Why are you chasing the idea of the existence of a God?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not discussing spiritual experiences at all.  Separating the category of "spiritual experiences" from "religions" gives more granularity.  Those experiences do not necessarily lead to religions, nor is it necessary for a religion to be based on any spiritual experience.

Indoctrination is a requirement of religion, it is not a requirement of spiritual experience. Those concepts upon which spiritual experiences are based are emphatically -not- the same concepts as those upon which religions are based.

[Mister Agenda]

Most of us are in countries where religion is pervasive, and many of us are in countries where religion has a strong influence on law or government, or is actively seeking to obtain such influence. With a few exceptions, in most countries, people who think they have the truth about God or gods proselytize. In the USA they have multiple TV and radio avenues to get out their message.

I'd hardly think about deities actually being real if their supposed representatives let me be.

[Angrboda]

I'm not discussing spiritual experiences at all.  Separating the category of "spiritual experiences" from "religions" gives more granularity.  Those experiences do not necessarily lead to religions, nor is it necessary for a religion to be based on any spiritual experience.

I'd say that religions evolve out of spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences are their common ancestor so-to-speak. I think you're making a semantic argument that is ultimately lacking in substance.

[The Grand Nudger]

So..when did Joe Smith see the angel?

It's hardly semantic. The emergence of a religion isn't predicate on any spiritual experience.

---

We all experience a sense of the numinous from time to time..the fact that religion leverages this to trade for authenticity and authority doesn't mean that the one is based in the other or has any necessary relationship. Religion is a system of social organization. It depends on .....social organization, not any personal experience in general or in particular.

Does that help clarify?

[robvalue]

The inability of theists to agree on even the most basic qualities is good evidence that it does not relate to a single, real entity. It's never been demonstrated that any of these versions do anything at all outside the mind of the theist. They generally do everything you'd expect, such as agreeing with them on every subject, and sharing their knowledge.

I'm not inclined to agree that this is a substantial issue.  We have concepts without clear delineation that are nonetheless valid concepts, nobody complains that chairs don't exist because there is no all encompassing definition for what a chair is.  We acknowledge the fallacy of the beard, that sometimes there aren't clearly definable distinctions without throwing up our hands and claiming that therefore all things belong in the same category.  The concept of a beard doesn't become invalid simply because there is no clear dividing point.  Language is by its nature slippery and trades on ambiguity for its power.  That there is no clear and unambiguous definition of God even if true is a question of epistemology, not of whether such an ill-defined entity does or does not exist.

Sure, but there is not supposed to be just one chair that exists. Also, we have innumerable real examples of chairs that we can point to at any time. There is supposed to be just one God, according to most religions, yet they each describe God with even less consistency than people would describe the qualities of chairs.

I can say chairs are something useful for sitting on; I'm not sure there's even one statement that could be made about God that could be said to be universal among theists. The nearest is, "Our creator". But the word God always carries way more baggage than that; baggage which they can never agree on. And even then, we have pantheists and such who use "God" to mean something which isn't even a creator.

[Whateverist]

So..when did Joe Smith see the angel?

It's hardly semantic.  The emergence of a religion isn't predicate on any spiritual experience.

---

We all experience a sense of the numinous from time to time..the fact that religion leverages this to trade for authenticity and authority doesn't mean that the one is based in the other or has any necessary relationship. Religion is a system of social organization.  It depends on .....social organization, not any personal experience in general or in particular.

Does that help clarify?

So you're saying you don't have a problem experience of religious nature but only with the institutionalization of the same?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, I separate spiritual experiences and religion because there's no necessary relationship between them, and they aren't the same thing.  We imagine that some religions may be based off of them but they need not be..and supposing they are we have absolutely no confidence that the current state of the religion accurately reflects whatever experience kickedstarted it..and this is piling atop the remote and vague possibility initially asserted.  

Not that any of this matters as far as the indoctrinated are concerned.  -If- they have a spiritual experience, they're likely to interpret or communicate it within the confines of their indoctrination.  It's no less valid -as a spiritual experience-  on account of having been manufactured...I;m merely pointing out that it isnl;t the experience which produces the religion.  The relationship seems to go the other way round.

Ultimately, I could rattle off a list of trouble both get us into..but even the contents of the list would be different...given the wide disparity between the two things.  Between the two..though, I don't have a problem with spiritual experience - and it wouldn't matter if I did.  We have them.  That doesn't account for how we organize ourselves into groups of peers and coalesce to a single divine narrative as though all had experienced the same thing.