In which religion should I have faith?

Pah · Feb 20, 2005

NetDoc said:
I am not sure of what to make of this statement.[I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't] Either you don't know me, don't understand how I feel about President Bush or this has been said simply to offend me. I have already promised to another user to not discuss my feelings and opinions about President Bush (though I feel I have transgressed at times) and will continue to honor that promise. I am sure if you do a search, you will discover my true feelings about our current President, and realize that I have absolutely nothing in common with him.

Geez, Doc. I wasn't talking about you personally but in any case you were covered even if you missed the general context of it being my philosophy.

And a personal note - our friendship has an ebb and flow but it has never been neutral or hostile on my part. That says nothing about how you feel but only expresses the way I feel.

Scuba Pete · Feb 20, 2005

Hey Pah... I don't see it as an "attack" I just can't get my mind around the meaning I guess. Everyone has their hot buttons, and frankly Bush is one of my weak areas. I hold no hostile feelings towards you even though I have no clue on what your statement meant. Ebb and flow is true for most every friendship!

Mr Spinkles · Feb 20, 2005

lilithu said:
Yes, you did [use a strawman argument~Spinks]. You just did not state it explicitly.

:biglaugh:

lilithu said:
Your strawman Spinks, is in your suggestion that religions claim truths that are verifiable.

I must be awfully skilled to conceal a strawman argument within a suggestion. Please quote the the part where I suggested this.

lilithu said:
You made that suggestion by insisting that you wanted only to have faith in what is "true"...

Now your imagination has simply run away with you. I did say that I want only to have faith in what is true. However, that I want to have faith in what is true says nothing about whether or not religions claim truths that are verifiable. In fact, I would argue that by and large, religions claim things (things which may be true) that are not verifiable.

You seem to be desperately attempting to disagree with me by altering what I say, and what I suggest. Here's something I do suggest: go back and read what I've said, without assuming that I'm saying more than is written there.

lilithu said:
And you're implication that religions do not have truths that are objectively verifiable is you knocking down your own strawman.

No, it's me making a point, one with which you seem to agree. Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
Yeah, yeah. I spelled it out instead of quoting it again. So what? It does not make it less the case.

Yes, lilithu, it does. You're "spelling it out" is in fact just you putting words in my mouth. Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
Demanding that I quote it is like demanding that one quote ironic humour. The quote itself, out of context, does not convey the meaning.

Quote the entire post, then, so that we can examine whether it "sets up an argument to be easily refuted" or simply makes a compelling case. Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
That's ok. I'll take your failure to address my argument as a concession.

You appear to make a habit of taking more than is there.

lilithu said:
Right, and that explains why you said to No*s, "I surrender!"

No, this explains why I said "I surrender!":

No*s said:
Saying that we can't answer "why" we make decisions we do is tantamount to surrendering any possible scientific ability to determine right and wrong.

[emphasis added]

Mr_Spinkles said:
I surrender! Seriously though, I agree.

I was having fun here with No*s' choice of words. I had never claimed that science could determine right and wrong.

If you wish to discuss this further, please do so in the "A Scientific View of Right and Wrong" thread.

lilithu said:
Sorry, wrong. As I said, I understand what reason is Spinks, but you don't understand what faith is.

You have yet to demonstrate either.

lilithu said:
You are saying that you will accept only what is objectively verifiable as true and that anything else that makes a truth claim must then be held up to your standard of measurement.

I have asked for other standards of measurement, but few have been forthcoming. Some suggested that their conviction in a claim is indicative of how true it is, and I explained why I disagree: many people have equally strong convictions in diametrically opposed claims, therefore their conviction alone cannot possibly tell us which claim is true. NetDoc has suggested "spiritual evidence" as a determinant, but we have yet to arrive at a definition for it. I would accept other "standards of measurement" if they proved capable of discerning true and false claims (which I have stated is my goal, and may not be everyone's goal, and is something entirely different from discerning beneficial/detrimental claims). Perhaps you could present such a standard.

lilithu said:
It's fine for you to only accept what is objectively verifiable as true for yourself. I have no problem with that. But you go beyond that by insisting that all other belief systems must be measured by yours, and then because faith cannot stand up to your imposed standard of measurement, you think that somehow proves that faith is wrong.

Well, whether faith can come to wrong (as in incorrect) conclusions, and whether having faith is "wrong" (as in unethical) are related, but seperate, issues. I mean to address the former issue, not the latter. (For the record, I certainly do not regard having faith as unethical--in fact it could even be beneficial.) If group A has faith that claim X is true and Y is false, and group B has equally strong faith that claim Y is true and X is false, it seems reasonable to conclude that faith--no matter how strong--has lead one of these groups (or possibly both) to believe things that are not true. Reason tells us that claim X cannot be both true and not true, and neither can claim Y, and therefore either group A, or group B, or both, have faith in something that is not true. Apparently, if faith can lead us to the truth, it can just as easily lead us away from it.

Now, as I said, reason leads us to conclude the above. It is possible, of course, that unreasonable things are true. However, if reason is thrown out as part of our methodology and some sort of "non-reason" methods substituted, we can safely conclude that we know there are six gods rather than one god becauase I like mashed potatoes. Or, perhaps we know Mohommad is the one true prophet because that is what is written in the Koran. Or we know Jesus is the Messiah because that is what is written in the Bible. Like I said earlier, our decisions on which claims to place our faith in become arbitrary, and appear to be based primarily on our psychology/what we have been exposed to in society. There may very well be six gods instead of one, but without reason, the method by which one decides to put faith in this claim renders one's decision a lucky guess at best.

Mr Spinkles · Feb 20, 2005

NetDoc said:
As you cool off, re-read the first part of my statement...

me said:

I have no idea

Click to expand...

I did not presume to pass judgement on anyone.

Let's look once again at what you said:

NetDoc said:
I have no idea of the spiritual evidence given by those who claimed to be Christian at your school. However, if you didn't see any, it could mean that either it doesn't exist at all, or they simply lack it.

Your comments appear to question whether "those who claim to be Christian" at my school are truly Christian, which is utterly absurd. I sincerely regret bringing the wonderful faculty, students, and parents of my school into this discussion, who are, in fact, a credit to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

NetDoc said:
You can be assured that I do not write this to anger you. It's really pure cold logic and nothing more. I am not sure why you are so angered by something you claim does not exist???

What did I claim does not exist? Please quote my claims, so I can see to which ones you refer.

Mr Spinkles · Feb 20, 2005

I apologize for the triple post, everyone.

Now that I have cooled off,

I will respond to the rest of your post, NetDoc.

I asked you to define "spiritual evidence" and you responded:

NetDoc said:
I don't think that I possess words adequate enough.

Then we have reached an impasse. I do not know if I accept "spiritual evidence" or not, because I do not know what it is.

NetDoc said:
Yet the orange exists independent of his belief or lack thereof.

Similarly, the cyclopes does not exist independent of his belief. What's your point here?

NetDoc said:
If you had accepted it, you wouldn't have asked for a definition.

This statement is pure nonsense. As you say in the very next sentence,

NetDoc said:
A man who can see the orange may ask WHAT it is, the man who can not, demands evidence for it's existence.

I ask precisely what the man who can see the orange asks in your analogy: WHAT is "spiritual evidence"?

NetDoc said:
Seeking the truth and seeking God are two different things. One may seek the truth with their whole might and still miss seeking God. While seeking God will always reveal the truth, merely seeking the truth won't always reveal God.

Once again, you forget your audience. The statement "While seeking the Easter Bunny will always reveal the truth, merely seeking the truth won't always reveal the Easter Bunny" sounds impressive only to those who already believe in the Easter Bunny.

NetDoc said:
You wish to frame me as narrow minded, and I must admit that in many ways I am. However, we were talking about spiritual evidence. Everyone and any religion that tries to get closer to God will exhibit some of these spiritual evidences. The closer they are to the true God, the stronger the evidence. If you can't see it, how can you claim to not be blind to it? That was your own admission and not my accusation.

Replace "spiritual evidence" in this paragraph with "kwyjibo", and you'll see how meaningless this paragraph is without definitions for the terms being used.

Furthermore, I do not wish to frame you as anything, I wish for you to answer the question. Here it is, once again: Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and the Divinity of Christ blind?

NetDoc said:
Ephesians 2:17 I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe.

Ah, but in the Book of Spinkle, chapter 98 verse 4,006, it says: People will believe anything in print. Heed the written word, O heathen!

NetDoc said:
As for the mocking, it is subtle but it is there.

Well, there's certainly nothing subtle about the above, but I was just having some fun.

NetDoc said:
The time is late and I have church in the am. Perhaps I will have more time tomorrow to go back and cite some of those for you.

Please do so.

Hope · Feb 20, 2005

Spiritual evidence, Spinkles, could be described kind of like clues, and signs, and freaky coincidences that come one's way. Miracles, even, which I realize most people don't believe in anymore, but which I believe in strongly. I understand that it does seem a bit unfair that God just doesn't yell out loud to us, " Hey, I'm real, I'm here, and I love you!" I wish a lot of times He would verbally speak to me in thin air! But He speaks in other ways usually. And if we pay attention, and seek for Him, He's not gonna hide from us for long. I think NetDoc is right---if you search for what you think is truth, you could be searching a long time; however, if you search for God, then not only will you find Him, but the truth as well.

lilithu · Feb 20, 2005

Mr_Spinkles said:
Now your imagination has simply run away with you. I did say that I want only to have faith in what is true. However, that I want to have faith in what is true says nothing about whether or not religions claim truths that are verifiable. In fact, I would argue that by and large, religions claim things (things which may be true) that are not verifiable.

Your rhetorical question sets up the requirement that religious truth claims be objectively verifiable. To make such a requirement suggests that religion claims that such truths are objectively verifiable. At least to my mind it does because to require that someone be able to do something that they did not claim to be able to do is rather unfair, and not much of a victory. I've implied this before and will state it explicitly here: I was assuming that you were doing this intentionally. If you weren't, then it wasn't a strawman argument, just faulty logic.

Mr_Spinkles said:
You seem to be desperately attempting to disagree with me by altering what I say, and what I suggest. Here's something I do suggest: go back and read what I've said, without assuming that I'm saying more than is written there.

So now you've stated that my memory is deficient, that my imagination has run away with me, and that I seem to be desperate. None of these are relevant to the argument and the last one definately constitutes ad hominem.

Mr_Spinkles said:
Yes, lilithu, it does. You're "spelling it out" is in fact just you putting words in my mouth. Please quote the strawman argument. Quote the entire post, then, so that we can examine whether it "sets up an argument to be easily refuted" or simply makes a compelling case. Please quote the strawman argument.

I have the right to deconstruct an argument, to state explicitly what has been assumed implicitly.

If you think that I've added to your argument/put words in your mouth, then please spell out explicitly, not in the form of a rhetorical question, what your point was - since you did state that you were trying to make a point - and we can see how different your argument actually was from how I took it.

Mr_Spinkles said:
You appear to make a habit of taking more than is there.

And you make a habit of discarding what is there.

In the other thread, you dismissed the validity of "why" questions, which left only the questions addressed by science. In this thread, you dismiss the validity of non-verifiable truths, which leaves only objective truths. Which are the less interesting truths, imo. And in this subargument, you are ignoring my objections, which of course only leaves the part where I agree with you.

Mr_Spinkles said:
No, this explains why I said "I surrender!": [emphasis added]I was having fun here with No*s' choice of words. I had never claimed that science could determine right and wrong.

Once again whether science could determine right and wrong was never the point of contention. You keep saying that you never made this claim while failing to address the points that I actually make. Please address the points that I actually make.

Mr_Spinkles said:
You have yet to demonstrate either.

That's ok; you are demonstrating both just fine.

Mr_Spinkles said:
I have asked for other standards of measurement, but few have been forthcoming. Some suggested that their conviction in a claim is indicative of how true it is, and I explained why I disagree: many people have equally strong convictions in diametrically opposed claims, therefore their conviction alone cannot possibly tell us which claim is true. NetDoc has suggested "spiritual evidence" as a determinant, but we have yet to arrive at a definition for it. I would accept other "standards of measurement" if they proved capable of discerning true and false claims (which I have stated is my goal, and may not be everyone's goal, and is something entirely different from discerning beneficial/detrimental claims). Perhaps you could present such a standard.

All standards of measurement are internal, Spinks. As I said in my last post, one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of Islam be measured by Christianity's standards. I try to explain to my Buddhist friends that one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of Christianity be measured by Buddhism's standards. And I've been trying to explain to you that one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of faith be measured by reason's standards.

Mr_Spinkles said:
Well, whether faith can come to wrong (as in incorrect) conclusions, and whether having faith is "wrong" (as in unethical) are related, but seperate, issues. I mean to address the former issue, not the latter. (For the record, I certainly do not regard having faith as unethical--in fact it could even be beneficial.) If group A has faith that claim X is true and Y is false, and group B has equally strong faith that claim Y is true and X is false, it seems reasonable to conclude that faith--no matter how strong--has lead one of these groups (or possibly both) to believe things that are not true. Reason tells us that claim X cannot be both true and not true, and neither can claim Y, and therefore either group A, or group B, or both, have faith in something that is not true. Apparently, if faith can lead us to the truth, it can just as easily lead us away from it.

Emphasis added; point made.

Mr_Spinkles said:
Now, as I said, reason leads us to conclude the above. It is possible, of course, that unreasonable things are true. However, if reason is thrown out as part of our methodology and some sort of "non-reason" methods substituted, we can safely conclude that we know there are six gods rather than one god becauase I like mashed potatoes. Or, perhaps we know Mohommad is the one true prophet because that is what is written in the Koran. Or we know Jesus is the Messiah because that is what is written in the Bible. Like I said earlier, our decisions on which claims to place our faith in become arbitrary, and appear to be based primarily on our psychology/what we have been exposed to in society. There may very well be six gods instead of one, but without reason, the method by which one decides to put faith in this claim renders one's decision a lucky guess at best.

For you Spinks, there is not six gods, there is not one god, there is no god. For someone else, the answer is different. The fact that the truth is different for others does not detract from your truth. Yet you seem to want to conform everyone else's truth to your own. It's the main reason why ultimately I don't think that you'd be happy as a UU, tho even UUs slip into this sometimes. Yes, I'm sure that you're going to claim that I'm putting words in your mouth.

Ceridwen018 · Feb 20, 2005

Your rhetorical question sets up the requirement that religious truth claims be objectively verifiable. To make such a requirement suggests that religion claims that such truths are objectively verifiable.

I'm not entirely sure how something goes about being subjectively verifiable, but I don't think that that's really the issue, lilithu. In truth, most religions DO claim to be objectively true, that is, true for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not. All of that aside, Spinkles wants to believe in something that is true--whether its truth is determined objectively or subjectively is secondary to whether it can be verified at all.

Mr Spinkles · Feb 20, 2005

lilithu said:
Your rhetorical question sets up the requirement that religious truth claims be objectively verifiable.

It does no such thing. The only requirement my rhetorical question sets up is that I personally wish to have faith in things that are true, irrespective of whether or not "religious truth claims be objectively verifiable".

Please quote the part where I "set up the requirement that religious truth claims be objectively verifiable".

lilithu said:
To make such a requirement suggests that religion claims that such truths are objectively verifiable.

I never suggested that religion claims that their truths are objectively verifiable. In fact, many religious people explicitly state that what they claim is not objectively verifiable. Then again, many religious people do claim that their truths are objectively verifiable. You and I appear to agree that these people are wrong.

Please quote the part where I suggest that "religion claims that such truths are objectively verifiable".

lilithu said:
At least to my mind it does because to require that someone be able to do something that they did not claim to be able to do is rather unfair, and not much of a victory. I've implied this before and will state it explicitly here: I was assuming that you were doing this intentionally. If you weren't, then it wasn't a strawman argument, just faulty logic.

It appears to me that you have erroneously interpreted your own agreement as some kind of failure on my part to disagree with you, which you term "faulty logic".

If by "I was assuming that you were doing this intentionally" you mean "I was putting words in your mouth", then we have an accord.

lilithu said:
So now you've stated that my memory is deficient, that my imagination has run away with me, and that I seem to be desperate. None of these are relevant to the argument and the last one definately constitutes ad hominem.

No, neither your defficient memory, nor your runaway imagination, nor your apparent desperation to disagree have anything to do with whether or not a naturalistic methodology is the only reliable way of discerning what is true. But I never said they did, so it isn't ad hominem, just observation.

lilithu said:
If you think that I've added to your argument/put words in your mouth, then please spell out explicitly, not in the form of a rhetorical question, what your point was - since you did state that you were trying to make a point - and we can see how different your argument actually was from how I took it.

I have spelled it out explicitly several times already, but it matters not: I would not accept your burden of proof until you justify your accusation by quoting my alleged strawman argument.

Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
And you make a habit of discarding what is there.

That's what I do with garbage. I'm beginning to wish I'd discarded your accusation long ago.

Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
In the other thread, you dismissed the validity of "why" questions, which left only the questions addressed by science. In this thread, you dismiss the validity of non-verifiable truths, which leaves only objective truths. Which are the less interesting truths, imo. And in this subargument, you are ignoring my objections, which of course only leaves the part where I agree with you.

Oh, how I wish I was ignoring your objections. Unfortunately, I have paid attention to them, and found them lacking in substance.

Please quote the strawman argument.

lilithu said:
Once again whether science could determine right and wrong was never the point of contention. You keep saying that you never made this claim while failing to address the points that I actually make. Please address the points that I actually make.

Please address these "points that I actually make" to the appropriate thread.

lilithu said:
That's ok; you are demonstrating both just fine.

Zing!

lilithu said:
All standards of measurement are internal, Spinks.

Perhaps in the imaginary world, but in the real world external standards of measurement include, by international agreement, the meter, the kilogram, and the second.

lilithu said:
As I said in my last post, one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of Islam be measured by Christianity's standards.

By Christianity's standards, Islam is false. Nothing stopped me from making the judgement that you just said one cannot make. Now, if you're saying that Christianity's standards are not reliable standards for determining whether Islam is true or false, then I agree with you.

lilithu said:
I try to explain to my Buddhist friends that one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of Christianity be measured by Buddhism's standards.

Sure they can. The question is, are those standards reliable?

lilithu said:
And I've been trying to explain to you that one cannot demand that the truth of falsity of faith be measured by reason's standards.

I certainly can, and do. The question is, are "reason's standards" reliable? I would argue that they may not always be reliable, but are much more reliable than "unreason's standards".

lilithu said:
For you Spinks, there is not six gods, there is not one god, there is no god. For someone else, the answer is different.

No, for me there are the same number of gods as everyone else. There are X number of gods, and that is as true for those who believe in X+1 gods as it is for those who believe in X-1 gods.

lilithu said:
The fact that the truth is different for others does not detract from your truth. Yet you seem to want to conform everyone else's truth to your own.

So you're saying that, since some people believe there is only one god, and other people believe there are six gods, that both beliefs are true? There are both one and six gods (and no gods)? Cows are both sacred and not sacred? The Earth is round and flat?

If that is what you are saying, then we have abandoned reason. A does not equal A, B equals A but A does not equal B, and my belief in six gods because I like mashed potatoes is as valid as the Christian's belief that Jesus will come again because it says so in the Bible. As I said earlier, these things may be true, but if they are, my decision to have faith in them would appear to be a lucky guess at best.

lilithu said:
It's the main reason why ultimately I don't think that you'd be happy as a UU, tho even UUs slip into this sometimes. Yes, I'm sure that you're going to claim that I'm putting words in your mouth.

Clever girl.

Please quote the strawman argument.

Scott1 · Feb 20, 2005

vBulletin Message: You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Mr_Spinkles again.

lilithu · Feb 20, 2005

Ceridwen018 said:
I'm not entirely sure how something goes about being subjectively verifiable, but I don't think that that's really the issue, lilithu. In truth, most religions DO claim to be objectively true, that is, true for everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.

In truth, huh? I say that most religions do not claim to be objectively true. So we have two contradictory statements by two people, both making a claim of describing the external world. Now, how do we objectively determine which one of us has made the true statement?

I also do not agree with you definition of objective truth as that which is "true for everyone." Objective truth is true independant of human recognition. Objective truth is that which can be objectively verified.

Ceridwen018 said:
All of that aside, Spinkles wants to believe in something that is true--whether its truth is determined objectively or subjectively is secondary to whether it can be verified at all.

Spinks wants to believe in something that is true, but he only accepts that which is objectively verifiable as true. It is not secondary; it's inherent.

Scuba Pete · Feb 20, 2005

What did I claim does not exist?

Spiritual Evidence and the soul. Do I really need to find a quote?

As for the "Christianity" of your friends, you have extrapolated what I said to an illogical conclusion. Do you see any other possibilities for what has happened here?

IF Spinkles has never experienced "Spiritual Evidence" then...
1) There is no such thing as "Spiritual Evidence"
2) Those you have associated do not possess "Spiritual Evidences"
3) You are incapable of seeing these "Spiritual Evidences"

Now this is the second time I have stated it so clearly and STILL you make me out to be some Judgemental BEAST. I find this most alarming and insincere. Only YOU can answer why you feel you have not seen these "Spiritual Evidences" as I can not. So please, are there ANY other possibilities which I have missed here? Please trot them out (second request). So get off of your stinking high horse and realise YOU READ ME WRONG.

Master Vigil · Feb 20, 2005

Don't mean to butt in here, but, schizophrenics experience things that are "real" to them. Do they really exist? How much difference is there between spiritual evidence and hallucinations? In some ancient faiths, spiritual evidence was halluciantions. If person 1 experiences spirtual evidence, and person 2 experiences hallucinations, and person 3 experiences neither, which can validly say what the other experiences is true or not? Also, what defines spiritual evidence? How would someone know whether or not they experience it? And how can one believe that that definition is valid enough to accept that evidence as truth?

Scuba Pete · Feb 21, 2005

It has been widely contested that Jesus was the Son of God, a liar or Schizoid. It does not suprise me that some would make this point.

Master Vigil · Feb 21, 2005

I didn't mean that jesus was a liar, or schizoid. That is a different issue in my opinion. I believe he taught a message, and that message was exaggerated by his followers. But my point is, what some believe as "spiritual evidence" may be very well detectable by science. But the terms they use you may not agree with.

lilithu · Feb 21, 2005

Master Vigil said:
Don't mean to butt in here, but, schizophrenics experience things that are "real" to them. Do they really exist? How much difference is there between spiritual evidence and hallucinations? In some ancient faiths, spiritual evidence was halluciantions. If person 1 experiences spirtual evidence, and person 2 experiences hallucinations, and person 3 experiences neither, which can validly say what the other experiences is true or not? Also, what defines spiritual evidence? How would someone know whether or not they experience it? And how can one believe that that definition is valid enough to accept that evidence as truth?

You make a good point MV. A lot of faiths rely on visions that are induced by sleep deprivation or pain or fasting - basically physical stress. Non-believers would take this as evidence that the "visions" are nothing but hallucinations. But for believers, physical stress is just the way to get outside of oneself to make one open to the visions. Who's to say which is true? Who can determine what is true for someone else?

jewscout · Feb 21, 2005

Mr_Spinkles said:
Ah, but you would not limit your own knowledge in regards to the number of gods? Your knowledge includes how many gods there are, right....or does it?

I believe that there is a singular Divine force in the Universe...
But do i know....i guess i won't know until i shuffle off this mortal coil and find out what, if anything, exists beyond this level.

Mr Spinkles · Feb 21, 2005

NetDoc-- You said:

NetDoc said:
You can be assured that I do not write this to anger you. It's really pure cold logic and nothing more. I am not sure why you are so angered by something you claim does not exist???

I then asked you what is this "something" that I claim does not exist, and that you think angers me. I also asked you to quote this claim. You responded:

NetDoc said:
Spiritual Evidence and the soul. Do I really need to find a quote?

1) What do souls have to do with any of this?

2) I did not claim that spiritual evidence does not exist, I simply asked for a definition. Please quote the part where I claimed spiritual evidence does not exist.
3) Neither spiritual evidence nor souls anger me. I found your suggestion that the people at my school were not truly Christian offensive. I regret bringing my high school into the discussion, and will not be discussing it further.

NetDoc said:
So please, are there ANY other possibilities which I have missed here?

I couldn't say, as I do not even know what meaning (if any) there is behind the term "spiritual evidence".

For the third time:
Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and the Divinity of Christ blind?

Scuba Pete · Feb 21, 2005

Spinks...

are you saying now that you weren't angry? I guess I don't understand your venacular then. Having to cool down almost always means anger to me. Or are you saying I haven't a clue about what made you angry. Well, I do but I am sure that will make you angrier.

1) What do souls have to do with this? Souls are your spiritual side. If you don't have one, or deny yours then it is impossible to see spiritual evidences and truth.

2) You did claim:

I don't believe there is a God, so to me, all the things that theists attribute to God actually come from themselves. In my opinion, this explains a lot.

.

3)I found your suggestion that the people at my school were not truly Christian offensive.

Click to expand...

I suggested NO SUCH THING. I gave you two and then three possibilities. YOU have extrapolated and TWISTED what I did say. That is your problem and not mine.

I couldn't say, as I do not even know what meaning (if any) there is behind the term "spiritual evidence".

Click to expand...

How convenient. So do you dismiss any of the three posibilities? Do you still SUGGEST that I am judging your school?

For the third time:

Click to expand...

Why should I try again? I answered it DIRECTLY in post #109 and you will not even acknowledge that answer.

I feel as if I am going around in circles with you. If it makes you feel any better, then please label me as you see fit. I simply don't care anymore. I don't come here to push my belief system on you and I hope you can simply accept that I will probably never accept yours. If that angers you, well it is beyond my ability to control. I ask you questions, but you seem unwilling or unable to answer them. You ask me questions and then overlook my direct answer and act as if I have ignored you. What's the dealeo? This may be "fun" to you, but I don't enjoy this sort of discourse. Respect should be mutual.

Click to expand...

Mr Spinkles · Feb 21, 2005

NetDoc said:
are you saying now that you weren't angry?

No.

NetDoc said:
1) What do souls have to do with this? Souls are your spiritual side. If you don't have one, or deny yours then it is impossible to see spiritual evidences and truth.

Well, I don't know what "spiritual evidences" are, but are you really suggesting that those who do not believe in souls cannot see truth, or have I misread you here?

NetDoc said:
2) You did claim:

Mr_Spinkles said:

I don't believe there is a God, so to me, all the things that theists attribute to God actually come from themselves. In my opinion, this explains a lot.

Click to expand...

You're right, I did claim that. I did not, however, claim that "spiritual evidence" does not exist. I have no idea whether it exists or not, as you have not offered a definition for the term. Please quote the part where I claimed that "spiritual evidence" does not exist.

NetDoc said:
Do you still SUGGEST that I am judging your school?

As I said, I will not be discussing it further.

NetDoc said:
Why should I try again? I answered it DIRECTLY in post #109 and you will not even acknowledge that answer.

In post #109, in response to my question Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and the Divinity of Christ blind? , you submitted the following:

NetDoc said:
You wish to frame me as narrow minded, and I must admit that in many ways I am. However, we were talking about spiritual evidence. Everyone and any religion that tries to get closer to God will exhibit some of these spiritual evidences. The closer they are to the true God, the stronger the evidence. If you can't see it, how can you claim to not be blind to it? That was your own admission and not my accusation.

Is that a "yes" or a "no"?

NetDoc said:
I ask you questions, but you seem unwilling or unable to answer them.

I am unwilling to answer questions or discuss my school further on this thread, and I have stated so. Please post any other questions you have that I should have answered.

NetDoc said:
You ask me questions and then overlook my direct answer and act as if I have ignored you.

Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and the Divinity of Christ blind? is a fairly straightforward, yes or no question. Please give a straightforward, yes or no answer.

In which religion should I have faith?

Uber all member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Mr

Mr

Mr

Princesinha

The Devil's Advocate

Well-Known Member

Mr

Well-Known Member

The Devil's Advocate

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Well-Known Member

The Devil's Advocate

Religious Zionist

Mr

Le plongeur avec attitude...

Mr