Yes, the so-called "religious experience" or "mystical experience" is a neurochemical phenomenon that can be induced with drugs, and occurs (without drugs) even in strong atheists like me.

I've recently come to the conclusion that the opposite of that experience, a non-rational feeling of abject meaninglessness rather than a non-rational feeling of profound meaningfulness, is what fuels the otherwise nonsensical "what is the meaning of life?" question that so many people have, that feeling of existential angst, dread, or horror. It's a false philosophical non-problem, masking a very real and tragic emotional problem.

I've coined the terms "ontophilia" (love of being) and "ontophobia" (fear of being) for those two feelings, respectively. And inasmuch as "what is the meaning of life?" might mean "what is the purpose of life?", and purpose is just whatever something is good for, and goodness is grounded in hedonic pleasure and flourishing and the avoidance of pain and suffering, I'd say that attaining and maintaining and spreading and cultivating ontophilia, that blissful non-rational feeling of meaningfulness, is itself the pragmatic meaning of life, the highest pleasure we should be striving for and sharing with others.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people would want to give meaning or significance to this sensation at some point in history, so it can ultimately be said that desire resulted in the first ever God, and that things just took off from there.

Some of you may dispute my theory, but doesn't what I described make a lot more sense then trying to argue if "God" does or does not exist? — BBQueue

I imagine that it's highly debatable whether or not that's close to how the concept of God originated. I agree that mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable.

I imagine that it's highly debatable whether or not that's close to how the concept of God originated. I agree that mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable

I think what I have described is really the only thing that makes sense though, because it actually could be the case without question. For instance when atheists insist that God does not exist, not only is this debatable, but it is also an unknown, as in they only believe that God does not exist, but they cannot know this for sure. Moreover, the "God" that does not exist could also be the same God that is a matter of what I have described. That is, people long ago developed the concept of God to define a spiritual presence that they likely felt and wanted to give meaning to it.

Not only is my description highly plausible, but it would also mean that "God" is indeed no more than the identity given to the spiritual being whose presence was felt by people long ago, and thus would essentially negate the argument of atheists and theists that God does or does not exist, since "God" would in essence only be the name given to a spiritual presence that was felt. Thus, God exists in that aspect, but would otherwise not exist.

If a theist were to simply BELIEVE that God exists, that belief would be without a strong argument, since there is no evidence to support a mere belief, and a belief is disputable by nature.

Noah Harrari in "Sapiens" addresses this issue. I'm open to the concept you put forth.

the so-called "religious experience" or "mystical experience" is a neurochemical phenomenon that can be induced with drugs — Pfhorrest

just because the engine light (mystical experience) in your car (consciousness) can be triggered by playing with the wires (drugs) doesnt mean it wasnt meant to be triggered by the engine (god)

For instance when atheists insist that God does not exist, not only is this debatable, but it is also an unknown, as in they only believe that God does not exist, — BBQueue

atheists will help you find the real god, by debunking all the false gods

atheism is the fastest path, the only path, to god

mystical experiences often lead people to contrive their own religions, like Ontophilism, for instance. :joke: Our natural desire for meaning is insatiable. — praxis

its not about meaning

its about evidence and explaining that evidence.

if you are blind to that evidence then you will see no need for any explanations of it

If we look at what capitalism presents us with as 'reality' and ask, 'is that IT?' we will inevitably feel the huge urge to find something other, I think.

atheism is the fastest path, the only path, to god — OmniscientNihilist

That’s a new one for me. Care to elaborate?

That’s a new one for me. Care to elaborate? — praxis

well like i said above atheism is needed to debunk the false gods

false knowledge blocks truth.

I don’t see the need to be vague. If you’re suggesting that there’s a true God, which God is it?

I don’t see the need to be vague. If you’re suggesting that there’s a true God, which God is it? — praxis

god is not a person. god is not an individual who is separate from you and has a personality who will judge you.

the real god is un-personal spirit that is here now

Yes, the so-called "religious experience" or "mystical experience" is a neurochemical phenomenon that can be induced with drugs, and occurs (without drugs) even in strong atheists like me. — Pfhorrest

What research has there been done on mystical experiences experienced by a sober mind? It seems like a phenomenon that could be really hard to pin down through scientific experimentation. I'm asking because you are equating drug-induced experiences to non-drug-induced ones and I am wondering what the basis for that equation is.

I don’t have any professional research on hand to share, but for myself personally I have had sober experiences that match the descriptions I’ve read of “mystical” experiences, and friends who have done LSD say that when I am having those experiences I seem like someone on a “really good trip”, and that their experiences while on LSD also match the descriptions they’ve read of “mystical experiences”.

Would you share your experiences? I'm quite interested in the subject.

To put it briefly, the commonality between mystical experiences and psychedelics is the deactivation of the neural DMN (default mode network). DMN google search link

Imagine the above as a timeless, uniform, unchanging, undivided, ungenerated, indestructible whole and the only thing that exists: The Parmenidean One. Attributing any qualities to it can only be considered fiction. It cannot be considered God because God exists in relation to something else (most relevantly us). If God exists in relation to us then there must be a larger whole that we share.

The impetus to fill this conceptual space with God is understandable, it being the ultimate, and therefore the last refuge for ultimate authority. Can we deny "truth itself"? Yeah, we can.

God didn't die in the Enlightenment, he's alive and well. Ultimate authority died.

The Parmenidean One — praxis

a plain dark black picture would be the best.

the mind would see it as nothingness and so die in it

then only consciousness would remain.

Do you have a link to a study?

We’re basically talking about a concept, and you’re now giving it the qualities of plain, dark, black, and who knows what else.

Also, how can there be consciousness without mind?



I think there may be some listed in the search results in the link I provided.

We’re basically talking about a concept, and you’re now giving it the qualities of plain, dark, black, and who knows what else. — praxis

yes im giving it those qualities. there will always be qualities. u cant get away from qualities. and the qualities i gave are the best to remove mind from consciousness

Also, how can be consciousness without mind? — praxis

stop thinking and focus. and u will have consciousness without mind haha

stop thinking and focus. and u will have consciousness without mind — OmniscientNihilist

I guess that depends on what you call mind. So, what do you think it is?

Yes, there are studies of mystical experiences while a person was undergoing an fMRI. Google it. Sounds like fun.

I guess that depends on what you call mind. So, what do you think it is? — praxis

mind = thoughts
consciousness = awareness
brain = grey matter

3 different things, dont confuse them

Sure thing. In brief, they’re experiences of a kind of emotional high, either caused by or causing a feeling of general OK-ness or acceptance, where I can look right at even the worst of things and still see that they are bad but rather than just feeling bad about them, I feel fine and just think clearly about how to improve them. (It’s possibly the same feeling expressed by people who say “I’m so happy I could die”, i.e. even death is no big deal, I feel so great, confident and certain and not worried about anything).

And thinking clearly and creatively and productively is a lot easier in such a state because so many connections between so many disparate things just seem so obvious, like I can just clearly and easily see this huge web of interconnectedness and how everything fits together, which just makes me feel both in awe of the world and proud of myself for seeing it, and excited to have realized it, all of which just further fuels the emotional high running throughout all of it. That sense of everything being connected also extends to my own being, and so brings with it a kind of feeling of oneness with the universe, or of bring a mirror of the universe or of seeing oneself reflected in the universe, Atman-is-Brahman style.

In that state, not only do I see all these meaningful connections (some of which still hold up under later, more skeptical scrutiny), but there is just a profound feeling of general, non-rational meaningfulness, like the opposite of existential dread, a sort of magical feeling, sometimes inexplicably attached to mundane things, almost like a kind of deja vu, like a mundane road I walk down suddenly feels like it was the site of some important significant event, when there wasn’t really any that I can remember, so it feels like some kind of almost-recalled memory of a past life or of a forgotten dream. I think of the mashed potatoes scene in Close Encounter of the Third Kind: “This is important. This means something.” But it’s really just potatoes.

What about the subconscious? Does that activity consist of ‘thought’ or is it something else?

What about the subconscious? Does that activity consist of ‘thought’ or is it something else? — praxis

observe and you will see what the mind really is

it takes consciousness to observe

the mind can then process what is observed (which includes itself = psychology, meta-cognition)

Why not answer the question?

Because he’s omniscient so he knows all, but he’s a nihilist so there is nothing, ergo he knows nothing. :wink:

Why not answer the question? — praxis

the mind just records and is a thinner copy of reality

reality is color, sound, feeling, taste, smell

so the mind is a mirror, and echo, a copy, a thinner version of that

that is its content. but not its process

giving answers to whats obvious is a waste of time, and can create confusion, better if u just look and see