Why do you say" you have to prove your personal faith and beliefs"

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe not meaningless. Perhaps irrational, unreasonable or delusional.

Okay, what is your evidence or what ever you like to use as words?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Whoever framed such a statement? You're wrong because I don't agree with you? It makes no sense.
I do see -- and contributie to -- a lot of theistic questioning, but the questions generally concern evidence and the reasons for belief. These, it seems to me, would be "good quality questions."

My impression is, when confronted with a challenge they can't meet rationally, many theists feel bullied, threatened, or attacked.

Mostly because a theist does not have all the answers, or they working on understanding it them selvs, so a clear answer can not be given.

Believing in God and having faith in God is only 1% of what being a believer is all about. Understanding ones own being, understanding the deeper wisdom in the teachings take a lot of time and effort. Each believer will be on different levels of understanding and wisdom within their belief.

In spiritual/religious practice it is not one solid answer for everyone. It has to do with how each practitioner perceive the teaching, how they handle the wisdom they acquired. That is why no spiritual person give the exact same answer to one question,.

 

[Valjean]

Okay, what is your evidence or what ever you like to use as words?

I don't understand the question. What is my evidence for.... words?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't understand the question. What is my evidence for.... words?

No, how come you wrote "Perhaps irrational, unreasonable or delusional."

 

[Valjean]

Mostly because a theist does not have all the answers, or they working on understanding it them selvs, so a clear answer can not be given.

Believing in God and having faith in God is only 1% of what being a believer is all about. Understanding ones own being, understanding the deeper wisdom in the teachings take a lot of time and effort. Each believer will be on different levels of understanding and wisdom within their belief.

I see your point, but the contention is mainly doctrinal and epistemic, not about the wisdom or merit of any individual.

In spiritual/religious practice it is not one solid answer for everyone. It has to do with how each practitioner perceive the teaching, how they handle the wisdom they acquired. That is why no spiritual person give the exact same answer to one question,.

The answers we seek involve positive, ontological assertions. These are specific statements of fact and open for questioning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see your point, but the contention is mainly doctrinal and epistemic, not about the wisdom or merit of any individual.
The answers we seek involve positive, ontological assertions. These are specific statements of fact and open for questioning.

What do you mean by the bold?

 

[Valjean]

No, how come you wrote "Perhaps irrational, unreasonable or delusional."

These refer to the assessment process; whether the conclusion was reached by logical reasoning.
A delusion is a fixed belief unaffected by contrary evidence, ie: faith based. This describes a lot of religious doctrine, does it not?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see your point, but the contention is mainly doctrinal and epistemic, not about the wisdom or merit of any individual.
The answers we seek involve positive, ontological assertions. These are specific statements of fact and open for questioning.

First part of your answer: I can only speak for my own understanding not for anybody else. I don't claim to know, I believe.

Second part of your answer: I can give my understanding of the teaching, facts like scientific "proof for my belief, that I can not give because spiritual practices is not about scientific proof. It is a personal awakening from within each person practicing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

These refer to the assessment process; whether the conclusion was reached by logical reasoning.
A delusion is a fixed belief unaffected by contrary evidence, ie: faith based. This describes a lot of religious doctrine, does it not?

Delutional to whom?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

These refer to the assessment process; whether the conclusion was reached by logical reasoning.
A delusion is a fixed belief unaffected by contrary evidence, ie: faith based. This describes a lot of religious doctrine, does it not?

Yeah, a lot but not all.

 

[Valjean]

What do you mean by the bold?

I mean they are yes/no questions; questions of fact rather than questions of values, purpose or interpretation. When religion ventures into science's magisterium, it opens itself to scientific scrutiny and analysis.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I mean they are yes/no questions; questions of fact rather than questions of values, purpose or interpretation. When religion ventures into science's magisterium, it opens itself to scientific scrutiny and analysis.

Yes, and the same when science ventures into philosophy. All 3; science, philosophy and religion has limits. Not just religion.

 

[Valjean]

Delutional to whom?

The delusion isn't to anybody. The delusion is the fixed, immutable belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The delusion isn't to anybody. The delusion is the fixed, immutable belief.

How do you know that your definition of delusion is correct?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, and the same when science ventures into philosophy. All 3; science, philosophy and religion has limits. Not just religion.

Exactly! "Non Overlapping Magisteria," as Gould put it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

The delusion isn't to anybody. The delusion is the fixed, immutable belief.

Personal belief become delutional only to a non-believer. To a believer it is totally sane and normal

 

[Valjean]

How do you know that your definition of delusion is correct?

As a technical term:
Dictionary.com: Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact:

Wiki: A delusion is a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.[1] As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, hallucination, or some other misleading effects of perception, as individuals with those beliefs are able to change or readjust their beliefs upon reviewing the evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Personal belief become delutional only to a non-believer. To a believer it is totally sane and normal

A delusion is not necessarily pathological, it's simply fixed; resistant to evidence.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A delusion is not necessarily pathological, it's simply fixed; resistant to evidence.

I have personal experience within the belief I hold, am I delutional due to not have physical evidence to show you?

 

[Valjean]

I have personal experience within the belief I hold, am I delutional due to not have physical evidence to show you?

You are delusional if your belief won't change even when confronted by good evidence to the contrary.