences, all I have done is questioned the cause of such experiences. If they have supernatural causes then such claims need some real support since a psychotic delusion seems vastly more credible.
Cris,
I am glad we agree on several points. Let me point out these:
1) Religious Experiences do exist (though the actual reason for them needs to be investigated)
2) Human knowledge at the moment is limited and not comprehensive.
3) We do not know the major portion of how human brain functions today.
4) Scientific FACTS keep changing with accumulation of scientific evidence. Lack of scientific evidence at a point of time does not rule out the possibility of a fact.

Based partly on these, can we conclude that any of us is only in a position to put forth opinions, and if we state something as absolute, we are only being dogmatic?
We may not realize some things we experience everyday- like all the people before Newton who did not realize gravity but experienced it. But there were always wise people at all points of time who thought what they percieved was the absolute, and that all other schools of thought were primitive.

And unless you are super-human, you would not know everything in the universe with certainty, yet essentially you wouldn't accept anything supernatural- meaning your knowledge cannot be complete. So Cris, by your own argument of science, can you rule out that souls might exist on a planet in a galaxy that is beyond those that the humans couldn't touch yet?- let me know this in the first place.

Secondly, if you think that people who had religious experiences essentially had delusions, isn't it merely your perception, based on your logical analysis- which itself is based on your knowledge base? And isn't your knowledge base itself limited? Unless you think your base is the best of all humans.
Did you ever have the superhuman capability to enter such a person's mind and analyze the supposed delusion? Anyway, you wouldn't go beyond anything human!

Second, religious experience can rarely be expressed in language- and that is my experience.
Sure just like most emotions. Can you accurately describe fear, or depression, or hate? A claimed religious experience appears no more than just another self-induced emotion. Our inability to accurately describe emotions has little bearing on whether any of them are supernatural or not.

True, emotions cannot be explained. But there are many things which we cannot explain due to our inability as human beings and not because they are emotions (like taste of tea vs coffee). That again shows that you cannot be certain.

I have seen a lot of gullible and emotional people think they have had such experiences only to admit afterwards significant doubt and then disbelief.

Just like many more who stood by the religious experience?

P.S.: I somehow seriously suspect you are deeply religious- though it isn't any of your logic again :) .
 
Ulti,

Don't you thoink all this is a bit condescending, Cris? like I was mentioning before?
I hope not. And I don't really see why you would imply that.

In my role as moderator I'm trying not to interfere with the forum content although I feel I need to be slightly proactive to avoid future problems.

My comments I have made here are the result of a long PM discussion between myself and Mark, and an official complaint about TheVisitor.

But I welcome your perspective.
 
I apologise if my conclusion was based on partial information. However, i expect a reply for the second post.
 
I know this is my first post and I need to gain credibility before you people hold my ideas in high regard.

From what i have read in this religion forum I have to commend Cris in his thoughts, he is extremely intelligent and so far from what i have read I side with him on all the issues. It boggles my mind to hear others debating against- no name dropping at the moment, first of all the opposing debaters do not understand Chris' responses and yet they decide to argue anyway. I find this to be the result of complete ignorance and honestly a lack of intelligence.

This post was my attempt to reveal my general religious base before posting a response to any particular question or statement

Keep it up Chris
 
Ulti,

I apologise if my conclusion was based on partial information. However, i expect a reply for the second post.
No problem. And yup a reply coming up shortly.
 
Moose,

Welcome to sciforums, and many thanks for your comments.

Enjoy the fun.
 
Cris,

Yes good point, but I think you are splitting hairs somewhat.

Not really, there is distinction between discussion and debate, and to make out a person is debating when in fact they are discussing, can give the false impression that the person is stupid.

Would you agree though that we wouldn’t want this to become a Church pulpit?

Yes.

Note that the topic is ‘What is religious experience’, not ‘What are your religious experiences’, so in this context, testimonies like Mark’s are technically outside the topic scope.

I would disagree, by expressing one’s own experience, one can add to the question at hand, it not be direct, but it is related.

The tactic of giving testimonies is a tried and trusted Christian mechanism used in proselytizing.

Surely this is only an opinion.
What can be said of your own inputs, although it is not proselytizing, but is a mechanism used to turn people away from God and religion, for example;

“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.”

Yes, I agree, it is astonishing how such apparently intelligent and insightful people can abandon their reason when seduced by the idiocy of religion.”

To believe a fantasy as true is foolish.”

It is little wonder that some of the atheist posters, feel they can get away with some disgusting and disrespectful posts and replies.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
This sight

I think Chris thinks he owns this sight.

Thank you all (who have emailed me with such fantastic encouragements) God is GOOD nomatter what people who do not know Him say.
 
But seriously mark, wouldnt it be great if you had the ability to prove or at least supply a good arguement that God is good. Just merely saying something does not make it legit.

Seperate the ought from is and find the truth, it might not be appealing but who ever said it has to be.

Im sorry but i find it extremely irritating that people make such extradordinary claims then fail to back them up with rational arguements and then have the nerve to call the skeptical irrational or ignorant for not accepting something so grandiose.

If i were to tell someone that i have a billion dollar bill in my wallet I would expect one to be very skeptical, since this is an extradordinary claim, if I wanted one to believe in what I claimed then i know the proper action would be to show the bill to the person, or at least provide some logical reasoning why I have in my person a bill of such huge worth.

If you cant provide any proof or logic to your owning of such a rare object then expect people to not believe these grandiose claims, and when you actually look in your wallet expect to not be able to find a billion dollar bill because since you cannot prove anything about this bill being in your possession, chances are you never had it......... and that it never in fact existed:mad:
 
Last edited:
Ulti,

Religious Experiences do exist (though the actual reason for them needs to be investigated)
Not quite. Unexplained experiences exist. You cannot claim them as religious until the investigation is completed, they might have a natural cause.

Human knowledge at the moment is limited and not comprehensive.
Not quite. Existing knowledge is complete, by definition, and therefore not limited. What you really mean is that there is a great deal that we do not know.

We do not know the major portion of how human brain functions today.
I’m not quite sure how best to quantify such knowledge. In one sense we know everything since from countless studies of brain injuries we know pretty much which area of the brain accounts for what bodily functions. We also know a great deal about neural networks. What we don’t know tends to reflect our inability to model and study the vast complexity of so many neurons interacting in parallel. I think it would be more precise to say that there are some key functions that we do not understand.

Scientific FACTS keep changing with accumulation of scientific evidence. Lack of scientific evidence at a point of time does not rule out the possibility of a fact.
A fact is a fact, why qualify it? You imply that all facts keep changing, that is not an accurate observation. What you really mean is that sometimes established theories evolve and are modified as new information becomes available. Most things do not change; there would be utter chaos otherwise.

But you are correct to observe that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, stating that something might be possible given time is not necessarily true. Some things will always be impossible no matter how much time passes. For example, discovering a vehicle that can travel north and south at the same time is nonsense.

Based partly on these, can we conclude that any of us is only in a position to put forth opinions, and if we state something as absolute, we are only being dogmatic?
Almost. However, I would claim that a logical paradox will always be a paradox.

We may not realize some things we experience everyday- like all the people before Newton who did not realize gravity but experienced it.
I’m not sure that you are being very clear here. Isn’t this just giving a label to an agreed experience?

But there were always wise people at all points of time who thought what they percieved was the absolute, and that all other schools of thought were primitive.
We could argue here that if they were truly wise then they would not have made those assumptions. However, I would agree that in the past some such people would have existed. However, this cannot be said of all wise people since if no one ever questioned the status quo then human progress would have been impossible.

It is this state of skepticism that fuels modern scientific research, and why we are making such dramatic progress recently because more people have adopted the scientific method for the discovery of new knowledge.

And unless you are super-human, you would not know everything in the universe with certainty,
I agree that until I become superhuman I can’t know everything with certainty. However, could we also agree that there will be some things that we can know with certainty, e.g. we exist?

yet essentially you wouldn't accept anything supernatural- meaning your knowledge cannot be complete.
That doesn’t really make sense and it looks like a non sequitur. You are assuming that the concept of the supernatural could be translated into something real. That assumption is invalid. Using your reasoning you are saying that even if I am super-human and hence would know everything that if I do not accept the supernatural then my knowledge would still be incomplete. Presumably if I know everything then I would know if the supernatural existed or not.

The problem with not knowing everything is that you cannot say anything meaningful about anything that can’t be shown to exist and whether such a thing might be found to exist when we know more. Until you can show that something supernatural is possible and exists then you still only have a fantasy. But there are an infinite number of things that could be imagined, but only a finite number of things that map to reality. The mathematical probability of a specific imagined object being real is zero. I.e.1/infinity.

So Cris, by your own argument of science, can you rule out that souls might exist on a planet in a galaxy that is beyond those that the humans couldn't touch yet?- let me know this in the first place.
The question has no meaning. It is unanswerable. As I pointed out earlier no one has yet given a precise definition of what is meant by ‘soul’. Neither is there an equivalent definition for the supernatural.

How can I give a meaningful answer to “can something undefined exist or not”?

Secondly, if you think that people who had religious experiences essentially had delusions, isn't it merely your perception, based on your logical analysis- which itself is based on your knowledge base?
Merely? Perception? These seem unnecessary emotive qualifiers. But based on current knowledge? Yes. Like most of science my assertion is based on a strong inductive conclusion. I.e. zero evidence for the supernatural and substantial evidence for psychotic delusions. In terms of statistical probability, there is no reasonable alternative.

And isn't your knowledge base itself limited? Unless you think your base is the best of all humans.
I agree that my knowledge base does not include all the things that we do not know.

Did you ever have the superhuman capability to enter such a person's mind and analyze the supposed delusion?
I assume you can’t either. The only conclusion we can reach must be based on what we can deduce or induce from what we do know. I.e. the person is delusional.

Anyway, you wouldn't go beyond anything human!
I don’t know what you intended by this.


But there are many things which we cannot explain due to our inability as human beings and not because they are emotions (like taste of tea vs coffee).
But these are all physical attributes that we can attack through science until we can compare the experiences of different humans. The only obstacle is time but answers seem inevitable. You cannot say the same about the concept of the supernatural, which exhibits no known identifiable properties.

That again shows that you cannot be certain.
Certain about what? Remember you haven’t defined the supernatural or souls yet. So I can be quite certain that something undefined does not exist.


I have seen a lot of gullible and emotional people think they have had such experiences only to admit afterwards significant doubt and then disbelief.

Just like many more who stood by the religious experience?
Can you quantify that claim? And can you be sure they would not change their views outside of the enforcement of an indoctrinational institutional support network.

P.S.: I somehow seriously suspect you are deeply religious- though it isn't any of your logic again.
LOL. So you admit you illogically suspect I am religious. But you can safely dismiss your suspicions; I am in no way religious.

Quick Summary.

What you’ve been trying to say is that I can’t be sure that souls do not exist, for a whole variety of precarious reasons.

While not so long ago I might have agreed with that I now find that I no longer have any hesitation to state with certainty that souls do not exist, and for a wide variety of reasons and observations.
 
What is religious experience?


That is the question on this forum.


Sharing first-hand religious experiences have a legitimate place on this forum.


If a person has never had a first hand religious experience, how much authority would they have about religious experiences?


I have posted four on this sight:
One on page 5 (a dead man coming back alive)
One on page 6 (instantly getting healed of Malaria)
One on page 8
One on page 13

This is not about Proselytizing/Converting people (as Chris has accused me of). For myself, it has been about giving first-hand accounts of true religious experiences. People are entirely FREE to draw their own conclusions. The word "Proselytizing" carries the implication of manipulating or forcing people to believe. To read stories of "first hand experiences" only allows people to make more educated decisions. If these stories are true, they carry information, authority, and shed light, in respect to the forum question.

*** Let it be known that the atheists I have dialogued with on this sight, using private messages and emails, (including Chris) have been JUST AS ADAMANT (or even MORE) in Proselytizing me into their belief system, of not believing there is such thing as a "religious experience."
 
Last edited:
Markm,

If these stories are true, they carry authority, and shed light, in respect to the forum question.
And that is the crux of the issue. If they are true.

What can you offer that would convince a skeptical audience that these claims are the result of a divine interraction rather than a more credible self-imposed delusion.

IOW is religious experience real or imaginary?
 
quote:
And that is the crux of the issue. If they are true.
What can you offer that would convince a skeptical audience that these claims are the result of a divine interaction rather than a more credible self-imposed delusion.


[Reply]
My offer would be simple: sincerely humble yourself, and sincerely ask God who God is, and then sincerely give Him the respect to communicate back to you with the same level of sincerity and respect you give Him; and let Him do this however and whenever He may want to.
If people do end up connecting with God through this type of prayer method, then they will know (have convincing evidence of their own) that religious experiences (like the ones I have posted) can and do happen.

These stories are not for the excessively skeptical; those who are not willing to work hard at searching. They are not for people who refuse to move into action.
These stories are for those who may read the postings on this sight, and are willing to make EVERY EFFORT to search out the truth of this issue.
 
cris

This is a debate forum and is not intended as a place for you to publish your apocryphal anecdotes, or to preach.

The topic was an opportunity to explore what is meant by religious experience not an excuse to publish claimed experiences.


Please refrain from such activities


{{{{{{{{{{{ }}}}}}}}}}}}}


Post a statement discoraging the discusion of God on a forum about religion again -TO ANYONE- and I'll go above your head to have you permanently barred from posting on this site period.

That is an abuse of the privilage given to you as a moderator.

TheVisitor
 
TheVisitor,

Post a statement discoraging the discusion of God on a forum about religion again -TO ANYONE- and I'll go above your head to have you permanently barred from posting on this site period.

That is an abuse of the privilage given to you as a moderator.
LOL. Don’t be silly, you don’t have enough credibility here to wield any such power. Had I deleted, edited, or otherwise censored such posts then you might have a case. In the past we have had posters who get carried away with their desire to preach their religion rather than debate in a more objective manner. They have been banned.

Mark has already posted a number of his stories and that seems more than adequate to illustrate the point. One would have been enough. What I observed was not that he wanted to discuss the issue but to show his pride in all his claimed religious experiences. If you notice carefully his tactic is to encourage others to join his religion so they can have similar experiences –

…sincerely humble yourself, and sincerely ask God who God is, and then sincerely give Him the respect to communicate back to you with the same level of sincerity and respect you give Him; and let Him do this however and whenever He may want to.

If people do end up connecting with God through this type of prayer method, then they will know (have convincing evidence of their own) that religious experiences (like the ones I have posted) can and do happen.
This is blatant proselytizing.

But please don’t threaten me; you don’t need to do that. A polite criticism of my request would have been quite adequate. In other forums here the moderators regularly delete and edit posts that go off topic, and we are currently considering being more strict. Apart from a few extreme posts that contained excessive profanities I have not edited or deleted any posts here due to religious content.

The borderline between preaching and discussing/debating religious issues can become very blurred. It is my discretion as moderator to make the call one way or the other. I’ll review such decisions if I meet resistance, and I’ll back off if the line is not clear cut, as I will do here and give you the benefit of any doubt.
 
Mark,

These stories are not for the excessively skeptical; those who are not willing to work hard at searching. They are not for people who refuse to move into action.
These stories are for those who may read the postings on this sight, and are willing to make EVERY EFFORT to search out the truth of this issue.
So what you are saying is that you have no way to independently prove that your claims have any truth, but to obtain proof people must join your religion.

That is proselytizing.

What is excessively skeptical? The best scientists are those who are extremely skeptical. These people work extremely hard at searching for real truth and are very prepared to move into action.

What you really mean is that only the gullible and naïve need consider your proposals, and that YOUR way is the only method for determining truth.

I think you still need to show independent evidence that a claimed religious experience is qualitatively different to a delusion.
 
Cris,

I appreciate your effort to be fair on this mater.
I overreacted a bit........it was late.

I have enjoyed.....some......of our discussions, you make a good "opponent".
I have used writing responces to yours' and others' posts as a form of practice to help me study by having to write out the responces.

It's been very helpful, and though we disagreed...I still got something out of it.
But I will attempt to be cautious not to "proselyzite", the bible says not to do it anyway, thats what helped create the organizations which I believe are in the wrong.

I read the "letter" from one of the posters and, out of all the arguement and debating over various beliefs and interpretations of doctrine, this "letter" struck me as having the sound of a real experiance.
I believe we ought to be able to share experiances to some degree without going overboard of course, and I appreciate your attempt to find a balance on the issue.

TheVisitor
 
Back
Top