-->
@Reece101
I mean reading scripture, or other religiously inspired books, then having an experience with the presence of God.
Religious Experience after reading scripture or other religious material
Posts
Total:
78
-->
@janesix
If you don’t feel awe, you’re not at the peak.
-->
@janesix
Then having an experience in the presence of GOD.
As I said...Self induced euphoria.
Unless you mean some other form of self induced experience.....But let's not go into that.
And certain "Westerners" have a tendency to regard mystical "Eastern" terminology as somehow being more meaningful.
I like the word rapture....I always think that it perfectly describes the zenith of positive physiological sensations.
If rapture is the zenith.......Then what would be the nadir?..........Desolation perhaps.
-->
@Reece101
Ok I guess, but AWE doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. I guess you are trying to say the feeling of awe is some sort of spiritual experience, but I say it is not a necessary factor. Almost anything can create a n awe experience for a person.
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't think I said anything about euphoria. Did I? I'm not sure. I have had induced euphoria during spiritual experiences(but not religious). It can be part of it I guess, but not necessary.
Euphoria doesn't necessarily accompany a religious experience. Fear and terror can too.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes definitely.
-->
@janesix
I don't think atheists get not all religious or spiritual experiences are nice or even wanted.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I agree totally. Even the good experiences can be overwhelming. I have to take long breaks from any spiritual and religious activity. (That is if I even have a choice, I'm not sure of that.)
-->
@FLRW
You still on the "religion equals less developed brain" thing eh? Let's say i buy your interpretation of the study, then that proves that there is a correlation between a degraded brain and being religious, that would not prove that religion is the cause, nor would it mean that people who are of "degraded brains" are more likely to be religious - I'm sure I could find a correlation between eye color and religious belief, but until you show me a comparison of the "religiously addled" brain and the "atheist one" you have no basis for your interpretation. Having evidence and having proof are two different things.
Specifically, the study you cite has the same problem - or at least this specific reading does. They have solid evidence that there is a mental failing which has occurrences of out-of-body happen, however, their linkage to actual degradation of the body is weak - they have a correlation, but not causation. Many many people seem to confuse this fact, that correlation is not causation, and by itself its fine, but it does not ultimately demonstrate a premise. The exception is whenever it is impossible to find causal evidence; however in the working of the brain I find it hard to believe that there isn't causal evidence in there.
Overall - saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect - now - it is acceptable to perhaps claim that they are, in cases, delusional, but to paint such a broad brush is typically a fallacy, (It also makes no one want to interact with you cause you seem like a tad bit of an asshole)
-->
@Theweakeredge
The American Psychological Association (APA), after a five year study on devoutly religious people, will now consider an unassailable belief in a deity or a higher power to a point where it impairs one's ability to make conscientious decisions about common sense matters, as a mental illness.
-->
@janesix
Ok I guess, but AWE doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. I guess you are trying to say the feeling of awe is some sort of spiritual experience, but I say it is not a necessary factor. Almost anything can create a n awe experience for a person.
Depends how ignorant/knowledgeable they are. Also both religious and spiritual (spirituality is ambiguous these days) experiences can constitute as anything.
-->
@janesix
How do you differentiate precisely, between a religious experience and euphoria?
So can you precisely define a "religious experience after reading scripture or other religious material"?
It clearly doesn't make you intensely excited and happy (euphoric).....So how does if make you feel?
What is the difference between the input and assessment of religious data, and the input and assessment of any other written narrative?
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you differentiate precisely, between a religious experience and euphoria?
Euphoria is a side effect, and may or may not happen in a religious experience. And euphoria can happen in plenty of other situations not involving a religious experience.
So can you precisely define a "religious experience after reading scripture or other religious material"?
No. Each person has their own experience of God. May not be the same as mine.
It clearly doesn't make you intensely excited and happy (euphoric).....So how does if make you feel?
I have felt euphoria, fear, awe, confused. Usually intense feelings, but I have also felt a sense of relaxation and peace.
What is the difference between the input and assessment of religious data, and the input and assessment of any other written narrative?
The intent probably.
-->
@janesix
You will probably not agree.
But all the above just emphasises to me the fact, that what you regard as a religious experience, is as you put it, your own "intent" and not the intent of a GOD.
Which in itself is undoubtedly an experience....Though the stimulus is yourself and your own ideas of a GOD, rather than an actual GOD.
-->
@Theweakeredge
saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect - now - it is acceptable to perhaps claim that they are, in cases, delusional, but to paint such a broad brush is typically a fallacy, (It also makes no one want to interact with you cause you seem like a tad bit of an asshole)
What do you consider religious Muslim jihadi suicide bombers to be? Stable, devout and in full control of all of their faculties??
-->
@zedvictor4
Not MY intent. The writer's intent.
-->
@Stephen
Do you consider them an example of the average religious believer?
-->
@Theweakeredge
saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect - now - it is acceptable to perhaps claim that they are, in cases, delusional, but to paint such a broad brush is typically a fallacy.What do you consider religious Muslim jihadi suicide bombers to be? Stable, devout and in full control of all of their faculties??Do you consider them an example of the average religious believer?
Irrelevant. They consider themselves religious and devout. Can you not simply address the question instead of posing a question of your own as a reply?
-->
@Stephen
You are attempting to frame what I said - "religious people aren't mentally ill" as incorrect by giving me Muslim bombers, so yes actually - whether they are an example of the average believer is EXTREMELY relevant. You don't understand the concept - you are making a false equivalence here, they do not relate to the framing of your response. I asked the question because you are making a fallacy.
-->
@janesix
Can you explain?
The intent of an author is to inform or entertain by providing a narrative product for your entertainment and/or information.
How said information is input and assessed is entirely down to you.....Your own intent.
The determination to experience, based upon specific literature, is ones own arbitrary decision, and not the decision of the author.
Nonetheless, do you agree that your experiences are wholly, internally motivated?
-->
@Theweakeredge
saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect - now - it is acceptable to perhaps claim that they are, in cases, delusional, but to paint such a broad brush is typically a fallacy.What do you consider religious Muslim jihadi suicide bombers to be? Stable, devout and in full control of all of their faculties??Do you consider them an example of the average religious believer?Irrelevant. They consider themselves religious and devout. Can you not simply address the question instead of posing a question of your own as a reply?You are attempting to frame what I said - "religious people aren't mentally ill" as incorrect by giving me Muslim bombers
And you are simply avoiding a question that puts your comment to the test. I haven't said religious people are mentally ill. I have highlighted devout religious Muslim suicide bombers. That are deeply religious and obey the instructions of their god and their book, just as some devout Christians do.
, so yes actually - whether they are an example of the average believer is EXTREMELY relevant.
That is your opinion.
You don't understand the concept -
P-leeease, not that old chestnut. I understand perfectly what you have written. It is always someone else that "doesn't understand", or haven't understood the "context" or doesn't understand "ancient fkn Greek", isn't it!?
you are making a false equivalence here,
No. I am following up on your own comment and asking YOU in relation to your own comment, what it is you consider a devout religious Muslim Jihadi suicide bomber to be if not mentally ill? Or have you forgotten your own statement? here it is>>> "saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect"#40
Or are you going to suggest to the Muslim world that they are not religious?
I asked the question because you are making a fallacy.
No. It is not "fallacy" or "factually incorrect" that DEVOUT RELIGIOUS Muslim jihadis are willing to kill themselves in the act of murdering non believers on the instructions of their god and their book. And you asked a question of your own because your comment has been blown out of the water.
-->
@Stephen
Whenever I said "religious people" it is extremely CLEAR that I mean as in the average or most believers - like whenever I say that people can't run faster than 25 miles per hour, I mean that most people can't do that - people in general can't run that fast - yes there are exceptions but they are that - exceptions. There were approximately 8,300 terroristic attacks in 2019, let's say that ALL of them were being carried out by devout Muslims, and EACH attack has 100 individual Muslims behind them - that means that 1 in 1,625 Muslims would be a terrorist or "mentally ill" (as you are alluding to regardless if you want to admit it) That means you have less than a 0.01% chance of being a Muslim and a terrorist - and this is ASSUMING that each terroristic attack is done by genuine Muslim with 100 different people behind each attack - in other words - giving it an EXTREME high ball and the majority of these believers are not, in fact, mentally ill. Nor terrorist. Again you are committing a fallacy. Instead of handwaving away the fact that you are making a false equivalence, actually own it.
For a more reasonable estimate take that same number, less than 0.01% chance and make it "at risk to become violent", not violent, at RISK. You are attempting to use the pedantic example of the extreme minority and somehow claim it applies to my clearly general claim.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Muslims would be a terrorist or "mentally ill" (as you are alluding to regardless if you want to admit it)
Oh I can admit. I think ALL religious bombers are mentally ill and all those that support and finance the "cause of Islam". You seem to be struggling to do the same.
Again you are committing a fallacy. Instead of handwaving away the fact that you are making a false equivalence, actually own it.
Away with your opinions. You made a statement that falls flat at its first fence. and you have just proven that fact for me.
"saying that religious people are mentally ill is not only stigmatizing to mental illness, but also... factually incorrect"#40
WRONG!
-->
@Stephen
I have supported my claim with empirical data, you can keep with your ridiculous non-sequiturs, but I think I see why people find you.... unconvincing. You have yet to actually address my primary argument.
-->
@Theweakeredge
but I think I see why people find you.... unconvincing.
More opinion.
You have yet to actually address my primary argument.
I questioned your own sweeping comment. It was only that , that I was interested in.
After your statement about the mental state of the religious not being mentally ill, I was interested in your opinion on the mental health of religious people and in this case for instance, I chose devote religious Muslims as apposed to devout religious Christians, that you suggest are not mentally ill . And to suggest as such is, in your opinion, "factually incorrect!".
You appear now to want to turn this all around on me and into an uncalled for argument because your statement as been shown to be utter bollocks. Knock yourself out.
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you explain?
The intent of an author is to inform or entertain by providing a narrative product for your entertainment and/or information.
How said information is input and assessed is entirely down to you.....Your own intent.
The determination to experience, based upon specific literature, is ones own arbitrary decision, and not the decision of the author.
Nonetheless, do you agree that your experiences are wholly, internally motivated?
No. Much of my experience, if not all of it, seems to be orchestrated.
-->
@Stephen
No - you chose a specific part of Muslims, most Muslims are perfectly healthy mentally speaking. I don't judge an entire population by the views of less than 0.01% - in general - religious people aren't mentally ill, no more mentally ill than normal people, you've continued to dodge my actual argument with your handwaving, and its getting extremely easy to spot. Respond to my argument or you can expect no more engagement. I have better things to do than lecture you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
No - you chose a specific part of Muslims,
Who are religious devotees to Islam. Which is a religion!
Respond to my argument or you can expect no more engagement.
I have responded to your sweeping statement and have shown it to be tripe. I am not too interested in engaging you further.