How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

rosborne979 wrote:

But you know what, as long as you're feeling fine and you're a productive member of society, then you're probably better off than someone who believes in talking snakes and world-wide floods. So give yourself a big round of applause and meditate yourself right into an endorphin frenzy.

I half expected this. However, I thought I would "bare my soul" a bit and see what reaction I got. Its a bit facile and convenient to dismiss spiritual experiences as "hysteria and psychosis", but somewhat understandable since you don't know me. I assure you that people who do know me do not perceive me this way. I shared these personal experiences in hopes that it might stir interest in an alternative view of spirituality, not based on a belief system, but on direct personal experience and transformation of consciousness. Although a couple of these experiences may seem a bit disturbing, the benefits I've gained from them are invaluable to me. I can assure you that I've known many spiritual practitioners over the years that have had similar experiences, many of them more dramatic than mine.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I half expected this. However, I thought I would "bare my soul" a bit and see what reaction I got.

I have nothing against you IF. You seem a bit too self satisfied with your view of things, and you're making a futile attempt to argue that your internal perceptions are in any way, evidence of supernatural (spiritual) effects. But it could be much worse; you could be a spendius.

IFeelFree wrote:

Its a bit facile and convenient to dismiss spiritual experiences as "hysteria and psychosis", but somewhat understandable since you don't know me.

You offered us a choice between "hallucination" or "supernatural" effects. It's very common for humans to have distorted perceptions of things, and as far as we know, the supernatural doesn't even exist. So the most reasonable conclusion here is obvious without even looking at your examples. But then to make matters worse, you proceeded to list a sequence of experiences which seem a whole lot more like hysteria than magic. Can you really blame anyone for how they take that.

IFeelFree wrote:

I assure you that people who do know me do not perceive me this way. I shared these personal experiences in hopes that it might stir interest in an alternative view of spirituality, not based on a belief system, but on direct personal experience and transformation of consciousness. Although a couple of these experiences may seem a bit disturbing, the benefits I've gained from them are invaluable to me. I can assure you that I've known many spiritual practitioners over the years that have had similar experiences, many of them more dramatic than mine.

Unfortunately for you, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and personal experiences are simply not sufficient as extraordinary evidence. Not only that, the ones you've listed serve more to undermine your position rather than to support it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Unfortunately for you, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and personal experiences are simply not sufficient as extraordinary evidence. Not only that, the ones you've listed serve more to undermine your position rather than to support it.

Good luck . . . i've told him this literally for weeks now, and it simply rolls off him as water is said to roll off a duck's back. I can see no qualitative distinction between his "higher consciousness" rant and the theological rants of the religiously devout.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Unfortunately for you, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and personal experiences are simply not sufficient as extraordinary evidence. Not only that, the ones you've listed serve more to undermine your position rather than to support it.

Good luck . . . i've told him this literally for weeks now, and it simply rolls off him as water is said to roll off a duck's back. I can see no qualitative distinction between his "higher consciousness" rant and the theological rants of the religiously devout.

I'm hard pressed to see any difference either. The terminology is different, but the basic argument just sounds like FoxFyre or any of the others arguing that "experience is evidence".

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Its a bit facile and convenient to dismiss spiritual experiences as "hysteria and psychosis", but somewhat understandable since you don't know me.

You offered us a choice between "hallucination" or "supernatural" effects. It's very common for humans to have distorted perceptions of things, and as far as we know, the supernatural doesn't even exist. So the most reasonable conclusion here is obvious without even looking at your examples. But then to make matters worse, you proceeded to list a sequence of experiences which seem a whole lot more like hysteria than magic. Can you really blame anyone for how they take that.

These experiences may not be demonstrations of the supernatural in the way that you are conceiving of it. However, experiences such as these are demonstration of a subjective, psychic, spiritual dimension to human experience. They also raise questions, at least to those who have such experiences, as to what they tell us about the world. For example, why did I have such clear memories of drowning in a ship at sea? Where did that come from? Where did the impulse come from to perform an elaborate ritual when I saw the mystic symbol at such a young age? What is the significance of the experiences of ecstasy and blissful energy (kundalini)? To someone who does not have any such experiences, the easiest thing to do is dismiss it all as hysteria. I understand that and I don't really blame you. I am saying that many people do have such experiences and taken as a whole they are compelling evidence of an important dimension of human experience. Furthermore, they represent a basis for spirituality that is different than merely faith, i.e., accepting facts based on authority as opposed to evidence. Subjective experience is evidence, particularly when those experiences have such a transforming effect. What you may be unaware of is that these types of experiences have been documented and illuminated by numerous spiritual texts. These include:

The Varieties of Religious Experience, William James

Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man, Gopi Krishna

The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali

The Knee of Listening, Da Free John (Adi Da Samraj)

Play of Consciousness, Swami Muktananda

Autobiography of a Yogi, Paramhansa Yogananda

There are ancient traditions that have observed and described the states of consciousness and mechanisms of kundalini that arise from prolonged spiritual practice. To someone who is unaware of this and has no personal experience that they can relate to any of this, it may all sound bizarre and deranged. However, these are well-known human experiences that play an important role in the evolution of the individual once they are able to go beyond the ego-based objectivism of scientific materialism and the ego-based subjectivism of provincial, faith-based religion. There is a "middle way" that transcends the ego-based mind through the transformation of consciousness.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The terminology is different, but the basic argument just sounds like FoxFyre or any of the others arguing that "experience is evidence".

You do understand that there is a big difference between faith or belief based on authority (the bible, the koran, a spiritual teacher such as Jesus, etc.), and direct personal experience? I don't know who FoyFyre is or what his/her argument was, but personal experience is evidence, at least to the person who has it, provided that it is unambiguous and transforming. Furthermore, the collective spiritual experiences of many individuals present a kind of evidence that is worthy of consideration by those who may not share those experiences. Perhaps that is why even scientists have begun to take a look at the physiological and psychological effects of meditation and other spiritual practices. At the very least, these experiences have a significant effect on the individual. It may well be that they tell us something important about the nature of the world and the possibilities for human evolution.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Subjective experience is evidence, particularly when those experiences have such a transforming effect.

Evidence of what exactly?

Subjective experience is only evidence of the experience itself. All you're saying is "I felt something, therefor felt something".

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

At the very least, these experiences have a significant effect on the individual. It may well be that they tell us something important about the nature of the world and the possibilities for human evolution.

It should be no surprise (or mystery) to anyone that a person's mental state has an effect on the way that they feel.

Just because you have exerienced an extreme version of this doesn't make it any more profound. It's no big deal.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Evidence of what exactly?

That is the interesting question.

0 Replies

Sadly, you never have an interesting answer.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

It should be no surprise (or mystery) to anyone that a person's mental state has an effect on the way that they feel.

Just because you have exerienced an extreme version of this doesn't make it any more profound. It's no big deal.

It is more than just a mental state, or change in the way a person feels. Awakening is a shift in consciousness in which thinking and awareness separate. A new state of consciousness arises which flows into everything they do and so becomes integrated into their lives. When you recognize yourself as the awareness behind thought, thinking ceases to be a self-serving autonomous activity that takes possession of you and runs your life. Awareness takes over from thinking. Awareness is conscious connection with the universal intelligence, consciousness without thought. If you find this incomprehensible or meaningless, the process has not yet begun in you.

0 Replies

some experiences are better than others

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

If you find this incomprehensible or meaningless, the process has not yet begun in you.

Translation: If you are not thinking in the terms foisted upon you in this delusion, you are not yet sufficiently deluded.

No difference between this joker and a tent-show revivalist, other than performance style.

0 Replies

You guys are a hoot! I guess my seriousness is the perfect foil for your sarcastic comments and humor. We all need to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Evidence of what exactly?

That is the interesting question.

So you don't even know what it was you felt the evidence for?

How can you claim to have solid evidence for something when you don't even know what that something is?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Awareness is conscious connection with the universal intelligence...

What Universal Intelligence? You have evidence for such a thing?

IFeelFree wrote:

...consciousness without thought. If you find this incomprehensible or meaningless, the process has not yet begun in you.

Or the other possibility is that it's all self delusion and bullshit. Hmmm, let's see, which could it be, cosmic connection to a Universal intelligence, or bullshit, hmmm that's a tough one.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

You guys are a hoot! I guess my seriousness is the perfect foil for your sarcastic comments and humor. We all need to laugh at ourselves sometimes.

Truly enlightened people are pretty obvious to people around them. One distinguishing characteristic is that they never tell people they are enlightened.

People who think they are truly enlightened but are actually following an ego driven neurosis are also pretty obvious. They make a point of saying how enlightened they are, while telling others how unenlightened everyone else is.

See how obvious the difference is?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Evidence of what exactly?

That is the interesting question.

So you don't even know what it was you felt the evidence for?

How can you claim to have solid evidence for something when you don't even know what that something is?

As I stated in my posts, spiritual experience is evidence for the existence of the psychic or spiritual dimension. Spiritual experience provides an approach to spirituality based on personal transformation of consciousness, as opposed to a faith in an external authority. Spiritual experience provides evidence for a supernatural dimension, not in the way some people conceive of it as external Gods, angels, demons, magic, etc., but rather as the evolutionary mechanisms within the human nervous system, and also the survival of consciousness after death of the body. In my own case, my experiences have revealed to me the reality of the energy centers (chakras) in the human body and the associated energy currents (kundalini). My past life memories have also gone a long way in convincing me in the reality of reincarnation. In that sense, these experiences provide evidence of a supernatural dimension, at least to the person who is having the experience.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Truly enlightened people are pretty obvious to people around them. One distinguishing characteristic is that they never tell people they are enlightened.

How do you know this? Have you been around any enlightened people? Would you be willing to tell us who they are, or how you knew they were enlightened?

I should point out that I have never said that I am enlightened. I have only shared certain experiences that I have had. I have done this in the interest of illuminating a non-faith-based approach to spirituality.

Quote:

People who think they are truly enlightened but are actually following an ego driven neurosis are also pretty obvious. They make a point of saying how enlightened they are, while telling others how unenlightened everyone else is.

You might be correct. I've never met anyone who has told me they are enlightened, so I wouldn't know. Have you?

Also, I should point out that I've never told anyone they weren't enlightened. However, I have pointed out the characteristics of the state un-enlightenment, or the ego-bound personality.

0 Replies

There are few people in these discussions who are more "ego-bound" than IFF. His constant refrain is about what "I" (meaning he) has experienced. There is no evidence in what IFF writes that he is any less "ego-bound" than anyone else here.

Once again, i can discern no qualitative distinction between what IFF peddles and what the theists peddle.

0 Replies

How do we know that Christians are Delusional?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know