Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Kilgore Trout]

So as a practical matter what difference does it make?

It makes a huge difference if obfuscation is your goal, rather than understanding.

 

[Michel07]

Huh?

Are you claiming that a "spirit" went 'bang' and manifested all the physical?

Well I do believe the word "bang" in this context is merely an expression of something that is poorly understood but in essence yes, as it is said that God is spirit.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Well I do believe the word "bang" in this context is merely an expression of something that is poorly understood but in essence yes, as it is said that God is spirit.

God is also a dung Beetle...God is also a wombat....

Kabbalist Moses Cordovero stated:

“The essence of divinity is found in every single thing – nothing but it exists. Since it causes every thing to be, no thing can live by anything else. It enlivens them, its existence exists in each existent.

Do not attribute duality to God. Let God be solely God. If you suppose that Ain Sof emanates until a certain point, and that from that point on is outside of it, you have dualized. God forbid! Do not say, ‘This is a stone and not God.’ God forbid! Rather, all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity.”

- Moses Cordovero (Shiur Komah)

Where does the spirit end and the physical begin?

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?".

- ( Merchant of Venice, Act III, scene I).

Can you have a pound of flesh, without a drop of blood?

 

[Michel07]

Are you suggesting I should provide proof that there is no God? Because you do understand that such is impossible. If something is unprovable, it also cannot be disproven. Mystery, which is what religion is made of, is incompatible with evidence. So how should one provide evidence, or counter-evidence, for mystery?
And which opinion(s) exactly would you like to see reenforced with evidence? Because such can be arranged. If you are referring to the experience of 'spirituality' then I must say I have in fact had such feelings but rendered them stupid after a while. So again, what exact 'opinion' do you want to see clarified, and I'll see what I can do. But don't expect me to provide evidence against Theism, because it simply doesn't exist.
There is evidence for the alternative to Theism, that is all I'm saying.

I suggest that if you had " spiritual experiences" in your toolbox you would not dummy them down as they are not just " feelings." They are not emotions either. There is a lot of information written on this subject but I don't believe that this is something shared by all or that all can make legitimate claim to have had. The shaky ground of supplying evidence to another is complicated by differing criterias for such, by individuals. But I do believe if a person takes an opposing non neutral position then they are not totally free from the burden of providing something for their argument. That is all I am saying.

 

[themadhair]

I suggest that if you had " spiritual experiences" in your toolbox you would not dummy them down as they are not just " feelings." They are not emotions either. There is a lot of information written on this subject but I don't believe that this is something shared by all or that all can make legitimate claim to have had.

But doesn’t the fact that such experiences are not uncommon, and that different people will readily attribute such experiences to vastly different things, not highlight a problem here? It shows the experiences happen, but casts strong doubt on your assertion for their cause.

But I do believe if a person takes an opposing non neutral position then they are not totally free from the burden of providing something for their argument. That is all I am saying.

I think pointing out significant problems with a particular position is providing something for their argument. I am also weary of branding positions non-neutral since it carries the position of a middle ground which, when it comes to beliefs, doesn’t exist. You either believe in a concept or you don’t – there is no middle ground there.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Well I do believe the word "bang" in this context is merely an expression of something that is poorly understood but in essence yes, as it is said that God is spirit.

Poorly understood indeed.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Do you have a mangina?

No sir, merely joy everlasting. don't worry, it's not contagious.

 

[Michel07]

You either believe in a concept or you don’t – there is no middle ground there.

I think on this point we are saying the same thing because when I don't believe in something I always know why I don't believe and it is always because I believe something else. Neutrality by definition is not taking part in an argument.

 

[themadhair]

I always know why I don't believe and it is always because I believe something else.

In 99% of situations the above would hold for me. The case of unknowns/supernatural/gods are part of the 1% where I don’t believe and don’t hold to an alternative.

 

[Michel07]

In 99% of situations the above would hold for me. The case of unknowns/supernatural/gods are part of the 1% where I don’t believe and don’t hold to an alternative.

So you don't believe but don't know why. How convenient but not convincing.

 

[Michel07]

Thank u for your opinion. That and a $1 will buy a cup of coffee. In some places.

BTW, you never did correct me. And I CAN prove to a blind man grass is green. As others have already demonstrated. What CANNOT be done is to demonstrate "spirituality" or spiritual experiences actually exist outside the imagination of the those asserting they do.

There is name for such "spiritual experiences." In polite circles it is UPG. In psychiatry it is "delusional."

In your own mind. How many psychiatrists do you know? Are you telling me that all of them are atheist and dismiss all claimed spiritual experiences as delusional? That seems a very strange allegation and I am hardly convinced that you speak for them all.

 

[Mr Cheese]

So you don't believe but don't know why. How convenient but not convincing.

A materialist discussing spiritual experiences is like a virgin giving tips on sex.

You can only see, if you look
You can only hear, if you listen

Why argue with the blind and the deaf?

"Things divine are not attainable by mortals who understand sensual things."

--Zoroaster

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think on this point we are saying the same thing because when I don't believe in something I always know why I don't believe and it is always because I believe something else. Neutrality by definition is not taking part in an argument.

Intellectually honest people recognize that "I don't know" is an acceptable, and often the only correct, answer.

 

[themadhair]

So you don't believe but don't know why. How convenient but not convincing.

Reread my comment within its context. Twisting the words of others in this way to attempt a petty dig is a little pathetic imo.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

In your own mind. How many psychiatrists do you know? Are you telling me that all of them are atheist and dismiss all claimed spiritual experiences as delusional? That seems a very strange allegation and I am hardly convinced that you speak for them all.

Read it and weep.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Intellectually honest people recognize that "I don't know" is an acceptable, and often the only correct, answer.

Stating you don't know, for some, is the "beginning" of mystical insight....

 

[OmarKhayyam]

". . .mystical insight."

Exactly WHAT is that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Stating you don't know, for some, is the "beginning" of mystical insight....

For others, ingesting some bad shellfish does the trick.

 

[Storm]

Read it and weep.

Perhaps, rather than linking to an article we can't read for free, you could tell us where religious belief is listed in the DSM.

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps, rather than linking to an article we can't read for free, you could tell us where religious belief is listed in the DSM.

InB4297.1