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

[Valjean]

If I assert that a particular house has only three bedrooms, and continue to assert this even after an extensive tour of the four bedroom house, then my belief is a delusion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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

Science has no evidence in that God does not exist, I have a personal belief, and why would anyone have a reason to take it away from me, except for their own non-belief in religious teaching and believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

What do you mean? I don't understand your claim of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I assert that a particular house has only three bedrooms, and continue to assert this even after an extensive tour of the four bedroom house, then my belief is a delusion.

Yeah, but that is not metaphysics or ontological or solves the problem of the evil demon by Rene Descarte. You are a skeptic, right? So you know all this?

 

[Valjean]

Science has no evidence in that God does not exist,

Evidence for a negative? How would one prove something does not exist?
Science has no evidence that pink unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster don't exist, either.

Science doesn't explore that for which there is no evidence. Entertaining a belief in something unevidenced would kind of overload your brain, I should imagine. There are just so many things there is no evidence for....

Reason dictates that one defer belief till actual evidence is found.

I have a personal belief, and why would anyone have a reason to take it away from me, except for their own non-belief in religious teaching and believe.

"Take it away from you?" You make it sound like we're trying to rob you.
1. Assuming you want your beliefs to be true, questioning them is only proper etiquette.
A scientist or intellectual would feel slighted, even insulted, if his friends or colleagues didn't help him find fault with a belief.
2. RF is a discussion board. We come here to discuss things. Discussing people is just gossip. Discussing sports is insipid. Discussing things can be interesting, but the most interesting discussions are about ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence for a negative? How would one prove something does not exist?
Science doesn't explore that for which there is no evidence. Entertaining a belief in something unevidenced would kind of overload your brain, I should imagine. There are just so many things there is no evidence for....
Reason dictates that one defer belief till actual evidence is found.
"Take it away from you?" You make it sound like we're trying to rob you.
1. Assuming you want your beliefs to be true, questioning them is only proper etiquette.
A scientist or intellectual would feel slighted, even insulted, if his friends or colleagues didn't help him find fault with a belief.
2. RF is a discussion board. We come here to discuss things. Discussing people is just gossip. Discussing sports is insipid. Discussing things can be interesting, but the most interesting discussions are about ideas.

Evidence for this please: "Reason dictates that one defer belief till actual evidence is found."

 

[Spirit of Light]

Evidence for a negative? How would one prove something does not exist?
Science doesn't explore that for which there is no evidence. Entertaining a belief in something unevidenced would kind of overload your brain, I should imagine. There are just so many things there is no evidence for....
Reason dictates that one defer belief till actual evidence is found.
"Take it away from you?" You make it sound like we're trying to rob you.
1. Assuming you want your beliefs to be true, questioning them is only proper etiquette.
A scientist or intellectual would feel slighted, even insulted, if his friends or colleagues didn't help him find fault with a belief.
2. RF is a discussion board. We come here to discuss things. Discussing people is just gossip. Discussing sports is insipid. Discussing things can be interesting, but the most interesting discussions are about ideas.

There are many questions every day I ask my self in practicing sufism, asking questions inward is a part of being a sufi. To discuss spiritual issues with other believers is no problem due to them also have an inborn belief in something greater than themselves.

Discussion with non-believers soon become "defend your belief with scientific proof we can test and test and test"
Sorry but spiritual practice does not work that way.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, but that is not metaphysics or ontological or solves the problem of the evil demon by Rene Descarte. You are a skeptic, right? So you know all this?

I'm just asking for evidence for extraordinary assertions. I'm curious why one believes a thing to be factual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm just asking for evidence for extraordinary assertions. I'm curious why one believes a thing to be factual.

Yeah, I get you. You treat all correct states of reality as concrete factuals and thus as observable through evidence. But that you are curious, is not factual in your own worldview.
There are a lot of things humans do, which are without evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Right now, we are playing a game of useful, but that is without evidence as it is subjective.

 

[Valjean]

There are many questions every day I ask my self in practicing sufism, asking questions inward is a part of being a sufi. To discuss spiritual issues with other believers is no problem due to them also have an inborn belief in something greater than themselves.

An inborn belief? I'm skeptical -- though I do think we have certain psychological predisposition to magical thinking and apophenia, and this opens us up to the later imposition of various, artificial religions and world-views.

Discussion with non-believers soon become "defend your belief with scientific proof we can test and test and test"
Sorry but spiritual practice does not work that way.

We're not criticising your spiritual practice. We're questioning your positive assertion of certain physical facts. It's the assertions we question, and only when they venture into the physical world of hard facts and science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

An inborn belief? I'm skeptical -- though I do think we have certain psychological predisposition to magical thinking and apophenia, and this opens us up to the later imposition of various, artificial religions and world-views.
We're not criticising your spiritual practice. We're questioning your positive assertion of certain physical facts. It's the assertions we question, and only when they venture into the physical world of hard facts and science.

What is those?

 

[Spirit of Light]

An inborn belief? I'm skeptical -- though I do think we have certain psychological predisposition to magical thinking and apophenia, and this opens us up to the later imposition of various, artificial religions and world-views.
We're not criticising your spiritual practice. We're questioning your positive assertion of certain physical facts. It's the assertions we question, and only when they venture into the physical world of hard facts and science.

You look for hard facts and science, that is not something you will gain through a personal spiritual practice, because it is not needed for one who believe and have faith in God and the teachings

 

[Valjean]

Yeah, I get you. You treat all correct states of reality as concrete factuals and thus as observable through evidence. But that you are curious, is not factual in your own worldview.
There are a lot of things humans do, which are without evidence:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Right now, we are playing a game of useful, but that is without evidence as it is subjective.

I do concede that not all concrete facts are observable or currently evidenced.

In questioning theology' I'm not comparing and contrasting any theogenic worldview with my own. I'm questioning the facts on which a particular worldview rests. Once these are clarified, then we can proceed on to worldviews.

 

[Valjean]

What is those?

For example: "God exists," or "Moses led 600,000 Israelite slaves out of Egypt."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do concede that not all concrete facts are observable or currently evidenced.

In questioning theology' I'm not comparing and contrasting any theogenic worldview with my own. I'm questioning the facts on which a particular worldview rests. Once these are clarified, then we can proceed on to worldviews.

Yeah, but the problem is that all facts are in a sense mental rules. How? You can't see facts. You interpret certain experiences and not other one. So your facts are a part of your worldview. So are mine and while we might agree on some, we don't have to agree on all. And that is the problem. You use cognitive/mental rules to understand the world. So do everybody else, but when it comes to the cognitive/mental as first personal, you can't use the physical. They are connected, but there is no physical theory of everything.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

For example: "God exists," or "Moses led 600,000 Israelite slaves out of Egypt."

I doubt those are relevant to @Conscious thoughts as you understand them

 

[Spirit of Light]

I doubt those are relevant to @Conscious thoughts as you understand them

God exist =is my belief, meaning it count for what believe and not a physical evidence since I do not think God show up in front of me as a physical being.

If it was 100.000 or 600.000 or just 10 people has no effect on my spiritual belief as a sufi

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God exist =is my belief, meaning it count for what believe and not a physical evidence since I do not think God show up in front of me as a physical being.

If it was 100.000 or 600.000 or just 10 people has no effect on my spiritual belief as a sufi

Yeah, but for some people it is a physical claim and they don't understand that it doesn't have to be that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, but for some people it is a physical claim and they don't understand that it doesn't have to be that.

True

 

[Valjean]

You look for hard facts and science, that is not something you will gain through a personal spiritual practice, because it is not needed for one who believe and have faith in God and the teachings

God exist =is my belief, meaning it count for what believe and not a physical evidence since I do not think God show up in front of me as a physical being.

If it was 100.000 or 600.000 or just 10 people has no effect on my spiritual belief as a sufi

Sufism isn't a strongly doctrinaire religion. It's more a mystical quest for communion with God. Sufis seem more practical than strongly wedded to doctrine.

That's my impression, anyway.