I know how it sounds.....

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I am highly acquainted with these ideas and theories. I have qualifications in Psychology. This is the old self fulfilling prophecy chestnut . God is the divine placebo effect. This is something I have thought about a lot.It is neccessary to be skeptical about one's experiences, however , one comes to the point ...[text shortened]... elieve them, to want to find evidence of them for all sorts of reasons.

Not only are you having an experience you fundamentally want to have, and that you believe you will have, but those cognitive biases are reinforced by a kind of collective, peer experience that puts us under an unconscious social pressure to have them. These meetings can produce all kinds of sensations which can feel incredibly real. DARTH

True , I tend to get them on my own a lot when I feel very calm as well. I'm not a big pentecostal fan.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is just a truism . We can assign the meaning that the experience is of God or not of God and either could be false but since you are assigning a meaning to my experience (of which you know very little) then that is even more interesting. Interpreting the experience wrongly can work both ways in the negative or positive sense. If God exists then no doubt I will experience him with my subjective mind just as I expereince other things that exist with my subjective mind (like this keyboard)

Of course, but God appears to be different from the keyboard, and uniquely so; I can experience the keyboard even if I did not previously believe it existed.

Confirmation bias is most pervasive when it works to confirm a positive claim, simply because the postive claim has the power to explain the things we experience, whereas a negative claim does not. Atheism, in and of itself, does not explain anything.

Suppose I experience an odd coincidence, and I believe in God. In that case it's very, very easy for me to decide that God is behind that coincidence; God can appear to explain what I see. But then suppose I experience an odd coincidence and I don't believe in God. I can, it's true, decide immediately that God is not behind the coincidence, but the potential for cognitive bias is not neary as great because my "not God" response does not explain the coincidence; I still must seek other explanations if I'm to be satisfied. The coincidence, however odd, cannot be made to contribute to the negative claim I already hold, so it's power to create an expectancy is not nearly as strong.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
What!? Since when did thinking critically confirm God's existence? It can't. If critical thought could confirm God then you theists would not need the all important faith you're always on about.

I didn't mean it like that. the more you thoroughly examine your faith the more you start to realise the truth. Why do you think I'm arguing on this forum?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I didn't mean it like that. the more you thoroughly examine your faith the more you start to realise the truth. Why do you think I'm arguing on this forum?

Well, if that is true then why, after years of committed belief, did I renounce it all to become an athiest?

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is just a truism . We can assign the meaning that the experience is of God or not of God and either could be false but since you are assigning a meaning to my experience (of which you know very little) then that is even more interesting. Interpreting the experience wrongly can work both ways in the negative ...[text shortened]... tive claim I already hold, so it's power to create an expectancy is not nearly as strong.

The coincidence, however odd, cannot be made to contribute to the negative claim I already hold, so it's power to create an expectancy is not nearly as strong. DARTH

I agree , but you are subtly drigfting away from the primary experience. I experience the keyboard in my subjective mind as real because it is real. Co-incidences are different because they require cognitive interpretation of a fact. Sensory information is more primary and immediate. I do not experience the keyboard in the same way . I sense it's presence through touch , smell etc etc. It's primary data we are talking about , not secondary belief systems about said data. For example, I had very vivid experiences of God's presence long before I was a Christian . The experience of God as real came long before the belief system. My faith is largely expereince first belief system second. I cannot choose to not believe it . Trust me I have tried but I just end up not being true to myself. Has it not occured to you that God might actually be real? Or does YOUR expectancy that this cannot be so stop you from perceiving him?

oops. wrong post. ignore.

Originally posted by darthmix
oops. wrong post. ignore.

I've got to go now . But I will pick this up tomorrow. Nice talking to you. I would be genuinely interested in what your religious experience is.

EDIT- I'm back , false alarm.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Well, if that is true then why, after years of committed belief, did I renounce it all to become an athiest?

I don't know . I suppose when I said "you" I meant me. You would have to tell me why you renounced it. I would guess it's because your faith did not come alive for you and have that extra element to it. But that's just a guess based on my experience of God.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree , but you are subtly drigfting away from the primary experience. I experience the keyboard in my subjective mind as real because it is real. Co-incidences are different because they require cognitive interpretation of a fact. Sensory information is more primary and immediate. I do not experience the keyboard in the same way . I sense it's presence through touch , smell etc etc. It's primary data we are talking about , not secondary belief systems about said data.

The only reason I brought up coincidences was to show that atheism is not subject to confirmation bias in the same way that theism - particularly strong religious theism - is, because atheism is a negative claim.

For example, I had very vivid experiences of God's presence long before I was a Christian . The experience of God as real came long before the belief system.

But did it precede the belief itself? Did you have a strong opinion about the existence of God at the moment you had this experience, even if you didn't follow the Christian faith in particular? And was the experience so tactile and direct that interpretive thought was not required - was it "direct data"?

My faith is largely expereince first belief system second. I cannot choose to not believe it . Trust me I have tried but I just end up not being true to myself.

And I cannot believe in God without being untrue to myself, either. Have we just established that whether or not we believe in God is a matter in which we don't have any choice? That would be a scary thing to establish.

Has it not occured to you that God might actually be real? Or does YOUR expectancy that this cannot be so stop you from perceiving him?

I was raised believing he was real, and felt his presence around me all the time - most particularly when sharing that experience with others. I was raised to believe that whether or not you accept God determines where you spend eternity, and I felt the joy and security of knowing I'd be in heaven forever, and then I felt the terror and the worry of hell whenever I started to doubt. My whole consciousness became a war in my head, between grace and the forces of darkness. It made me insane. For a while.

So I talked to my pastors, and I found that what they said provided no comfort. I dabbled in other religions. Buddhism, Hindu, Wicca, then some new-agey stuff. I started to understand how powerful, comforting, and ultimately deceptive a spiritual shield can be when you draw it up around yourself and filter all your experience through it. Faith is dangerous, and trusting it is dangerous, because it gives you over to the greatest weakness in your own perceptual process.

It has occurred to me that God might exist. But if he truly exists, then I should not have to be open to him in order to experience him, any more than I have to be "open" to the keyboard in order for me to experience it.

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]This is just a truism . We can assign the meaning that the experience is of God or not of God and either could be false but since you are assigning a meaning to my experience (of which you know very little) then that is even more interesting. Interpreting the experience wrongly can work both ways in the negative ...[text shortened]... tive claim I already hold, so it's power to create an expectancy is not nearly as strong.

Of course, but God appears to be different from the keyboard, and uniquely so; I can experience the keyboard even if I did not previously believe it existed. DARTH

And you are currently experiencing God but you just don't attribute it to him. You don't have to believe in God to experience him , it's just that certain experiences will not come your way.

Wait - how am I currently experiencing God?

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I agree , but you are subtly drigfting away from the primary experience. I experience the keyboard in my subjective mind as real because it is real. Co-incidences are different because they require cognitive interpretation of a fact. Sensory information is more primary and immediate. I do not experience the keyb ...[text shortened]... more than I have to be "open" to the keyboard in order for me to experience it.

But did it precede the belief itself? Did you have a strong opinion about the existence of God at the moment you had this experience, even if you didn't follow the Christian faith in particular? And was the experience so tactile and direct that interpretive thought was not required - was it "direct data"? DARTH

I have had them since the age of 5 or 6 as I recollect. Yes, the experience was very tactile and sublime. One thing that was always there was it was not a fragmented experience. After it I felt strengthened and more alive. My moral compass was more attuned and I felt more at one with myself. It also felt very deep as if an intimate , fragile part of me was being "touched". This experience has since surpassed any intimacy I have experienced with my wife. It's an overwhleming sensation of being "known" warts and all and loved of course.

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I agree , but you are subtly drigfting away from the primary experience. I experience the keyboard in my subjective mind as real because it is real. Co-incidences are different because they require cognitive interpretation of a fact. Sensory information is more primary and immediate. I do not experience the keyb ...[text shortened]... more than I have to be "open" to the keyboard in order for me to experience it.

And I cannot believe in God without being untrue to myself, either. Have we just established that whether or not we believe in God is a matter in which we don't have any choice? That would be a scary thing to establish. DARTH

This is good. No Christian should ever want anyone to be untrue to themselves. I would say this though. Often it's a question of what God you think you are supposed to believe in. Presented with your God I might not believe in him either. It's like St paul said about disarming all the myths about who God is. You must have heard CS Lewis's quote " The God I believe in is not the god you don't believe in" ??

Originally posted by darthmix
Wait - how am I currently experiencing God?

His presence is with you . Ok you may not actually be experiencing him because you are blissfully unaware of how he is supporting and sustaining you and looking after you. But he is there. Do you remember when it says in the Bible "in him we live and move and have our being" ?

Originally posted by darthmix
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]I agree , but you are subtly drigfting away from the primary experience. I experience the keyboard in my subjective mind as real because it is real. Co-incidences are different because they require cognitive interpretation of a fact. Sensory information is more primary and immediate. I do not experience the keyb more than I have to be "open" to the keyboard in order for me to experience it.

I was raised believing he was real, and felt his presence around me all the time - most particularly when sharing that experience with others DARTH

So you mean that you felt the love and warmth of the Holy Spirit and you felt this inside you as well? Did you ever speak in tongues or be filled with the Spirit? Did you sense his presence in a physical sensation way or do you mean presence in a metaphorical way (eg - "You can cut the atmosphere here with a knife" )