Give me a good reason for not leaving RF

[Spirit of Light]

I for one would be interested in starting a comparitive mysticism thread series where mystical experiences from various faith traditions can be discussed. I would like you to be there if you are interested.
But it will take a bit of time as I am currently overloaded with work.

That sound like a very good idea and since I desided to stay in RF, I will be waiting for your OP on mystic faith experience

 

[RestlessSoul]

This perfectly illustrates the weakness and unreliability of faith, because every theists can claim their own faith justifies whatever they believe in. Your faith has no more authority over Muslims than there's has over yours. So your disagreement means nothing because you choose faith as a means to truth over facts, logic and reason. That's on you. many Muslims agree with the Godly acts of the 9-11 hijackers. Who are you to say God didn't lead them to that belief? This is how faith works. This is why it fails morally.


Your notion of spirit is impractical and abstract. It means very little to any person's actual path to finding truth. What you offer is more non-factual concepts that lead a believer deeper into illusion. and mental gymnastics. It inevitably means a person is less connected to reality and may feel more anxiety and stress about living with real problems that need real, hard solutions.

Let's note that virtues like compassion are not necessarily religious. Many religious people lack compassion, and we have to wonder why religion canner make bad people good. Good people tend to be good theists, and bad people tend to be bad theists. So the utility of religion seems superfluous.


That's good. We need to recognize brilliant minds and what they achieve, and honor them by respecting science.

Faith does not require abandonment of common sense, nor does it justify behaving in ways that are obviously and clearly, by any sane standard, just plain wrong. This is the problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments; the arguments are themselves absurd.

Abstractions are not by definition impractical. Mathematicians and physicists use them all the time.

Yes, many religious people lack compassion. I wonder sometimes, do they even read their sacred texts? But I think we have already drawn the distinction between religion and spirituality.

 

[F1fan]

Faith does not require abandonment of common sense, nor does it justify behaving in ways that are obviously and clearly, by any sane standard, just plain wrong. This is the problem with reductio ad absurdum arguments; the arguments are themselves absurd.

Thanks for the example.

But you are not quite accurate here. Faith used to justify irrational beliefs DOES abandon common sense. Faith used to justify antisocial, or dangerous, or deceptive, or criminal behaviors can't be said to fall into any "sane" standard. These are by definition contrary to social standards of behavior. Look at Kenneth Copeland, or the Bakers, or priests who abuse children, or ISIS, or any theist who lies to an audience to swindle them out of money, etc.

Now your comment may be related to those who have rather mundane faith, like faith in Tim's ability to stop using drugs. But since that use is my position, and yours has been religious faith, it's not relevant to your usage of faith.

Abstractions are not by definition impractical. Mathematicians and physicists use them all the time.

Indeed. Abstractions can represent real things or imaginary. Again my point is how theists will manipulate words, language, meanings, etc. to built a false representation, often by comparing religious abstractions to other types that can be demonstrated as true. The tactic is a sort of 'truth via association'. If math is abstract and can represent truth, then abstractions about a god must represent truth as well. This trick is easily seen, and to my mind is a confession that theists can't show their own work.

Yes, many religious people lack compassion. I wonder sometimes, do they even read their sacred texts? But I think we have already drawn the distinction between religion and spirituality.

Many surely don't read their texts, or only read the ones that mirror their own attitudes. But we cannot put too much responsibility on the individual believer because they often adopt an ideology which is based on interpretations of texts already, so the self will bust follow the crowd and adopt that interpretation. For an individual to have a fuller range of responsibility they need to educate themselves and learn to think independently. The dilemma is that religion is typically a unifying phenomenon, and members conform to the norms that are deemed true through the authority of God. For the individual to look passed this framework they have to assume an authority greater than the God.

And that isn't what they are taught to do, hence the trap of religion.