College students leaving religion: It's not "the science", it's "science"

[Subduction Zone]

Subjective experiences can be lived but not proven. Your claims that billions of religious people aren't having spiritual experience is just that, an unprovable claim.

No, you need to prove that people are having these experiences.. That is your claim. Shifting the burden of proof is another thing that people that know that they are wrong do.

In fact I don't think that I made such a claim myself. That would be a double fail on your part.

 

[Colt]

No, you need to prove that people are having these experiences.. That is your claim. Shifting the burden of proof is another thing that people that know that they are wrong do.

In fact I don't think that I made such a claim myself. That would be a double fail on your part.

I don’t need to prove that religion exists, critical thinking and just a little common sense does that. Your assertion that spiritual experiences are not happening remains unproven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t need to prove that religion exists, critical thinking and just a little common sense does that. Your assertion that spiritual experiences are not happening remains unproven.

LOL! I did not deny that religions exist. Nor did I claim that people do not believe that they have had spiritual experiences. Heck, anyone can have a spiritual experience. There is no need for a god for that to happen.


It appears that all you have is distortion and claims that you either cannot or refuse to support.

Strawman arguments and shifting the burden of proof are acts of people that do not even believe what they are claiming.

 

[Colt]

LOL! I did not deny that religions exist. Nor did I claim that people do not believe that they have had spiritual experiences. Heck, anyone can have a spiritual experience. There is no need for a god for that to happen.



It appears that all you have is distortion and claims that you either cannot or refuse to support.

Strawman arguments and shifting the burden of proof are acts of people that do not even believe what they are claiming.

Now you are backtracking. You made the claim earlier “It does not appear to have happened to anyone. Mere claims are not worth much.”

Now you concede that “anyone can have spiritual experiences” which is true. God IS spirit. It’s equally true that people who have spiritual experiences can still deny God as the source of such an experience.

No straw man, just keeping up with your shell game.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you are backtracking. You made the claim earlier “It does not appear to have happened to anyone. Mere claims are not worth much.”

Now you concede that “anyone can have spiritual experiences” which is true. God IS spirit. It’s equally true that people who have spiritual experiences can still deny God as the source of such an experience.

No straw man, just keeping up with your shell game.

Correct. Stating that it does not appear to have happened to anyone is not the same as saying that it did not happen. It is pointing out that evidence is needed for your claim.

You also never defined what a spiritual experience is so that means no god is necessary. Define your terms properly. Support your claims.

 

[Colt]

Correct. Stating that it does not appear to have happened to anyone is not the same as saying that it did not happen. It is pointing out that evidence is needed for your claim.

You also never defined what a spiritual experience is so that means no god is necessary. Define your terms properly. Support your claims.

Correct. Stating that it does not appear to have happened to anyone is not the same as saying that it did not happen. It is pointing out that evidence is needed for your claim.

You also never defined what a spiritual experience is so that means no god is necessary. Define your terms properly. Support your claims.

You have now acknowledged the realty of "spiritual experience". Use that as your definition. "anyone can have spiritual experiences"

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have now acknowledged the realty of "spiritual experience". Use that as your definition. "anyone can have spiritual experiences"

Okay. My spiritual experience did not require the existence of a god. So their existence does not help your claims.

 

[Colt]

Okay. My spiritual experience did not require the existence of a god. So their existence does not help your claims.

Your experience does not require you to acknowledge or credit God. Its like morality, a materialist can experience morality, acknowledge morality yet deny the source of morality to be a moral personality concealed within the universe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is "church-schooled"? Does that mean you went to a religious school or Sunday school at church?

I was educated within a very conservative and fundamental setting.

I'm sure that's not all you learned about Alexander the Great - was it?

Pretty much.

As long as you learned all the facts about him - why can't someone share their opinion about him as well?

What they taught doesn't work. And what he captured amd set up didn't last long after his death.

Are you saying that every library at every school needs to house books on every subject?

They often do. As they rightfully should.

Cause that might not jive with all the liberals at schools who ban religious texts and books written by conservative authors - and even Dr. Suess! - from secular schools.

Dr. Seuss wasn't banned. A few titles (that RW pundits never actually showed) were voluntarily pulled by the publisher. Calling that a ban is worse than a knee jerk reaction.

If you claim that a school not teaching evolution is "discouraging critical thinking" - then can't I say the same about all schools that don't teach Creationism?

Creationism is not science. It's a religious creation myth.

Until they start teaching Creationism as an alternative explanation for Man's existence in secular schools - I see nothing wrong with religious schools doing this.

Public schools have no reason to be teaching it.
Amd, don't forget I gave other examples.

I didn't go to a religious school. Teachers often inject their own biases and false information.

This was in the material and curriculum.

That same could be said about everything you just said. Kinda throwing rocks from your glass house.

I gave specific examples from my education. You erroneously claimed Dr. Seuss was banned.

 

[Trailblazer]

How are Pagans non-religious??

I was not referring to Pagans. When I said there are non-religious people who believe in God for reasons other than the Messengers of God, I was referring to people who are not affiliated with any religion but nevertheless believe in God. There are such people who have no religion but believe in God.

 

[Rival]

I was not referring to Pagans. When I said there are non-religious people who believe in God for reasons other than the Messengers of God, I was referring to people who are not affiliated with any religion but nevertheless believe in God. There are such people who have no religion but believe in God.

I guess I just think your criteria for why many folks believe in God / know the existence of God is rather narrow, but again I know you've struggled with this yourself. I think the first messenger-based faith was Zoroastrianism, but many faiths in Classical Antiquity had no messengers (most Paganisms). I was honestly just curious how you'd explain so many folks believing in God/s without a messenger per your reasoning.

 

[Trailblazer]

And where does that leave people like me?

Continuing to seek, I guess.

Open, but needing better evidence. Something beyond my own senses that aren't always right, and more than humans who aren't always correct or accurate, sometimes intentionally so.
It's sort of like people say the evidence is there for those who seek it. Well? Well, I may have found something, but where's the evidence that allows me to know?

There are several ways to acquire knowledge, just something to think about:

83: THE FOUR METHODS OF ACQUIRING KNOWLEDGE

 

[Trailblazer]

I was honestly just curious as to how you'd explain so many folks believing in God/s without a messenger per your reasoning.

I don't really know, you'd have to ask them that question. Maybe it is just logical reasoning for some people, and some non-religious folks have told me it just makes sense to them that there is a God since there is a creation. Then some religions do not have a Messenger per se, but a holy man or some kind of religious leader.

When I said the only real proof of God is Messengers that was really aimed at atheists who keep asking me for proof of God, and I can only tell them what I believe is the best proof, according to my beliefs. I cannot tell them what was never proof to me because I would not be able to explain why it is proof. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your experience does not require you to acknowledge or credit God. Its like morality, a materialist can experience morality, acknowledge morality yet deny the source of morality to be a moral personality concealed within the universe.

And a dodge. If you want to claim that a god exists you take on a burden of proof. You could not define a "spiritual experience" And I can tell you that mine did not require a god. You are defeating yourself here.

 

[Trailblazer]

By enabling people to put two and two together. Spiritual "truth" often contradicts itself, the spiritual "truth" of other denominations or reality. Doublethink is the ability to hold all those "truths" in one brain without feeling cognitive dissonance because one doesn't make a connection between them. Critical thinking is making the connection and realizing the contradictions.

I might rather say that religious "truth" often contradicts itself, the religious "truth" of other denominations or reality.
The primary reason for the contradictions is that man misinterprets or changes what was originally revealed by God.
I believe that spiritual truth is one and it can be found in all religions and even outside of religion, since Reality is one.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

 

[Trailblazer]

but when you ask them "how do you know that I do not know" they are left with blind assertions.

Or they are left with nothing left to say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or they are left with nothing left to say.

Actually knowledge is demonstrable. If a person cannot show that they know what they know all that they have are blind assertions. People that claim to know something do have to demonstrate that they know this.

 

[Trailblazer]

I try. My main beef with religion is that it's all too often presented with certainty, as if they believe they have all the answers.

I do not believe any religion has all the answers, only God has all the answers, but answers are not revealed until humanity is capable of understanding them and until humanity needs to know them.

I believe that the Messengers of God have the knowledge if God so they have the answers, but they do not reveal all of what they know because it would overwhelm us and be beyond our capacity to understand them.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded......
Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually knowledge is demonstrable. If a person cannot show that they know what they know all that they have are blind assertions. People that claim to know something do have to demonstrate that they know this.

And when we believers show what we know and atheists say "that's not evidence" then it is time for us to close up shop and go home because otherwise it just keeps going in circles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And when we believers show what we know and atheists say "that's not evidence" then it is time for us to close up shop and go home because otherwise it just keeps going in circles.

But you never do that and that has been pointed out to you. Do you remember how many times that another poster had to explain to you how you were using circular reasoning? That is not supporting that you know. It only tells us that you believe.