Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's illogical. Both of them being correct results in a contradiction. Please explain how something can exist and not exist at the same time.

It's Schrödinger's God!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The more spiritual Wisdom a practitioner of a spiritual teaching awakens to, the clearer they see the truth of the spiritual realm, a practitioner who has not reached the same level of wisdom would also see the truth, but a little more muddy vision. The more a person can remove them selves from believing only in what the physical eyes is showing them, the clearer a spiritual wisdom of truth grow from within them.

Has it occurred to you that it's quite possible that people who claim to be "spiritual practitioners" or those who claim to have "achieved" a certain level "wisdom" about that, are in fact just fooling themselves?

Surely you will agree that at least some of them in fact ARE fooling themselves / engaging in self-delusion?

The question I have for you is: how do you tell the difference between someone who IS fooling himself and someone who actually did stumble upon this mysterious "wisdom", which apparently can't be shared with others?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Has it occurred to you that it's quite possible that people who claim to be "spiritual practitioners" or those who claim to have "achieved" a certain level "wisdom" about that, are in fact just fooling themselves?

Surely you will agree that at least some of them in fact ARE fooling themselves / engaging in self-delusion?

The question I have for you is: how do you tell the difference between someone who IS fooling himself and someone who actually did stumble upon this mysterious "wisdom", which apparently can't be shared with others?

I do not speak of what other spiritual practitioner has achieved or if they are fooling them self. A spiritual teacher would maybe answer on it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is a spiritual belief, meaning belief in the non physical world.

Again, it doesn't matter what it is that is being believed.
If it's not a belief that is verifiable in some type of independent manner, then it's an irrational belief.

If its irrational so be it

Personally, I'ld care if I found out that I was being irrational about something.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Again, it doesn't matter what it is that is being believed.
If it's not a belief that is verifiable in some type of independent manner, then it's an irrational belief.




Personally, I'ld care if I found out that I was being irrational about something.

I meant: if you believe spiritual faith and belief is irrational that is on you. Its your opinion. It does not bother me

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's not a belief that is verifiable in some type of independent manner, then it's an irrational belief.

I would agree with that. What I don't agree with, is that one has to employ an empirical scientific criteria, to decide what is rational and what is not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's not irrational.

It is by definition.

Some people insisting that it is, does not make it so.

Indeed. People insisting that it isn't, doesn't make it so either.
The definition of the word however, does make it so.

Is it irrational to believe that we can't possibly know everything through our senses and current scientific observations? Of course not !

Indeed it isn't. It's demonstrable that it isn't. It's based on evidence that it isn't. Which is why it isn't.....

At the very least, that presupposes that we know everything there is to know from scientific observation.
..which is in itself, irrational

I agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not speak of what other spiritual practitioner has achieved or if they are fooling them self. A spiritual teacher would maybe answer on it.

I consider this to be a blatant dodge.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I consider this to be a blatant dodge.

So?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I meant: if you believe spiritual faith and belief is irrational that is on you. Its your opinion. It does not bother me

Not an opinion. It's a fact.

To believe things on bad or no evidence = irrational.

It's what the word means. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of what the word means.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Not an opinion. It's a fact.

To believe things on bad or no evidence = irrational.

It's what the word means. It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of what the word means.

And?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would agree with that. What I don't agree with, is that one has to employ an empirical scientific criteria, to decide what is rational and what is not.

What evidence is not empirical yet independently verifiable?
Care to give a concrete, practical and verifiable example?


I lol'ed at the irony of that last question, btw.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So?

It makes me wonder what you are afraid of to address the point being made.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What evidence is not empirical yet independently verifiable?
Care to give a concrete, practical and verifiable example?


I lol'ed at the irony of that last question, btw.

Nope

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And?

"And" nothing.
You were just incorrect.

It's not just some opinion.
You were wrong to characterize it as such.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It makes me wonder what you are afraid of to address the point being made.

Nope

 

[Spirit of Light]

"And" nothing.
You were just incorrect.

It's not just some opinion.
You were wrong to characterize it as such.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope

What "nope"?

"nope" as in "No, I don't care to give an example of such evidence that isn't empirical"?

That's your choice off course, but then the assertion that such evidence doesn't need to be empirical is pretty meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As a sidenote.... lately you seem to fall back quite frequently on the attitude that says "I don't care that I'm incorrect", especially when face with pointes that tend to be a bit more challenging. Just like you did here again.

Up until a few weeks ago, you didn't take such stances so easily.
I wonder why that is and what changed.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What "nope"?

"nope" as in "No, I don't care to give an example of such evidence that isn't empirical"?

That's your choice off course, but then the assertion that such evidence doesn't need to be empirical is pretty meaningless.

I do not care to explain to you, you dont listen to what belivers saying to you what they believe. I just dont care to go in circle with you anymore..