I hope this thread isn't too similar to my other thread. The other thread kinda got derailed by talk of how ****ty cucumbers are and by the fact that I asked about people who hate religion, so I decided to make a new thread. This thread isn't about hating religion, it's about not believing in any one religion.

Ok here's my question. For those of you who believe in God but don't believe in any one religion, why do you believe in God and how do you justify your belief in your mind? Why is a belief in God justifiable?

Through subjective experience. How interested in this are you? Is this something that you are wondering and just want to discuss or are you interested in actually pursuing it?

Joker,

If you looked at all my beliefs in aggregate I would end up being classified as a Christian. However, I really don't like being lumped in with other people that aren't like me. Also I think labels like "religion" can be unhelpful.

I believe things which I think are true. If that lands me up in a specific religion then so be it. Don't focus on what belief is of "x" religion and what belief is not.

I think the complex life on earth points to a creative being.
I think the importance of morality to humanis points to a creative being.

You can always believe in Spinoza's formulation of God which is not attached to any particular religion as far as I know. If a genius physicist like Albert Einstein believed in it, it must have some strong justification.

"We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal" Einstein,1929

Now when I say humanis I always mean humans...

I believe most God believers (who don't ascribe to a particular religious text) believe in God because they're afraid of the alternative (there is no God).

I think this is generally the subconscious reasoning:

- No God means no afterlife
- No afterlife means death is final
- I don't want death to be final (I want to live forever)

Conclusion: God is real.

Expand your definition of god and it's not that difficult.

If you're of the mindset that god is a bearded man in the sky meticulously watching us all, then I'd understand your confusion.

If you defined god as nature, consciousness, or the universe as a whole, then it makes a lot more sense.

I'm actually interested in pursuing it. Would you mind sharing your subjective experience?

At that point, we can just discard the concept of God altogether.

Sort of... just redefine it. You can have respect and reverence for all those things, and you can learn from them too, if you open yourself up

It's easier to convey this concept by personifying it but it's also just as easy to take it literally and completely miss the point.

How would you define God as consciousness?

Hint:

I've used those words when referring to God but it's important to preface it by saying that if God exists, then everything that exists emerges from God so you can't really define God since God is everything. As soon as you attempt to define something, you bound it or constrain it. That's all I care to say about this since the whole issue of trying to better conceptualize God is not very interesting to me.


I guess it started with personal development. I reached a level of proficiency at achieving my goals but each time I was disappointed because it wasn't accompanied with the sustained happiness that I hoped for. Those of us that are fortunate enough to learn this lesson are then forced to turn inward for a remedy.

This journey, and personal development in general, is done under the assumption of dualism - that the mind is separate from the brain. You get to the point that I'm at and you realize that personal development is mental development and mental development is spiritual development because the mind is the soul having a human experience. Before people jump on me about the mind-body problem, like I said I believe God is everything so ultimate reality in my view is a monistic idealism. With that said, we are meant to experience reality dualistically. This should be self apparent - day/night, masculine/feminine, etc.

I've mentioned before that we are connected to the higher power through the subconscious mind. Everyone has this connection. Self understanding (or experiencing God since we are God because God is everything) is not really about trying to add to this connection but rather separating from what is disconnecting you. That is thoughts, feelings, beliefs, identities, concepts, and so on. You are not anything transient because you know you still exist even if that transient thing does not.

So what I did is I meditated on the question "Who am I?" You close your eyes and bring your awareness internally and go deeper and deeper into silence, deeper into nothingness. As you become aware of the transient identities you have of yourself, then you just examine them until you realize that is not who you truly are. You continue this process of stripping down for as long as it takes whether that is days, weeks, or longer. For people that haven't developed their self awareness it will probably take a little longer. Many times people will at some point experience a sudden feeling of expansion. It is a feeling of complete connection that comes and goes. Alternatively, in a more subtle way, as you explore this space of silence and nothingness, you will start to feel more authentically identified with it because it is not transient. You have to be the one to interpret these experiences but all I can say is they feel good.

In order for it to work, this practice has to be done wholeheartedly. You have to commit to it fully and sincerely.

I personally think that your spoiler is a distraction without value at least to the extent that "consciousness" is equated to "self-awareness". It is very difficult to define consciousness, but everyone knows what it is. People deny that on occasion, but that is a ploy to advance some other position in an argument in my opinion.

Of course, if you choose to state that you mean something different from "self-awareness", then I have no dog in the fight.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...eness-1213488/

I think that thread illustrates my point.

jokerthief: here are some probably inadequate thoughts

- I experience the presence of God (or whatever you want to call it, I don't want to beg the question of the actual nature of the experience) as a kind of peace, a warmth, there's almost a tingly physical sensation and a kind of euphoria, albeit mild. I don't really pay very close attention to the physical parts of it anymore, but basically any time I stop and just pay attention to my breath and to thinking about that presence I have this experience, including as I type this. It is very calming. It is not an experience that discloses anything rationally or provides a systemic theology, but it is an experience which seems to guide, in a silent way, towards love and forgiveness and tolerance and joy and humility towards everyone and everything. It's a feeling of not being separate.

- There are certain symbols or ideas that I find across a variety of religious traditions that intuitively appeal to me. I say intuitively because it's not really like a deductive argument. Call it faith, because it's not like these ideas prove anything rationally, but there is something compelling about the fact that these symbols and understandings are so culturally universal. Not that they are identically expressed, but there are points of commonality as well as difference, and I think there is at least something like a common experience of the wonder and awe and sacredness and ineffability of reality.

My main points of reference are mystical Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sufism, Taoism and some other chinese philosophy. I've been curious lately about learning more about African religion but I haven't gotten very far. I think the relation between Brahman, Atman, and Purusha in Hinduism comes very close to being as good of a systematic understanding of some of this stuff as I've seen.

- Re: "you could just discard with the concept of God altogether"

I think you could, but I think the word is still useful, even if we're talking about Spinoza's God or Nature, because it captures a particular attitude towards reality which is perhaps often absent in atheism: an attitude of reverence and sacredness which I think may be more fundamentally important than any particular concept of the Divine.

Yea, I'll admit I was being a bit passive-aggressive asking him to define consciousness, as it's an exteremely difficult task.

My real point is that stating God = consciousness; nature; the universe is actually quite difficult to comprehend.

Imagine the entire universe as a whole... that's about it. The posts by well named and craig1120 do a good job trying to put words to something that transcends language and is intangible. Good thread, I like this one better than the last one

Given that the universe is most likely infinite, I find it difficult to "imagine it as a whole."

If God = the Universe,

then why do we need the concept of God? Can't I just imagine the universe in scientific terms?

Disagree with bolded. If anything the atheists I know tend to on average have a more reverent attitude towards existence/reality than theists do.

i believe in "god" but not in the traditional christian 'man in the sky who judges and sees all' sense. i believe god to be a collective of human consciousness, the universe and the infinite. in this way, we are all god just as all make up the universe.

i've come to this belief thru meditation and the occasional lsd trip. by shutting down the ego (even if for only brief moments) you get a glimpse of the infinite, oneness of god.

tuning into infinite as i like to say

followed by

LOL no.

No what?

If your experience differs you should just say that. I think almost every atheist here would disagree with the statement that reverence for reality (however you want to interpret that) negatively correlates with atheism. "LOL no" just shows bias.

As we have learned more about reality through the scientific method, it has enhanced our experience right? We strive for knowledge and understanding because there is a payoff. If there is more to reality than materialism, then it follows that it would serve us well to pursue this rather than ignore it. To understand the non physical, we can't rely on the scientific method.

Pantheism... deciding between theistic pantheism and atheistic pantheism is pretty much down to whether you think omniscience = knowledge = mind = deity or not. It is more likely theistic pantheism as the illusion of freewill increases- god can be reverse engineered to an extent or not? CAn the slave issue commands to the master... When I lift a cup, is it making me lift it...? Basically can't decide and science cannot answer that question - it can keep looking outwards/lager forever, it will only take time, but it will hit a limit once it tries to see smaller/inwards (or even to points where everything becomes 'inverted in an infinite amount of directions') - all information has to travel through our brains, so unless we learn to use acoustic/analogue information completely with some kind of technology or brain enhancement then it is not possible.

There must be an infinite amount of covert information there somewhere, we can fill that up with abstract logic much easier than finding ways of seeing it.

This is basically me. There are times through the day where you can feel "god like" which to me is synonymous with being "one with the universe". Which of course anyone can experience. So I believe its possible if we open our minds we can all be one, and that is god. But not god in a Christian sense.

That's why I quoted the other guys post before yours.