In which religion should I have faith?

[Scuba Pete]

What is "spiritual evidence"?

NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?

 

[Pah]

What is "spiritual evidence"?

NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?

May I? Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, Doc

 

[Mr Spinkles]

NOW, you are making progress. That is great question to ask... might you try to answer it as well?

If I had to guess, I would say that "spiritual evidence" is just another way of making the claim that our emotional response to something is indicative of how true it is. What is your definition?

I've pointed out the flaw in your argument three times now, and you have ceased to argue that point, instead insisting that I quote the strawman which you know is difficult to do because of the way that you presented your argument.

The reason you are having "difficulty" quoting my strawman is because I did not use one. Now, for the third time, please quote the argument that I set up to be easily refuted, or if you cannot do so, withdraw your accusation.

Tell you what: I'll gladly withdraw the strawman comment if you will concede that the argument within your rhetorical question is flawed.

No thanks. Please quote the strawman.

I wasn't refering to that part of the argument Spinks. I was refering to the logical flaw in your argument, which No*s pointed out and you finally conceded.[/QUOTE]

This one actually made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid your memory seems to be as defficient as your ability to quote strawman arguments. I never said that science could determine what is right and what is wrong. No*s explained that he did not think science could do so either, and I agreed with him.

It almost seems like you agree with what I'm saying here, lilithu, but you simply don't like the idea that you agree with what I'm saying. I mean, I'm basically hearing "Well, Mr_Spinkles, you're arguing that evidence is the only means we have of figuring out what's true, and that without evidence, we can't have confidence that something is true....but that argument isn't fair! It makes too much sense!" I think you agree with me, lilithu, and accusing me of using a strawman argument was an attempt to avoid this conclusion.

Please quote the strawman.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You guys are TOUGH!

You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet. Make that "possibly" a "probably". It is personal revelation and you might mistake it for "opinion", just as a blind man would mistake your telling him that a fruit is orange as "your opinion". To those of us who "see it" it's as plain as the nose on your face. But it comes at a price. As Martha put it so well... you really have to seek it. Not just in name, but with your whole heart. Until you desire beyond all else to know whether God is true, you can never be sure.

But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.

 

[Ceridwen018]

You forget, NetDoc, that many of us who now dismiss such things used to base our lives on them with fervor equal to your own.

 

[Yerda]

You guys are TOUGH!
You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet.

Count me in the 'ayes' there.

It is personal revelation and you might mistake it for "opinion"

Again I'm guilty. Personal revelation and personal opinion strike me as synonymous.

But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.

I don't mean to fight, but when you make comments like 'as plain as the nose on your face' I feel mocked myself. If it was so clear nobody would dispute.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet. Make that "possibly" a "probably".

Let's not rush to conclusions here, NetDoc. First, I need a definition for "spiritual evidence". Can you provide one?

It is personal revelation and you might mistake it for "opinion", just as a blind man would mistake your telling him that a fruit is orange as "your opinion". To those of us who "see it" it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Some of those who claim to "see it" see Brahman, who holds cows as sacred; others see YHWH, who created cows to serve humankind; some can clearly see many gods who have many different degrees of power--gods who have personalities and even human failings; others see an impersonal god who created the world and then allowed it to run its course; some see that offering a sacrifice to the god of fertility will help crops grow, and others see that doing so would invite the wrath of the one, single, jealous god; some see that Jesus was the Messiah and will return someday, while still others see that Jesus was a prophet, and will never return, and Mohommad was a greater prophet than Jesus. The one thing that all of these "seers" have in common--though what they see varies as widely as the human imagination will permit--is that they think their vision is crystal clear: what they "see" is obvious, it's right there in front of their faces, and anyone who doesn't see what they see is certainly blind or in denial. :149:

Now, while the blind man might observe that those who claim to see oranges consistently testify that its color is orange, the man who does not subscribe to any particular religion notes that the vision of those who claim to "see it" is blurry and unreliable at best.

But it comes at a price. As Martha put it so well... you really have to seek it. Not just in name, but with your whole heart. Until you desire beyond all else to know whether God is true, you can never be sure.

But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.

First, you suggest that spiritual evidence is hard for me to accept, which is flat out false: I haven't seen a definition for spiritual evidence yet, so I can't consider it, much less accept or reject it.

Next, you question whether or not I sincerely seek the truth with my whole heart. Please NetDoc, I beg of you: question my beliefs, question my morals, question everything I stand for--I want people to question those things. But do not question how sincerely I seek the truth. If I didn't sincerely seek the truth with my whole heart, I would not have refused to go to Sunday school and insist on attending the adult church services instead, because I felt that's where all the "important stuff" was taught; and I would not have switched to a Catholic high school my sophomore year just so I could take theology classes. As fellow philosophers, at least, NetDoc, let us question everything about each other, except the other's desire to know the truth. It's insulting to both of us, and I know that you're a good person and do not intend to be insulting.

Then, you imply that I am "blind" for not sharing your beliefs. What about pagans? They don't believe Jesus was the son of God, and furthermore they believe there are many gods...are they blind, too? And Muslims? And Hindus? And Deists? And Wiccans? Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and in the divinity of Christ blind?

Finally, you insinuate that I have mocked those who believe in things. If I have done so, it was unintentional, and I sincerely apologize. Furthermore, I would ask that you quote which parts of my post mocked people, so that I can recognize this and correct it in the future. However, I do not think I have mocked anyone, but merely posited a something worth considering: is the decision to believe in one god vs. six gods arbitrary and based more on psychology/what we're exposed to than on how true the belief is?

Hmm...I've ranted quite a bit here, and I hope you do not interpret that as anger. I'm not angry at you, NetDoc, because I think you're a good man and I know you didn't intend to be insulting, but I sincerely think that we have a misunderstanding here, and I want to correct it. After reading a post that suggests I am blind and do not sincerely seek the truth, I wonder, who is mocking who?

 

[Scuba Pete]

You forget, NetDoc, that many of us who now dismiss such things used to base our lives on them with fervor equal to your own.

Maybe as much as I once believed that there was no God.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Can you provide one?

I don't think that I possess words adequate enough.

the man who does not subscribe to any particular religion notes that the vision of those who claim to "see it" is blurry and unreliable at best.

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

First, you suggest that spiritual evidence is hard for me to accept

If you had accepted it, you wouldn't have asked for a definition. A man who can see the orange may ask WHAT it is, the man who can not, demands evidence for it's existence.

you question whether or not I sincerely seek the truth with my whole heart.

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. 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.

Is everyone who doesn't believe in YHWH and in the divinity of Christ blind?

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.

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.


As for the mocking, it is subtle but it is there. 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.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

I've been sitting here for some time now, trying to respond to this without violating the forum rules. All I will say is that I find your remarks about "those who claimed to be Christian" at my former high school--whom you know nothing about--very unfortunate.

I will reply to the rest at a later time when I have cooled off. For now, I will stop writing, before I say something I will regret.

 

[lilithu]

The reason you are having "difficulty" quoting my strawman is because I did not use one. Now, for the third time, please quote the argument that I set up to be easily refuted, or if you cannot do so, withdraw your accusation.

Yes, you did. You just did not state it explicitly. Your strawman Spinks, is in your suggestion that religions claim truths that are verifiable. You made that suggestion by insisting that you wanted only to have faith in what is "true" and rhetorically asked how to go about choosing one. And you're implication that religions do not have truths that are objectively verifiable is you knocking down your own strawman. Yeah, yeah. I spelled it out instead of quoting it again. So what? It does not make it less the case. Demanding that I quote it is like demanding that one quote ironic humour. The quote itself, out of context, does not convey the meaning.

No thanks. Please quote the strawman.

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

This one actually made me laugh out loud. I'm afraid your memory seems to be as defficient as your ability to quote strawman arguments.

My, my. Aren't we getting obnoxious?

I never said that science could determine what is right and what is wrong. No*s explained that he did not think science could do so either, and I agreed with him.

Right, and that explains why you said to No*s, "I surrender!" It's your memory that needs refreshing. The point of contention was not whether science could determine what was right or wrong. *I* certainly never said that science could determine right from wrong, so for you to phrase the argument that way and then say that you didn't believe it was another, ahem, strawman. In fact, I even asked you at the time: 'if you never thought that science could determine right and wrong, then why did you title the thread "A Scientific View of Right and Wrong"?'

The point of contention was whether the question "why" was a valid consideration when explaining our reasons for doing something. You had been insisting that the question "why" was not valid while at the same time promoting the ability of science (as opposed to religion or philosophy) to answer those questions that are most meaningful to humans. Since the "why" questions are the domain of religion/philosophy, your throwing out the "why" questions would of course make religion/philosophy largely unnecessary, leaving only the "how" questions which science does answer very well. My objection - which I never spelled out because I thought that you had gotten the same point from No*s and had conceded - is that you can't just toss the questions that are the domain religion/philosophy and then claim the science answers the most important questions.

No*s' argument verbatim was: The question "why" is perfectly valid in discussions about our reasons behind doing something. The thread questions science and "right and wrong." 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.

I took that to mean that the question "why" is valid. (That is what he wrote, afterall.) The determination of right and wrong is one of the most important questions to humans. You are conceding that science cannot answer this question. Therefore science cannot answer one of the most important questions to humans. That's how I read it, Spinks. I don't know what you were reading when you told No*s that you surrender because apparently we are still not on the same page.

It almost seems like you agree with what I'm saying here, lilithu, but you simply don't like the idea that you agree with what I'm saying. I mean, I'm basically hearing "Well, Mr_Spinkles, you're arguing that evidence is the only means we have of figuring out what's true, and that without evidence, we can't have confidence that something is true....but that argument isn't fair! It makes too much sense!" I think you agree with me, lilithu, and accusing me of using a strawman argument was an attempt to avoid this conclusion.

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

You once frubaled me for pointing out the logical flaw to a Christian who was basically arguing that Christianity is true because the bible is true (as opposed to the Qur'an). He took the bible as the measure of truth and demanded that all other faiths be judged by that measure. By that measure, of course they would fail; not because they were less true but because they fall outside of the scope of the bible. Yet you are doing the same thing here. 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. 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.

 

[Pah]

You guys are TOUGH!

You know, the reason that "spiritual evidence" is so hard for you to accept, is possibly because you haven't seen any yet. ...
But because you don't see it, it is very easy to dismiss, even to the point of mocking those who do.

But Doc, I did experience spiritual evidence. In fact it was The Holy Spirit itself. Through the gift of the Spirit, in my "born again days" I was praying in "tounges" - really!. I "pastored" and brought a young lady back to her church by pointing out the salvation of Christ through his sacrifice- very emotional that little bit. I'm still able to do that today and have a few "saves" to my credit.

I know exactly what "spiritual evidence" is. And everything I've said before in this thread and other threads is still true.

May I? Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, Doc

But I don't disrespect anyone for having faith. People are what they are and they should protect what is the core of their being - believer and non-believer alike. I am still able to point out what I consider truth and hope that it helps that strengthening in some small way. I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't

 

[lilithu]

But Doc, I did experience spiritual evidence. In fact it was The Holy Spirit itself. Through the gift of the Spirit, in my "born again days" I was praying in "tounges" - really!. I "pastored" and brought a young lady back to her church by pointing out the salvation of Christ through his sacrifice- very emotional that little bit. I'm still able to do that today and have a few "saves" to my credit.

You were a preacher dude? Awesome! So pah, what do you now think that "The Holy Spirit itself" was? (I'm assuming that if you still believed that it was the Spirit moving thru you that you'd still be a theist of some kind.)

Spiritual evidence is personal opinion in the guise of personal revelation. I guess that would count as evidence but I don't think it helps your argument, Doc

I don't think that it's personal opinion, pah. I think that it's personal experience. Opinon is more cognitive - it's a decision, even if it isn't based on reason. My personal opinion that I like chocolate better than vanilla isn't the same as someone else's experience of accepting Jesus as their lord and savior. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to give "spiritual evidence" more "validity" by arguing that it's experience, not opinion. Experience can be just as subjective if not more so. Experience isn't only what we perceive thru our sense faculties; it's also highly filtered thru our expectations. Two people can experience the same external stimuli very differently. And then you add interpretation upon that experience and it gets even more different.

And I would agree that "spiritual evidence" won't do anyone any good in an argument.

But I don't disrespect anyone for having faith. People are what they are and they should protect what is the core of their being - believer and non-believer alike. I am still able to point out what I consider truth and hope that it helps that strengthening in some small way. I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't.

And that is why we love you pah! :jam:

 

[Pah]

Thank you lilithu,

I think I was more of a friend than a preacher but perhaps pastor fits.

What is my post-analysis of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps a susceptibility to the "born again" cultural meme in which I found myself Perhaps it was simular to Eric Hoffman's philosophy of mass movements and being one of the followers of a charismic movement. But it was definitely a product and resided in the mind. It was too easy to disavow the Holy Spirit in spite of it being a most serious sin - I had no guilt and yet it was still joyously,satisfying when it occurred.

I have no problem changing personal opinion to personal experience. I really didn't like the word "opinion" when I wrote it but I had a blockage for a more exact meaning. The important aspect I wanted to communicate was that it was personal.

Thanks again, lilithu, for your kind words and thanks to the other readers of the thread for their forebearance in this off topic jaunt.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=Mr_Spinkles]Let's suppose I'm sick and tired of insisting on evidence all the time. Forget evidence! I'd rather just have faith. :162:


So...what should I have faith in? If there is no evidence for Thor, YHWH, Jehova, Brahman, Zeus, Allah, etc., how do I pick which one is correct? If evidence is no longer important, doesn't my decision become arbitrary, and probably result more from my upbringing/what I'm exposed to in society than from how "true" the religion is?[/QUOTE]
Spend a nice sunny day ou on your own, prefferably at the top of a tall mountain, surrounded with flora and fauna,look ou at the animals, and birds. Injest the spectacle, lie down and close your eyes, and think 'Pure bliss'
(P.s may contain traces of nuts, not to be consumed during pregnancy; side effects have been known to include every malady know to man)

 

[Scuba Pete]

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

I have no idea

I did not presume to pass judgement on anyone. In fact I gave you two options: spiritual evidence does not exist (you are right), or they simply have none to show you. Of course, I missed a third equally as valid possibility; the evidence is there but you simply can not see it (per your admission). If there are other possibilities that I have missed, I would love to hear them. However, it appears that two out of three of these possibilities deeply offend you.

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??? If you so desire I will cease from posting about this as I have done with topics that have upset you in the past. But please don't ask me to lie about what I believe or to change my beliefs to suit your feelings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I also feel that if Bush's issues are your issues then you should support Bush as well - and if not, don't

I am not sure of what to make of this statement. 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.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have no problem changing personal opinion to personal experience.

Cool, neither do I.

 

[painted wolf]

NetDoc- I think that was Pah's wit getting through, not an attack
I think it was ment to be an example of belief being personal, people pick religions like they pick politicians, whatever feels good.
Or I could be way off... but thats how it came accross to me.

Pah seldom, if ever, attacks.

wa:do

 

[lilithu]

NetDoc- I think that was Pah's wit getting through, not an attack
I think it was ment to be an example of belief being personal, people pick religions like they pick politicians, whatever feels good.
Or I could be way off... but thats how it came accross to me.

I took it in the context of the sentence preceding it - respecting others by allowing them to be true to their core-beings. As strongly as pah personally feels against certain religious stances, he will respect that other people have those stances. As strongly has pah personally feels against certain political stances, he will respect that other people have those stances.

It is a very difficult thing to do. We liberals fail at it all the time. Whether it's Berkeley students shouting down a conservative speaker on campus (effectively censoring the person) or the discussion that we had a couple of weeks ago on RF about the logical inconsistency of demanding that everybody accept that all spiritual paths are valid.

NetDoc, I think that pah was just stating his personal approach to all this diversity of thought, and he wasn't attacking your approach. In fact, we know that you abide by similar rules since we know that you agreed to host that conservative website even tho you found their ideas disturbing. You are both highly commendable.