God's Will
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
Perhaps I should have stated my point more clearly. It can be equally as beneficial as meditation (collective insight). The only difference being religious people believe they are connecting with a "higher power" whereas with just cognitive meditation you are consciously aware that you are connecting with a different area of your mind (perhaps your subconscious actually = the "high power" for religious people).
They are very similar and neurologically (I'll give you a basic run down) your brain waves go from BETA (13-30 cycles per second) to APLHA (7-13 cycles per second) which is the perfect level for collective insight, meditation and psychological hypnosis. At this level of brain activity you're very relaxed, collective, and your brain can focus more intuitively on specific areas without distraction.
In a very deep meditation (or prayer) you can even dip down into THETA waves (4-7 cycles per second) while staying conscious which can potentially cause some strange experiences, this is the level at which if you were sleeping dreams start to occur, sleep paralysis also occurs at this level. I don't think it's extremely common but consciousness at this level of brain activity would account for many "religious" experiences.
Anyways... You don't have to pray to some "higher power" for it to be beneficial, rather I believe this is why so many people pray religiously, because the experiences they have had made them feel as if they were actually interacting with a higher power, and yes the exercise in itself (much like meditation) is mentally beneficial. And having the thought that one is interacting with a "higher being" probably helps people.
I should also note that the version of prayer that modern day western society practices is probably not nearly as beneficial. It's too quick and brief. But if you look at most religious accounts of humans supposedly having interaction with a "God", many times it's preceded by long, intense praying, which would mean they probably dipped into THETA waves in the process and reached a hallucinatory state of consciousness.
That's the point I was making and should have made clear from the start. Everyone came at me like I was some universal new-age religious "the secret" fanatic, but no... theres no "hocus pocus" type bullshit in what I was trying to say.
Maybe it's because I'm making connections between prayer and meditation? BTW meditation is a purely psychological cognitive mind exercise... meditation isn't necessarily a spiritual practice (unless you make it so).
Is prayer beneficial? Yes.
Are people actually interacting with a "Higher Being"? No, but imagining that they are in fact interacting with a "higher being" helps people and has done so for thousands of years.
I'm basically atheist/agnostic but what I don't understand about many other atheists is that they are so anti-religion to the point where they label any religious activity as "insane" and ridiculous. There's a reason it's insane and seems ridiculous, because it's an old and outdated view of the world, but it still has it's benefits. You aren't going to win people over by shrugging off and ridiculing religion, instead you should study it and then explain to them why religion has worked the way it has in the past.
They are very similar and neurologically (I'll give you a basic run down) your brain waves go from BETA (13-30 cycles per second) to APLHA (7-13 cycles per second) which is the perfect level for collective insight, meditation and psychological hypnosis. At this level of brain activity you're very relaxed, collective, and your brain can focus more intuitively on specific areas without distraction.
In a very deep meditation (or prayer) you can even dip down into THETA waves (4-7 cycles per second) while staying conscious which can potentially cause some strange experiences, this is the level at which if you were sleeping dreams start to occur, sleep paralysis also occurs at this level. I don't think it's extremely common but consciousness at this level of brain activity would account for many "religious" experiences.
Anyways... You don't have to pray to some "higher power" for it to be beneficial, rather I believe this is why so many people pray religiously, because the experiences they have had made them feel as if they were actually interacting with a higher power, and yes the exercise in itself (much like meditation) is mentally beneficial. And having the thought that one is interacting with a "higher being" probably helps people.
I should also note that the version of prayer that modern day western society practices is probably not nearly as beneficial. It's too quick and brief. But if you look at most religious accounts of humans supposedly having interaction with a "God", many times it's preceded by long, intense praying, which would mean they probably dipped into THETA waves in the process and reached a hallucinatory state of consciousness.
That's the point I was making and should have made clear from the start. Everyone came at me like I was some universal new-age religious "the secret" fanatic, but no... theres no "hocus pocus" type bullshit in what I was trying to say.
Maybe it's because I'm making connections between prayer and meditation? BTW meditation is a purely psychological cognitive mind exercise... meditation isn't necessarily a spiritual practice (unless you make it so).
Is prayer beneficial? Yes.
Are people actually interacting with a "Higher Being"? No, but imagining that they are in fact interacting with a "higher being" helps people and has done so for thousands of years.
I'm basically atheist/agnostic but what I don't understand about many other atheists is that they are so anti-religion to the point where they label any religious activity as "insane" and ridiculous. There's a reason it's insane and seems ridiculous, because it's an old and outdated view of the world, but it still has it's benefits. You aren't going to win people over by shrugging off and ridiculing religion, instead you should study it and then explain to them why religion has worked the way it has in the past.
Considering the bombing was a criminal act disguised under the veil of war, and had absolutely nothing to do with religion but scientist conducting experiments specifically for the purpose of creating weapons, it would be safe to assume that those with any ability to maintain an objective perspective would say Science. Which reminds me, any person making the claim that a person with the ability to maintain an objective perspective would say religion, without offering any insight as to why they would say religion, is guilty of not being able to maintain an objective perspective and most likely holds a bias towards religion.
you still havent answered my question ThaG, so for the third time:
if it was scientifically valid for you to blow yourself up killing others in the process for a greater cause, would you?
lemme guess, you would because your belief is different than everybody else and isnt corrupt like everybody elses?
no different than a muslim, christian, you name it.
if it was scientifically valid for you to blow yourself up killing others in the process for a greater cause, would you?
lemme guess, you would because your belief is different than everybody else and isnt corrupt like everybody elses?
no different than a muslim, christian, you name it.
Who told you that I don't know anything about deism?
Oh really? So to what branch do you belong?
This definition is also found at deism.com, which seems to be an authoritative source. Does this definition not cover all the branches to which you refer above? If it does, then you, as a deist, must not believe in the divine status of one Jesus Christ nor in any of his so-called miracles.
See above.
In a previous post, you wrote:
"(...)any revelation or supernatural event that we may encounter/experience is something that was already planned to happen and doesn't actually mean God is doing it right then and there." (Sept. 23, 2008 - 11:04am)
By "already planned to happen" do you mean to say that any supposedly supernatural event is really just a natural consequence coming from God at His initial creation? What throws me off here is that you refer to the existence of revelation, which immediately screams non-deist. The same goes for "supernatural." If you are saying that any genuinely supernatural (i.e. outside this natural universe) event occurs in the universe, then you're not a deist.
Saying that God planned for all that would occur in the universe before the universe was created does not constitute deism. For if it did, then all theists (i.e. those who believe in a supreme being of omnimax capacity) would be deists, and thus the term "deism" would lose distinctive meaning.
I have other reasons to speak against prayer for supplication, request or begging. But so far as this deistic reasoning above goes, the easiest point to attack would be in their use of the word "perfectly." The implication is that a perfectly created universe does not change and that a prayer requesting for some material benefit would necessarily constitute a change from the original set up. However, it may not constitute a change. The prayer may be part of the set up, one can always argue. This might lead into a free will debate, which I won't get into right now.
In any case, maybe you happen to agree with this deistic outlook on prayer, but if you believe in the existence of divine revelation and supernatural events, then you can't be a deist. This deistic outlook on prayer does not alone make a deist.
What herein constitutes "through the nature of the universe" or not might be something to explore. For example, human beings are a species that exist in the nature of the universe. Therefore, one might argue that a human's contact of God through petitions for relief is yet another method of going through the nature of the universe.
Once again, agreeing with the deist's outlook on prayer is not sufficient to make one a deist.
If you truly are a deist, that is quite different from how I understood you to be before. I've always understood you to be a believer in divine revelation, especially pertaining to Biblical texts.
Oh really? So to what branch do you belong?
This definition is also found at deism.com, which seems to be an authoritative source. Does this definition not cover all the branches to which you refer above? If it does, then you, as a deist, must not believe in the divine status of one Jesus Christ nor in any of his so-called miracles.
See above.
In a previous post, you wrote:
"(...)any revelation or supernatural event that we may encounter/experience is something that was already planned to happen and doesn't actually mean God is doing it right then and there." (Sept. 23, 2008 - 11:04am)
By "already planned to happen" do you mean to say that any supposedly supernatural event is really just a natural consequence coming from God at His initial creation? What throws me off here is that you refer to the existence of revelation, which immediately screams non-deist. The same goes for "supernatural." If you are saying that any genuinely supernatural (i.e. outside this natural universe) event occurs in the universe, then you're not a deist.
Saying that God planned for all that would occur in the universe before the universe was created does not constitute deism. For if it did, then all theists (i.e. those who believe in a supreme being of omnimax capacity) would be deists, and thus the term "deism" would lose distinctive meaning.
I have other reasons to speak against prayer for supplication, request or begging. But so far as this deistic reasoning above goes, the easiest point to attack would be in their use of the word "perfectly." The implication is that a perfectly created universe does not change and that a prayer requesting for some material benefit would necessarily constitute a change from the original set up. However, it may not constitute a change. The prayer may be part of the set up, one can always argue. This might lead into a free will debate, which I won't get into right now.
In any case, maybe you happen to agree with this deistic outlook on prayer, but if you believe in the existence of divine revelation and supernatural events, then you can't be a deist. This deistic outlook on prayer does not alone make a deist.
What herein constitutes "through the nature of the universe" or not might be something to explore. For example, human beings are a species that exist in the nature of the universe. Therefore, one might argue that a human's contact of God through petitions for relief is yet another method of going through the nature of the universe.
Once again, agreeing with the deist's outlook on prayer is not sufficient to make one a deist.
If you truly are a deist, that is quite different from how I understood you to be before. I've always understood you to be a believer in divine revelation, especially pertaining to Biblical texts.