A Personal God vs. an Imaginary Friend

[bryant69]

This was from the post on Dawkins and Evolution - Finder asked the following. "I am curious as to what you and others mean by a "personal God"...

How is it different than having an imaginary friend? If you do not consider this personal deity imaginary, what makes it real? Does it talk to you?"

Let me note at the outset that this is somewhat akin to going up to an atheist and asking him or her "So what - you atheists believe life is meaningless?" Neither polite nor completely accurate. But let's answer it anyway.

How is it different than having an imaginary friend? Well, an Imaginary Friends reality is contained entirely within my own head. There's nothing of it outside of my head. God, on the other hand, has an existence independent of mine. He's out there somewhere.

What makes God real? The experience of the divine. Which I acknowledge that Atheists have not felt and do not believe exists. All I can say is that I've felt the touch of the divine and if I were to say I hadn't I'd be a liar.

Does God talk to me? I've prayed and felt like I got an answer to my prayer - felt like one of the paths life presented me was the right way. I guess that counts as God talking to me. But if you are asking if I've ever seen him or heard his voice directly - no.

Bryant

[immoderate]

1. Sounds like you're talking about your feelings.

--IMM

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Thank you for this post

I've had mystical experiences for many, many years, and know two things: they were real-too many secondary sources backing me up-and that not all people have them.

[BurtWorm]

19. The fact that not all people have them would give me pause.

Not all people say they've been abducted and operated upon by aliens, for example.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. Not everyone thinks up scientific breakthroughs, either

So by your reasoning, Newton, Edison, and Einstein's ideas would have given you pause had you been alive when they first made their discoveries/theories known.

One flaw in your "alien abduction" argument-if you look back on my post, you will see that my experiences were verified by others being there and witnessing what happened. I don't believe those who claim to be abducted would have these sort of witnesses.

But I don't, by any stetch of the imagination, think that you should agree with me on this or even believe it--your thinking and world viewpoint is very different than mine, and just as I could not live in the world you create, you could not live in mine.:)

[Finder]

65. The scientists you cite had evidence we can confirm with math..

and observation. As far as your experiences..how were those experiences witnessed?

[greyl]

89. We're all living in the same world.

Am I alone in seeing that the statement "just as I could not live in the world you create, you could not live in mine" is a woefully inadequate approach to successfully living with others in the community of life?
Doesn't that mantra nudge into arrogant, selfish, escapist territory?

Isn't it a just way to deny the possibility that some enlightenment may occur by considering the response of others to the previous statements?

[Ezlivin]

3. If my imaginary friend tells me to murder someone, I need counseling

But if god tells you to murder someone, it's god's will.

That's the rub.

It's not that Christians believe in a god or that they even can communicate with that god; it's what that god "commands" them to do in "his name" from time to time that worries the hell out of the rest of us.

The Old Testament is chock-full of instances where God has his followers commit horrendous crimes in his name. He even convinced Abraham to kill his own son (god relented at the last moment, luckily).

[bluesbassman]

88. And if God "tells" you to murder someone - it ain't God.

As for your biblical history lesson, please cite your examples of God commanding His followers to commit horrendous crimes. It would be helpful if you made sure to include the context in which these "crimes" were committed.

In regard to your Abraham/Isaac reference, I suggest you reread the passage. Isaac was Abraham's hope for the future. He was the manifestation of God's promise. God's test for Abraham was not to see if he would blindly kill his son, but rather if Abraham truly had faith in God's promise of a future generation beginning through Abraham. In other words, was Abraham's faith in the gift (Issac) or in God's word.

[greyl]

90. It's not your God, it's the God of the one hearing God's voice.

It's not your God, it's the God of the one hearing God's voice.

Just as real.

[Ezlivin]

96. Ask and ye shall receive

Numbers 3:10 - "The stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death."
Numbers 5:1-4 - "...Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead. Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell."
Numbers 25:17 - "Vex the Midianites, and smite them"
Numbers 33:52 = "Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places."

In just one book we have four nice examples of how God deals with humans and wants them to deal with one another. He wants to put strangers to death, kick lepers and the sick to the curb, kill a race of people (Midianites) and drive out the people from their homeland.

Pretty nice guy, huh?

Did Abraham know anything about the future? No. Did he hear god telling him to kill his son? Yes. Did he obey this command to the point of readying a knife to plunge into Issac's heart? Yes.

If your father asked you to kill your pet (just a pet, now, not your only son), would you consider it? Or would you consider the request so far beyond the pale of reasonable, rational behavior that you would disobey?

What the hell kind of a test is it to see if you are obedient enough to murder someone? Does god desire his followers to be his hit-men?

Please reconsider the loving nature of your chosen god.

PS: I'm not ignorant of what you believe. I'm an ex-minister with a Master's degree, Greek and Hebrew. And if you think you know your bible, read it in the original languages and get back to me.

[bluesbassman]

101. So where are the "horrendous crimes"?

You cited four examples of God's laws, health instructions and sovereignty, yet you failed to provide the context surrounding these examples. Considering your stated position as an ex-minister who holds a Master's degree, your thoughts on how these events and edicts constitute "crimes", considering their context relating to the Israelites sojourn in the wilderness, would be greatly appreciated.

And for the record, yes Abraham did know the future. At least in regard to God's promise;

Genesis 17:19. "But God said,'No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac, and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him".

[Meshuga]

102. The "Old Testament"

The tanakh was written by humans as an attempt to explain their idea of One Supreme Being that they could not describe in human words but if you use the tanakh to actually define God then you are in trouble and wasting your time. I mean this in both cases: 1-when one uses scripture to define God in order to prove the existence of a deity or 2-when one uses scripture to define God in order to deny the existence of a deity.

As far as the tone of the passages you cited from the Bible, you have to take in consideration that the takakh was written in a time when this type of warfare was the norm and at a time when human sacrifice was accepted.

Perhaps the story of Akedaht Yitzhak was to show the point in time when human sacrifice was no longer tolerated. But if you read it literally then you may never reach that conclusion. Sort of like reading the Three Little Pigs and worrying about the fact that pigs and wolves don't talk and that's all you get from the story.

[TRYPHO]

104. The tanach

Mr Wiggles writes:
The tanakh was written by humans...
--
Cough splutter, how very dare you :-)

Mr Wiggles writes:
Sort of like reading the Three Little Pigs and worrying about the fact that pigs and wolves don't talk and that's all you get from the story
--
I like that :-)

Ok, one sensible point from me. When it comes to Judaism, the Torah, Nevi'im and k'tuvim are the written words, but the 50% that was ORAL is where the business end of the deal lies. Without the oral tradition the tenach is useless, in fact meaningless. The oral tradition was written in parts from about -100's in Babylon and Jerusalem (lesser extent) and they are argued by future generations in the Talmud (which the church burned to their everlasting shame by the 10,000's in the middle ages when they realised how important the oral traditions were to the jews).

So, if people wish to quote the OT, that's fine and dandy, but I just wanted you to know (without the effort of starting a new thread) that it means nothing without the reference point of the talmudic clarification.

OK, 1 and only one example. The OT says clearly not to work on the Sabbath. What constitutes work? The sages (clever buggers) determined it related to making something new, creating something, as in what God was taking a rest from. Then they had to define creation to a greater degree, between sabbath and festivals, between within the house and outside, between local and further away, and what delineates local. These people were natural lawyers. And if anyone wants to comment on anything in the OT without looking the legalistic pedantry of the talmudic clarification up then they are just talking out of there ignorant petard.

Now, back to my poker game...

TRYPHO

[twilight_sailing]

4. nothing personal, but...

What is your opinion of those who "experience" alien abduction?

[bryant69]

6. I don't really have an opinion one way or another

It could be happening - but doesn't seem likely. But who knows?

Bryant

[twilight_sailing]

9. OK, buddy.

Over and out.

[bryant69]

10. I gather that was the wrong answer?

Bryant

[twilight_sailing]

11. I don't want to hurt your feelings.

But OK, tell me the difference between your experience and their experience.
Don't dodge the question.

[bryant69]

12. I guess the big difference is that my experience is mine

Let me say something in case i haven't before - I understand that I can't expect you to believe based on my experience.

That would be like you expecting me not to believe based on you not having experienced the divine.

Bryant

[twilight_sailing]

13. You dodged the question.

Really, it's OK. I am not trying to hurt you here.
I am leaving now. See you around. No hard feelings.

[bryant69]

15. That's not a dodge.

It's truthful. I can't comment on the experience of someone who claims he saw flying saucers, or someone who claims to be napoleon (to pick something I almost certainly wouldn't accept). I might have my doubts (I certainly would in the case of Napoleon), but there's no way to know for certain. On the other hand what I experience I can comment on, at least to myself.

Obviously that's not a very satisfying answer if you aren't me. Because you haven't had my experience. You are asked to weigh my experience with a divine being verses a person who claims to have been abducted by Aliens. Hell you might see the abducted guy as slightly more believable.

Your argument would be stronger if we were talking about the veracity of the bible vs accounts of aliena abduction, I think.

Bryant

[eallen]

5. In short, it's NOT distinguishable from an imaginary friend that seems real.

bryant69 writes:

God, on the other hand, has an existence independent of mine. He's out there somewhere. What makes God real? The experience of the divine. Which I acknowledge that Atheists have not felt and do not believe exists. All I can say is that I've felt the touch of the divine and if I were to say I hadn't I'd be a liar.

I fully credit that you have "felt the touch of the divine." The simple fact is that nothing you have said about that experience locates your god "outside your head." The only thing that would do that is experiment that that touch brings verifiable information that you could not possibly otherwise have. No subjective perception will do that. If, for example, that "touch of the divine" communicates to you the last digit for the Dow Jones closing average for the next ten days, then you'll have evidence that it originates from beyond. So far, you have said nothing that indicates that.

[bryant69]

7. Yes - let's close that particular circle

God evidently wants us to live by faith, and so does not make cut and dried, scientifically provable proofs of his existance available to us.

Bryant

[eallen]

16. You can't have it both ways.

Either (1) you have cut and dried proof that your experience has external cause, or (2) it is purely a matter of faith that your imaginary friend is real. Christians often seem to want to have it both ways. When asked why their friend isn't imaginary, they try to dig up proof or explanation. When criticized because that is weak, they move back to claiming faith.

Choose one.

[bryant69]

18. I can see how it would look like having it both ways

from your point of view. I am claiming that I know there's more to God than an imaginary friend, because I have experience his reality - but I can't take that reality, that experience and give it to you.

There's no real way to finesse it, I don't think. Either I have to admit that there's nothing more to my God than Santa Clause or I have to commit myself to proving to you, via some sort of scientifically measurable test, that there is a God. Neither one is particularly platable to me.

I don't believe that the second is actually possible, and certainly I don't want to admit there's no reality to God either.

Bryant

[kiahzero]

8. Correction: nothing to distinguish *to other people*

That's a crucial difference.

[eallen]

17. Nope. He has convinced himself. But that doesn't distinguish the cases.

That's the thing about imaginary friends. They seem real. What distinguishes the cases is when the person who believes in them decides that faith is a childish thing, and starts thinking on evidence.

[jgraz]

14. Really, really believing in something does not make it less imaginary

When I was a little kid I was convinced there was a monster in my closet. To this day, I have strong visual memories of actually seeing the thing creeping around the closet door :scared:. I knew that monster had an existence independent of mine. He was out there somewhere.

As an adult, I know that those feelings were just the silly ramblings of a childish imagination, despite the fact that I have clear memories (I imagine much like your experience of the divine) that provide me with some sort of personal evidence that the monster actually existed.

The only difference is that I did not grow up in a household or society that believed in monsters. We didn't go to church every Sunday and condition ourselves that monsters were a perfectly reasonable thing for us to believe in -- that people who believed in monsters were somehow "special", or that our faith in monsters was a workable, even beautiful, way to view the universe.

I have as much evidence for my monster as you do for your god. And I don't believe that it's impolite to point that out.

[kiahzero]

20. It's threads like this that make me wish there were another section to DU

DU has a policy of no conservatives, not because we can't argue with them, but because we don't want to all the time; we don't want to have to hash out first principles on every topic, only to find out that *gasp* we don't agree and probably will never agree. The same, it seems to me, holds for theists and atheists in general.

I don't think there's a person here that doesn't get that you think we're silly, silly, "childish" people who believe in monsters in our closets. There's nothing that conversation on that topic will accomplish, other than to annoy people on both sides, because our frames of reference are completely different.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Finder]

22. There are many conservative types at DU...

and this is the religion/theology forum for discussion of such.

You use the term "we're"...but didn't you say you were a deist?

[kiahzero]

24. That still puts me in the "not an atheist" category

So I'm still on the receiving end of all of the negativity.

[Finder]

26. Not really...most of us are not adeists.lol

Deists have no theology.

[kiahzero]

29. Well, then maybe the label doesn't apply.

It seems to apply to me, but I could just be using the word wrong. :shrug:

[Finder]

35. Well non-religious encompasses a lot of different views...

atheism, deism, agnosticism, humanism, etc...(Freethinkers)

Most theologies are based on supernatural concepts and/or archetypes that are for the most part positive and comforting.

Personal beliefs are just that--personal. Once someone or a group tries to impose those beliefs on others then it is fair game and open to scrutiny.IMO

In a forum like this(R/T), our beliefs or lack of beliefs are discussed and/or debated...if someone is uncomfortable discussing their personal beliefs then they should avoid it.

[kiahzero]

37. I just get frustrated.

I don't always want to go down to first principles like this. I don't have a problem with this thread, so perhaps I should have been more clear - the problem is that the arguments in this thread seem to appear in most threads.

Maybe I'm just bitter because the Pagan interest forum is a desolate wasteland. :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

40. Why would I want to pick on Pagans?

They're WAY to cool. Reminds me of a very funny experience. I attend a UU fellowship and my kids go to the religious education program. A little girl in my son's class was outside the room crying and having this conversation with her mom:

"I don't want to go to class today."
"Why, honey?"
"I don't want to talk about Islam. I don't like Islam."
"Well, today you are going to talk about pagans."
"OK. I like pagans."

Maybe not funny for you, but for somebody raised VERY conservative catholic, I knew I wasn't in Kansas anymore.

[Finder]

51. Well even pagans are struggling with the influx of wiccans...

who decided to choose the religion because "Charmed" seemed cool.lol

Maybe I will pop over and start a thread on Gardiner.lol

[kiahzero]

58. They're not as bad as those crazy Discordians.

... Wait a tic...

:D

[beam me up scottie]

71. The opinion of an atheist = "all of the negativity"

I fail to understand how expressing disbelief in the supernatural is considered "negativity".

So should we show deference to all mythical creatures or just the religious ones?

[kiahzero]

84. It's not expressing disbelief that I'm talking about

It's statements like: What distinguishes the cases is when the person who believes in them decides that faith is a childish thing.

[Zhade]

91. Well, let's be fair - it really is childish. But not in the insulting way.

This makes obvious sense, because faith is first experienced in childhood - faith in EVERYTHING.

Faith that mommy and daddy love you. Faith that they will protect you. Faith that childhood will never end. Faith in all sorts of imagined things that are in many ways quite beneficial to people.

Like religious faith, childhood faith is not built on evidence, but on hope, on the need to have things turn out as hope intends.

Religious faith is, by definition, not based on evidence. Thus the connection to childhood, and why it is, in fact, childish - which is not to say juvenile, just a carryover from that time of innocence.

[bryant69]

25. They may only be conservative in comparison to you, though

You've made it clear what you think of people who don't share your particular opinions on religious matters.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

21. "an Imaginary Friends reality is contained entirely within my own head"

And a personal god's reality exists where exactly? And just because there are other people that believe in the same personal god as you does not count as "out of your head" reality.

[bryant69]

23. Well in Heaven, of course.

Bryant

[immoderate]

27. Is there any way to differentiate between your strong feelings...

and a delusion, except for the fact that they're yours?

--IMM

[bryant69]

28. None whatsoever.

That i can tell - I mean I know what my opinion is but from outside my head, I suppose I must concede that there's no way for you to distinguish between my faith and the possibility that my brain just doesn't work properly - it's convinced me that there is a God, when there really isn't.

Psy. 1: Excuse me, what are you doing?
Marge: Oh, I was just praying to God that you'll find me sane.
Psy. 1: I see. And this "God", is he in this room right now?
Marge: Oh, yes. He's kind of everywhere.


Bryant

[immoderate]

31. It might give you some comfort to know...

That I'm not challenging your brain function. I think it's normal for people to believe things that are not real. I sometimes hit people with the question, "Do you think that everything you believe is true?" That's a difficult position for a sane person to maintain, particularly when you consider that a totality of a person's beliefs are like a fingerprint, unique to that person. So where does that realization lead?

One possibility is that reality is different for each person. This cannot be totally refuted, but the extension of that is you may as well be a disembodied brain soaking in a vat of nutrients.

If there is a "true" reality, then verification must come from somewhere outside the self. The difficulty there is to have the discipline to reject those notions that lead to contradiction, even though they are based on strong conviction. Especially difficult when there is realization that those strong convictions can be useful.

--IMM

[Finder]

36. Good post, I agree. n/t

[greyl]

85. I don't think anyone believes in the same God.

A quick proof of this is to ask if ones concept of God has never changed in ones life.

In order to believe in something, there must be some concept of it.
If a persons concept of God is based on personal combinations of filtered sensory data, thoughts, and interpretations of symbol, metaphor, & dogma, it's extremely unlikely that two or more people would share a concept.

I'm distinguishing "concepts of God" (which one builds, refers to, and defends intellectually) from the "mystical experience of God" some speak of having and honestly say can't be approached using language, because the difference is important.

Concepts, we believe in. Experiences, we have and interpret.

The allegedly inexplicable personal experience of apprehending divinity some claim to have is essentially identical to countless other physiological experiences, only with the temporary personal benefit of an intellectual interpretation attributing close proximity to, immersion in, or approval of, what one believes is the highest, most noble, most righteous human concept of them all; God.
I must say, that's a pretty big payoff. For oneself. Good for the world? Not so much.

Why is it so difficult for most theists to believe that God doesn't hide in labyrinths of dogma, doesn't play dirty tricks, didn't create humans in a divinely flawed state, doesn't deem that there is one right way for people to live, and is most of all afraid of humans accumulating reliable knowledge of the world that can be shared and understood by others, and that can be utilized to make this world a better place?

When pressed, theists so very frequently admit that their belief is beyond rational scrutiny, that it's just astounding to me that the connection with irrational, dysfunctional, and destructive behavior done in God's supposed favor isn't more frequently seen, let alone admitted.

[Zhade]

30. "God, on the other hand, has an existence independent of mine."

You don't know this.

Oh, you think you know this. You think you feel it. You think you've experienced it.

But...have you really?

What's to say it's not all in your head? Many seriously mentally ill patients have described similar 'experiences' - hell, my grandmother's schizophrenic with religious delusions, and what she 'experiences' is almost sure to be all in her mind, unless there really is a god one can only describe in gibberish.

I believe you when you say you've experienced something. But let's be honest, you know you're not CERTAIN what that something was. You ascribe a god-value to it, but there's always the possibility you're imagining in, since there's no way to scan your brain and determine for sure that it's NOT all in your mind.

(That's why we atheists ask for pesky things like corroborating evidence - we can't read your mind and know what you're experiencing, if indeed you're experiencing anything, and if so what it is.)

[bryant69]

32. No you are right it could all be a delusion

There's no way to prove it to you.

I'm going to go on believing it anyway.

Bryant

[Zhade]

42. I never tried to stop you, or wanted to.

Just don't assert that what you think you experienced in any way proves your belief.

[bryant69]

44. I don't think I did that.

It proves it to me, but I accept that it doesn't prove it to anybody but me.

Bryant

[Zhade]

48. Oh, I know. Just throwing it out there.

NT!

[kiahzero]

33. Are you an epistemological skeptic?

If not, where's the point at which our senses no longer fail us?

Edit: The notion of a god only being able to be described in gibberish, combined with what I presume to be a Hello Cthulu in your sig, brings a smile to my face. :D

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. Abilities and interests are unevenly distributed among the human population

I not only can't run a four-minute mile--I can't even imagine doing it. Never could, not even when I was a runner in my twenties.

I know people who have the kind of musical sense where they can say, "The tenors sang a G# instead of a G, and one of the sopranos is cutting off too soon." I have a pretty good musical sense, but I can't pick individual notes out of a choir piece in progress, and I can't imagine doing so. It's a different kind of mind.

Or take someone with a good math brain who naturally hones in on the numeric and spatial aspects of whatever is going on. I have to force myself to think quantitatively, and it's hard work.

For my part, I find foreign languages so ridiculously easy that I have a hard time understanding how someone could not learn one, yet I know that such people exist, having had a couple of them turning up in my classes every year. For my part, I am in awe of people who can do simultaneous interpretation. I once asked a simultaneous interpreter what goes through her head as she's working, and she said, "Nothing. One language comes in my ear and the other comes out of my mouth." One can be trained in consecutive interpretation (the speaker says something and pauses, the interpreter interprets it, the speaker says something else and pauses...), but simultaneous interpretation appears to be an inborn ability.

Similarly, I think that with spirtiual matters, there are people who "get it" and people who don't. I don't know why this is. I know that it's not entirely nurture, because I know about half a dozen people who were raised in secular homes who found themselves converting to a religion in spite of themselves. On the other hand, I grew up as a preacher's kid, but one of my brothers has not set foot inside a church since a family funeral seven years ago.

Maybe there are some of us who are configured to be more sensitive to the non-material world. :shrug:

[Goblinmonger]

38. That may be the case

but it still seems that religion/faith is different from your examples. We could listen to a tape recording of the choir and discern if one of the tenors was a half-step sharp and if a soprano cut off too soon or if that person is just a pompous blow-hard. We can check if the math person is correct. We can test the translation to see if the interpreter is translating correctly or just speaking jibberish. We don't have that ability with god/religion/faith. The math person can say I just don't get it because what they "get" can be accuratley tested. You can marvel at my inability to "get" foreign languages because your ability at language can be tested. It seems, to me anyway, to be a cop-out to say I just don't "get" god because there is no way to test it and you can't be challenged.

Perhaps I'm being too analytical and should take the stick out of my ass. Wouldn't be the first time I've heard that :)

[kiahzero]

39. I don't think you're being too analytical.

It does seem like you're very much a philosophical materialist, so it makes sense that an ontology that accepts entities or properties that cannot be empirically verified would bother you.

[Goblinmonger]

41. I can live with that label

I wish I can pinpoint when I became that way. I was very religious as a child. Didn't really have a choice I guess, but still believed all the same.

[Silent3]

98. You're being just as analytical as I wish everyone would be.

In all the other examples of special talents and abilities, as you've pointed out, it's not at all difficult for many of the people who are not so gifted to see evidence that those talents and abilities produce real and verifiable results.

Apart from a few small but statistically measurable benefits that believers in general seem to gain (stress reduction, longevity, positive outlook), none of which are supportive of the actual truth of the (often disparate and contradictory) things which are believed, and all of which can be gained in other non-believing ways (such as having a supportive social structure with like-minded people), just what is it that believers accomplish, that I can't accomplish, that I should be impressed by?

I'm afraid for now, lacking any good reason to think otherwise, I'll continue to think of a the tendency for belief in the supernatural to be a weakness, not a talent, which sometimes has placebo-like benefits.

[jgraz]

43. Sorry, but belief in a god is not a "special" ability

If you need proof, just look at all the talentless morons who are speaking in tongues over in freeperland.

Many people are sensitive to the non-material world. That kind of sensitivity does not necessarily manifest itself as a belief in a god, nor is there any evidence that people who believe in a god are any more sensitive than the rest of us.

We atheists can experience joy, wonder and even love. We can have deeply spiritual experiences that guide our lives for years. And we can do all of this without the need to invent a magical sky king. For us, the natural world is wonderful and mysterious in its own right.

Maybe it's just that there are some of us that are configured to be more rational? :shrug:

[eallen]

46. Those born blind know that sight is real, because they can independently verify it.

The seeing person says, "take care, there is a stool in front of you," and the blind person can then reach out and feel that. The blind person thus verifies that sight is a real sense that provides real information about the real world.

Spiritual sight resists this kind of test. Those with it either refuse to subject it to such tests, or fail to pass such tests, or claim that faith is a prerequisite. So the analogy breaks down pretty quickly. The problem isn't that some of us aren't sensitive to the spiritual world, but that even those who claim such sensitivity don't seem to be in touch with anything outside their own skulls. They cannot obtain testable knowledge from it. They cannot communicate messages through it. They cannot even agree on what is transpiring in it. To return to the title heading of this thread, how does one tell whether something is imaginary? Imaginary friends seem real to the people who have them. I don't think there is any sense in talking about the difference between real and imaginary apart from objective tests on how to distinguish the two.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Actually, I had an imaginary friend as a child, and I knew it wasn't real

:shrug:

[Finder]

47. I think spirituality and religious are seen as the same, and they are not...

or at least when I use the term religious I am talking about followers of religion specifically. The false histories of some religions have no place in an educated society.

I think spirituality is part of human nature although there are some that seem to deal with everything on a purely logical basis to a fault.

Intuition, placebo effect, twin bonds, mind/body connections, savantism, etc... are finally being taken seriously after being ignored as pseudoscience in the past.

If by non-material world you mean ghosts, demons, saints and gods...how do those who are sensitive to it distinguish what is good, bad, real or otherwise?

[Danger Mouse]

45. What is real?

Certainly, it is impossible to prove the existence of God through scientific means, at least as things stand now. Unless we develop some means of detecting the supernatural, or unless God comes down on a thundercloud and says 'Hey, here I am,' it's unlikely we'll ever be able to prove it.
So I could argue that you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist. However, this isn't a very strong argument, because there's a lot of thing that you can't prove don't exist. Dragons, for instance. I like dragons. I would like to meet a dragon. Perhaps there's a dragon out there in the world. You can't PROVE there isn't one somewhere, so dragons MUST be real.
I'm saying this because you can't rationalize faith and make it sound logical, because it isn't. You can't make it sound rational, because it isn't. Faith is, by its very nature, an illogical, irrational thing. The vast majority of people in the world have some sort of faith, from big fundie megachurches to African tribes and their local gods. Therefore, the vast majority of people in the world are irrational.
Noone is completely rational, because noone is immune to the effects of emotion. It is emotions that cause us to act in a manner contrary to reason. To be completely free of this would mean to lack emotions completely...because everyone gets angry and says/does stupid things. Everyone gets sad, happy, jealous, spiteful...at some point or other. This is what it means to be human.
That being said, there is no way for us to differentiate between an imaginary friend, a unicorn, a space alien, a dragon, or our God. Our belief is irrational, and could be equated to belief in any number of mythical beings. It's not rational, it's not logical.
My own personal beliefs are not anymore 'real' to me than they are to the man who claims he was abducted by aliens. Just because I think he isn't right, doesn't mean he isn't, or that I am.
What I'm saying is...I know my faith is irrational. I'm beyond the point where I'd want you to respect it...I realize that's an unfair expectation of you, because it's silly to expect you to respect something you find irrational and baseless.
However, I am not lacking in education. Please don't imply that about me. My faith is irrational, but it is not based on 'ignorance.' I am always interested in learning more, and I hope I never stop learning. There is much I do not know, but that doesn't make me 'ignorant,' anymore than it makes anyone else ignorant, because there is noone who has absolute truth or knows everything.
Secondly, I don't need constant reminders that my faith can't be proven, that God is my 'imaginary friend,' that I'm irrational because I have faith. I'm aware of it. You don't need to rub my face in it. That's when I get offended. Not that I'm saying that it's a major issue. It's not. Only a few people I've encountered on DU have behaved in such a way. The vast majority of you guys are pretty cool about it. Thanks for that. I'm glad you can accept me, despite my irrationality. This isn't a caustic statement, but a sincere one.
I enjoy my faith, and I enjoy teaching Sunday School. I am very happy in my irrationality =)

[Finder]

49. But you are not irrational if you realize that faith is irrational.lol...

Your beliefs are not going to have an effect on my children's education or healthcare or people's choice of a mate...

If your child had seizures, I am sure you would take them to a doctor not an exorcist...

You are not going to argue that we should abuse the earth and use up all the resources now since the rapture is coming, etc...

[jgraz]

54. Hey, nobody said they don't accept you or your faith

The only thing I reject is the idea that your beliefs should be granted a special status that puts them above challenge.

If you stated on the Politics forum that you believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best nominee for 2008, I'm under no obligation to "accept" your belief. I can and should challenge you if I think that we should nominate someone else (and I do).

If you stated on the 9/11 forum that you believe the official story, once again, I'm under no obligation to "accept" your belief. I can and should challenge you if I believe otherwise (and I do).

Yet somehow, on the Religion/Theology forum, the rules are different. Any challenge to someone's long-held beliefs is viewed as disrespectful or "rubbing your face in it". Why is this so?

There really is no way to challenge religious beliefs without pointing out their inherent irrationality, and their rooting in childlike wish-fulfillment. And you're perfectly welcome to argue that atheism may be based on some sort of spiritual deficiency or moral failing. That isn't disrespect, it's just debate.

[kiahzero]

55. I think there's a difference between your situations.

In both of the alternative cases you mention, it seems like the person in question is making a persuasive argument rather than a declarative.

I think a much better analogy is the DU Lounge. If I start a "I love dogs" thread, should you challenge that belief because you love cats?

[jgraz]

56. "I love dogs" is subjective

No challenge necessary, you're welcome to love dogs all you want (I do too).

On the other hand, if you posted "I believe my dog can fly", I am certainly not being rude if I ask you to provide some evidence for your statement.

And if you said "I believe my dog is the cutest dog in the world," I would totally jump all over you with evidence such as this:



And you would then slink away in utter defeat. :evilgrin:

[kiahzero]

57. I see religious belief as subjective, though.

That was the point I was driving at.

[jgraz]

59. But most statements about religion are not subjective statements

"I love my faith" is a completely subjective statement and beyond challenge. But statements like "God exists" or "Jesus rose from the dead" are completely objective and subject to challenge. Either a god exists or he doesn't. Either Jesus rose up or he didn't. How any of us feel about it makes no difference in this case.

Other statements regarding your belief depend on context. For example, if you post a "Merry Christmas, God Bless Us Every One" to the GD, anyone who responds with "THERE IS NO GOD" is being a dick. But if you go to this forum and state a belief in a god, you should expect to have someone ask you why you believe as you do.


By the way, when I say "my dog is cute," that is not subject to debate. ;)

[Evoman]

61. "God created the world"

is not a subjective statement.

Most of the stuff that comes out of the religious persons mouth are not subjective. The idea that some people receive special messages from The Radiowave God, and other do not, is not a subjective statement.

[Zhade]

92. That dog is adorable.

Carry on.

[Danger Mouse]

79. Right.

I wouldn't be one to say that my beliefs are above being challenged. If I did, then I wouldn't challenge myself either, which limits my spiritual growth and puts me at risk of slowly transforming into a fundie lunatic. Humans are inquisitive creatures, and it's a shame when we don't put that inquisitive nature to use.
And like I said above, I am aware of the irrationality of it. Uhm. I guess it's the way that it's stated at times. It can be a thin line between challenging/insulting. I've found that the majority of the atheists I've found on DU stay within the 'challenging but not insulting' area, which is cool. A (very) few have crossed that line into insult on occasion, but it's not a big deal.
When I say 'rubbing my face in it' I'm basically saying 'Yeah, I get it already :)' I just get kind of tired of hearing the same thing over and over.

[jgraz]

97. Yep, you've got a point there

We should be able to debate the issue without insulting or condescending to each other.

I think the problem arises when the atheist argument takes the following form:

"Your (initially reasonable-sounding argument for the existence of God) can be shown to be equivalent to (some childish fairy tale that we all agree is nonsense)."

I often think these parallels are worth pointing out, even though the faithful often take it as an insult. If you're trying to show that people are confusing magical thinking with logic, it's often difficult to walk that line without seeming like an asshole.

You may have to take it "on faith" that most of us are interested in a serious debate on the subject, and not at all interested in making you feel stupid.

[hunter]

52. I hate to break the news to y'all ... but EVERYTHING is inside your heads.

Science included.

Everything that motivates a person -- religion, science, response to external threats, desires, memories, etc. -- it all exists within that person's head.

How you respond to another person's description of what's going on inside their heads, is entirely up to you.

To the universe you are just a particular configuration of energy, not any more or less than any other configuration of energy. A rock, a person, a convection cell on a star, a whisp of gas in a nebula, it's all just stuff. What makes any of that stuff remarkable is INSIDE YOUR HEAD.

Thus far the social frameworks of science and law have allowed for the rapid expansion of human populations. It is by no means clear this will be a succesful adaptation in the long term. Our society may be a very transitory phenomena, God or No God.

[Bluerthanblue]

69. good point- ! n/t

[beam me up scottie]

73. Does a rock exist only in my head if it you with it?

Not that I would, of course, dear hunter.

[hunter]

75. I tend to think of everything in terms of transactions.

Nouns and verbs, adjectives and adverbs, these are all part of a very convenient short-hand, but it seems closer to the truth that everything is a verb; an energy transaction, even our imaginations.

If the rock hitting my head did not cause my brain to malfunction, then yes, I believe the awareness of the rock external to my mind would form some sort of internal representation of a rock inside my head, very soon after I exclaimed "OUCH!"

But at the moment, I do not believe in your rock, nor do I believe you could throw it far enough from where you are to hit me in the head. Nevertheless, I appreciate your concern that you wouldn't do it, even if you could.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/ti

I suspect a transactional appreciation of the universe might just work at all resolutions.

[Realityhack]

76. classic.

Pick up rock... bean monk in head.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. you speak with simple

honesty and grace.

I share a similar perspective. And my only .... quibble?... is the notion that atheists have not felt the experience of the divine. I believe many have, and do, they just don't experience it as something other than a fluke-?- which is fine with me- and I would never try and insist that my 'God' is being foisted on others-

Did you ever see "The God's must be crazy?" Remember the significance of the coke bottle to two different cultures? It's kind of like that in my view. I don't believe that some people are 'chosen' and others are not- nor do I believe that "I" am enlightened, while others are living in ignorance.-
I'm open to the concept of a spiritual connection with what you have so aptly named the "divine"-
Some folks aren't- that doesn't make anyone wrong-.

What bothers me as much as those who pressure others to believe and 'receive' 'religion'- are those who seek to force others to abandon what we hold close as truth- If someone doesn't want to believe in god, that is fine- but I should be able to believe, and not be a threat to their perspective, or their 'pursuit of happiness'.

I have experienced some things in life that cannot be explained or dismissed satisfactorily by any 'logical' or analytical means- And I believe those experiences were/are close encounters of the divine kind-

Thanks for your thoughtful post-

blu

[Zhade]

93. It's more that we don't ascribe meaning to it that there's no evidence for.

If I were to have some intense emotional insight into the world, I wouldn't immediately think "god's telling me something", because that wouldn't be me keeping myself honest - I wouldn't KNOW it was some god, no one ever does (if they claim to, they are kidding themselves), because there's nothing to match it to. No evidence out there for gods that I can point to and say "maybe this is connected".

We don't assume what we think or hope to be true, is. That's the major difference.

[Bluerthanblue]

100. ah but you are fooling yourself-

because your "god" is what makes 'logical' sense to YOUR mind.
And that, my friend, IS every bit a 'god'.

When the things we choose 'pass the logic test'- all 'they' have done is to meet a standard that has it's very essence and origin in the 'human mind'.

Think about this a bit... please.

I clearly understand what you are saying, and the 'logic' on which you base your position. But there is indeed much that the 'human mind' has not discovered, mastered, or come to understand.

That is, unless you believe we 'have arrived at the epitome of the knowledge and understanding that we - as common human beings,- are capable of.

[Evoman]

60. The ONLY way we can be sure that something is not in our head, is by finding evidence for them

outside of our head. Experience of the divine, unless rooted in the real world, is meaningless to everybody else.

I'm sure that people had "divine experiences" of Zeus. I'm sure people have had "divine experiences" of Mars. I'm sure people have had "divine experiences" of Mohammed, Allah, Buddha, Voodoo man, and the spaceship hiding behind the Shoemaker-Levy Comet.

And everyone one of the most probably thought they were right, that their god was real.

You can keep on believing in Jesus, Zeus or Voodooman. It doesn't make it any more real than the imaginary friend to anyone but you.

Although your probably partially right in the fact that God or Jesus doesn't originate completely in your head...it originates in other people heads. You just borrow their ideas. I have little doubt that if you had been born in Japan or Iran, you'd be having "divine experiences" of something else...or maybe in some situations, for example in a European country, you may not be having any divine experience at all.

Look, I'm really not looking to be rude to you...I think your an okay guy. And if you need to believe in Jesus to get through the day, all the power to you. But you have to realize that to me there is absolutely no difference between your God and a childs imaginary friend.

I'll leave you with one more question....do you think that most crazy people know they're crazy?

[bryant69]

63. Thank goodness you aren't trying to be rude to me

I'd hate to see what that's like. "do you think that most crazy people know they're crazy?" Nice. There's an obvious comeback, but i think will forgo.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Evoman]

64. You see offenses where there are none.

The question is not meant to imply that you are crazy. Thats not my point at all. I know that you are not crazy. But the question is legitimate and is meant only to change your perspective, and help you analyze your own thought patterns.

Those people on the street who rant and rave....they KNOW, just like you KNOW, that they are right, that they are having a "divine experience". Everybody else thinks their crazy. But are they...if we take you at your word that you have had a genuine experience that originates outside of your mind, then we MUST take everything as real, even the gibbering of a mad man.

My point was simply to show you that unless their is evidence OUTSIDE of your mind, that you can not assume that your experience comes from outside of your mind. And if you delve deep inside yourself, analzying your past, your mind, and your beliefs, you may come to the same conclusion I've come to.

Or you can keep getting insulted and believe that I have some reason to offend you, when I KNOW that is not true.

[bryant69]

66. Laughs

Thank you for unpacking that. I can see that some of you have picked up a new strategy. Good luck with it.

But let me repeat what I've said a couple of times now - I realize that there's no way to give you my experience with the divine. And I understand that from your perspective there isn't that much difference between me and someone who claims they've been abducted by aliens (or, in your case, someone gibbering on the street corner), at least in regards to the testability of our claims.

That said, for me my experience with the divine was undeniable (to me). I don't know that I could decide it didn't really happen while being honest with myself.

I have to say I also like your conclusion -I can either examine myself, become an atheist (presumably) and well who knows what would happen then. Or I can get offended at you. That's an interesting choice your present.

Bryant

[Evoman]

68. You misunderstood my comment again.

"I have to say I also like your conclusion -I can either examine myself, become an atheist (presumably) and well who knows what would happen then. Or I can get offended at you. That's an interesting choice your present."

The conclusion I was speaking of was the conclusion "that unless their is evidence OUTSIDE of your mind, that you can not assume that your experience comes from outside of your mind." I.e. coming to the conclusion that your experience was not necessarily an experience of an outside divinity. "The conclusion" was NOT that you would become an atheist yourself...I don't expect you will become an atheist and you really couldn't if you wanted to, because nobody controls what they believe.

I don't understand why you think I'm presenting you with two choices. I'm not. A third possible choice is that you could examine yourself, stay a christian, and not get offended. To be honest with you, I'm having a hard time understanding why you get so offended by comments that are not meant to be slights at all. Its not "a strategy"...I'm just posting my opinion and thoughts. I like the occasional zinger back and forth, but I'm not out to offend you.

On edit: it is my fault you misunderstood my previous "conclusion" comment...my post was written in an unclear way. I hope this post clarifies what I meant.

[bryant69]

72. Well you open yourself up to this when you post on religion

And certainly, unlike many on here, I feel like you aren't really trying to offend, your "crazy" comment not withstanding.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

74. Fascinating.

I just posted about the same anomaly in another thread.

He doesn't want us to answer his questions or participate in any discussions yet he keeps posting in this forum.

[bryant69]

95. What a biased and bullshit way of characterizing it

I'm willing to give Evoman the benefit of the doubt but if you can't see how, in this contaxt, asking "Do you think Crazy people know their crazy?" can be taken as insulting, than, as I've always suspected, there's little point in discussing anything with you.

I'm not interested in discussing with you because it's clear that you have an agenda; but I'm fine talking with others.

Bryant

[Danger Mouse]

80. But...

When you say 'you KNOW,' that implies knowledge, which implies evidence.
Faith is the absence of evidence, you can't 'know,' you can only 'believe.'
Well, you can say all you want that you 'know,' but you don't know. You can't, because you don't have evidence, only faith.
I'm just distinguishing, hope i'm not nitpicking.

[Evoman]

86. Fine.

I believe that he isn't crazy, but I don't KNOW that he isn't. Satisfied?

[Zhade]

94. Excellent explanation.

It's exactly that - we can't get into a believer's head and see what's going on, so of COURSE we can't take their word for it on what they might be experiencing.

Even if it WERE some god, we can't share in, and there's nothing external, so how can we agree? It's not like we can just accept the assertion with nothing to back it up. I don't think believers lie about their feelings, but with no way to verify them I simply can't, well, take it on faith.

[Bluerthanblue]

67. totally off topic and out of left field but

scientists believe that most humans do NOT see all colors the same way-.

What might be vibrant pupil shattering blue to me, could be a dirty dish water slate gray to someone else. I happen to be one of the 'select few' female 'color-blind' people that exist- (it is predominantly a male syndrome). I have a specific problem in the red/green spectrum.- And I'm also a visual artist. :crazy:

We all have our own perspectives. People usually try and force others to 'see' as they do, because they aren't very sure of their own stand. Kind of like the 'herd' mentality- and it exists in those who are 'religious' as well as those who are 'athiests'- Then there are those who are comfortable in the place they are- and aren't threatened by others who reject what they don't agree with.

A little like Thoreau's 'different drummer'- a little like 'Jesus' or 'Gandhi' or 'MLKjr'- Vincent Van Gogh, (yeah, he suffered with mental illness and was what the above poster would call 'crazy'- but there is no denying his vision) Like John Lennon, who wrote and sang songs that the 'establishment' didn't want to hear- couldn't hear- refused to listen to. But he didn't stop singing- nor did any one of these 'soujourners' stop following the path that they felt called to walk-

When the question is asked "do you think most crazy people know they're crazy?" it might do well to find out what standard they are using- and just who is 'sane'-

Normal is relative, so is 'sanity'- Einstein was 'crazy'in many peoples estimation. * is seen as a 'genius' by others-

It is all in the eye of the beholder- beauty, truth, ugliness, sanity..... -

peace-
blu

[Evoman]

70. I don't know that any scientists would say that.

Unfortunately, that "same color, different color" problem is something the we will probably NEVER resolve. Maybe its just a failure of my imagination, but I expect that there isn't anyway (other than perhaps studying mutations in receptors themselves perhaps?) of resolving that issue.

On edit: Funny that you should bring that whole thing up...I remember asking my physics teacher the same question lol. He had no answer for me. It really is an interesting topic though, isn't it?

[Bluerthanblue]

77. here is one perspective on that theory-

http://www.bway.net/~jscruggs/Color2.html

Which does bring to mind the position that we humans are constantly learning and discovering. Things which were unheard of, assumed impossible, or thought to be caused by completely different origins/reasons, are being discovered and corrected almost daily.

At the end of this world, when nothing exists any longer, maybe then folks will have satisfied themselves that they know with unequivocal doubt exactly what is 'true'- but until then, it IS all in the mind of the beholder.

Science isn't infallible- facts originate and mean different things to different people.

Yeah, it IS interesting to try and see through others eyes- and important too- wish we all could practice it a bit more.... as a beautiful dreamer once said, "I'm not the only one, hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one"...
I don't think he meant we had to all agree, I think he meant we all had to agree that we are in this together, and our differences shouldn't separate us as much as our common ties bring us together-

Imagine all the people living life in peace????----

That's a worthy vision-

peace to us all-
blu

[hunter]

78. I suspect mental representations are quite fluid and variable among people.

We call that "personality."

In the case of eyesight, it seems some women have an extra color receptor, and thus see more colors than other people.

Jameson, Kimberly A.; Highnote, Susan M.; and Wasserman, Linda M. "Richer color experience in observers with multiple photopigment opsin genes." Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2001, 8 (2), 244-261 http://www.klab.caltech.edu/cns186/papers/Jameson01.pdf

[beam me up scottie]

81. "The experience of the divine. Which I acknowledge that Atheists have not felt..."

What about all of the atheists who were convinced they had experienced the divine?

Do they get their money back?

[Danger Mouse]

82. Only...

If you still have your receipt. Otherwise, you'll have to settle for an equal exchange or store credit.
Sorry, that's our policy.

[beam me up scottie]

83. But it was like that when I opened it.

I swear! :P






Well, it was nice talking to you again, Elrond, but I've got a ton of work to do and I can't procrastinate any longer, I've only got until 5 am to finish.:evilfrown:

Have a good one!

[greyl]

87. Yes, that statement is way off the mark. nt

[Meshuga]

99. What I have experienced...

...is that there are times in my life when it seems best to have a particular concept of God.

For instance, having the concept of God as a "You" (as another person you interact with) is very helpful, especially when we need support to turn to as when we are going through some rough times at some point in our lives.

We can then think of the God who is there being attentive to us. Such a deity "hears" and may choose to "answer" our prayers. Such a concept of God meets real human needs.

There are other times when having an idea of God as a "process" rather than a "person" is most useful.

[and-justice-for-all]

103. There is no difference between the two...

both are..Imaginary.