This is the last time I’ll explain this to you. The spiritual journey is not just objective and what you keep going on about is only objective. Because of that I don’t think your argument is valid when applying to spiritual beliefs.
I’ll qualify that a bit by saying that when a religious belief makes claims about history and archeology and natural events we can and should examine those objectively. The inner spiritual journey , which is personal and subjective can not be examined objectively, and that my stubborn friend is why your repeated claim doesn’t really apply.
In fact all people use subjective evidence to make their choices. It’s an unavoidable part of our humanity. You are the one who wants to remove religions special status and I keep agreeing with you about that. In this case by insisting something that is for the most part subjective be judged by objective evidence only it is you who are creating an unfair unreasonable special status for religion.
We choose what we value and what our order of priorities are. A goblin, a bullet, or a pink elephant in pajamas aren’t high on my list. The spiritual journey is.
Yes, I;m on this journey because I care. I’m fairly sure I am partly right and partly wrong and so is everybody else. I accept my responsibility to choose my beliefs and actions and how they affect others and by being willing to seriously* listen* to others and question myself, I continue to learn.
Surprisingly this Pit thread is turning into a very interesting discussion. I want to respond to more and will later on. My thanks to you thoughtful participants.
I’ve read books where spiritualists claim direct observation of Atlantis. This road would lead us to how to evaluate evidence in terms of quality and consistency. If three people came back from Paris, and one reported the most famous monument is the Eiffel Tower, one says they didn’t see that but saw Big Ben, and the third says they saw neither of those but did see a Leaning Tower, you’d wonder if Paris actually exists. Reports of god are similar to that.
Imposing is a better word than directly affecting. Say I go to dinner with someone who keeps kosher. His beliefs will directly affect where we go, but I wouldn’t consider them being imposed on me.
These two statements exemplify two of the things that irritate me about religion. The first claims that something is a fact just for him/her, like reality doesn’t exist. God either is a fact for everyone or no one, not just for you.
The second is just sappy and meaningless; “God is love” has as much meaning as “Rocks are frustration”. Love is an emotion; neither God nor anyone else is love.
This is contradictory; if morality is “ultimately rooted in God”, why do you think those moral atheists and agnostics are moral ?
This is impossible; by nature absolutists/fundamentalists ignore reality when it contradicts their beliefs, which at best gives them poor judgment. They’ll hurt themselves or others sooner or later, even if the haven’t a nasty bone in their body.
I see it as wholly subjective, which is a polite way of saying “imaginary”. I see no evidence that there is any “spiritual journey” to make. I see no evidence to believe it’s anything more than the psychological/emotion equivalent of maturbation; it might be fun, but it’s not profound.
Why; what rational reason can there be for elevating a purely subjective “journey” over any random imaginary concept ? Especially since bullets, elephants and pajamas are real.
Are Episcopal bishops allowed to date if they are het? Or would they have to be married/monogamous as well? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity. I just wonder if there’s a double standard. Thanks.
Okay. Notice that someone concluding that Paris doesn’t exist would be wrong.
What I meant was that many believers accept certain beliefs the same way we accept China and Australia exist. Is the default belief for China and Australia to **not **believe they exist, or would the fact that we are told they do exist from our youth by people we believe and trust be a reason to call the default belief acceptance in that case?
I see that. What I’m talking about my beliefs being the root of my judgement calls in my day to day life and interaction with people. If I am kind or not, forgiving or not, that certainly directly affects people. IMO imposing my beliefs on them would be to insist they believe the same as I do.
Is it possible to enjoy and use water from a well without knowing where the well is or even being mistaken about the location of the well?
This sounds like a statement of faith.
Yes I am aware of how you see it. Perhaps you should review subjective. The fact that **you ** see no evidence of the spiritual journey is irrelevant to my or someone else’s subjective experience. The fact that it holds no meaning for you is your subjective experience. The fact that it holds meaning for me is mine. Neither may judge the other incorrect.
Do you like action movies more than you like romantic comedies? Why? What possible reason could there be. I see no evidence to find one more enjoyable than the other. If I find something meaningful that you do not does that mean one of us is stupid? No. Please review the meaning of subjective again.
It’s not about what you perceive as rational. It’s simply about the individual choosing what is meaningful to them.
An analogy that makes no sense, and is a diversion from the question. I am an atheist, and I am reasonably moral. I don’t rob or rape or torture or kill. If morality comes from God, I’d be in a supermax prison next to that terrorist guy.
No, simply good sense; not to mention history and the news. If you ignore reality in favor of an ideology or theology you’ll inevitably screw up, because reality doesn’t care if you believe in it or not.
I don’t pretend they are real. I don’t pretend my entertainment preferences are anything but my personal taste in fun; I don’t claim to be tapping into the Fundamental Truth Of The Universe when I watch The Trouble with Tribbles.
Sure, assuming the bishop is single. Presumably sex would only occur in a committed relationship, or at least that would be the ideal.
Bishops and priests are regarded as being moral leaders, but in the Anglican church they are under no special obligation because of their clerical role to remain celibate. (There are a couple of bishops and a fair number of priests who are members of celibate religious orders, under vows of celibacy to be sure, but that’s because of their membership in the order, not from being a bishop or priest.) Their relationship in a courtship should be chaste – there are no swinging singles clubs for clergy, I should hope! – but they’re under no special obligation beyond normal sexual mores. (And obviously a married bishop or priest is true to his or her spouse.)
Personally, I don’t like the whole “God 1, God 2, etc.” thing. But that’s probably because I’m not a polytheist. I don’t consider a whole host of god concepts, and then evaluate each one’s existence. To me, it seems more likely that there’s just one God (yes, assuming he exists), and that there are many different perceptions of him. After all, it’s not like God showed most of us what he looks like (assuming he even has a form), so possibly a lot of different religions out there are worshipping the same God, even if they call him different names and attribute different things to him.
Thanks, Poly. (I am Soooooo getting a visual of a bunch of guys in clerical attire standing around sipping martinis. Then the porno music starts and some nuns walk in in mini-habits…boom-chicka-boom-chicka…)
It does make sense but it was clumsey. I don’t sgree with your conclusion. It assumes that as an atheist you have no access or connection to God. IMO *if *
God is the well from which all love is drawn then those who choose love, compassion etc. are darwing and drinking from the well even if they don’t acknowledge it.
funny, that also sounds like a statement of faith or dogma. What you’re doing is assuming your own belief sustem is the only correct one the same way the fundies do.
Okay, but you do pretend your belief system is the obviously correct and rational one and those who choose a different{spiritual} one must be fools. What’s the differnece between what you do and what believers do?
That’s pretty insulting. Now we’re not smart enough to know that god is pouring love all over us? Get a clue, Cosmo.
I have no reason to believe that your belief system is the correct one (and neither do you). Faith and knowledge are two different things.
Atheists don’t “choose” not to believe. Theists are doing the choosing. I’m simply waiting for evidence of a higher power. A wish or a vibe is not evidence.
I quailfied my statement with an “if” It’s not insulting at all unless you make it that way. I’d rather you didn’t misrepresent my posts with exaggeration. A very smart person could drink from a stream without knowing the source of the stream.
They certainly are. You are incorrect that I have no reason to believe mine is the correct one. {for me} My subjective reasons are valid reasons. What I acknowledge is that my belief system is not the right one for everybody else.
I won’t argue the semantics of choosing. For whatever reasons, people believe what they do. There are quite a few factors that are mental and emotional, subjective and objective experiences. The fact is you are already use a subjective belief system just as Theists do. For you that translates into being an atheist or agnostic. Fine. I respect your choice. I happen to choose another way. I don’t think that makes either of us superior or “more right” than the other.
It is in what Sam is saying that I think the comparison is valid. How are our beliefs established and why and when should we challenge them?
As a spiritual person the question for me became , am I really seeking truth and love? Am I really trying to explore the boundaries of spirituality or am I just accepting what I’ve been told and not questioning because I want to belong more than I want the truth. It became apparent to me that in Jesus words he was telling us that the thirst for truth had to come first.
But truth is not only objective because there are so many things we don’t know and can’t know objectively. Faced with that reality we all must choose and take responsibility for our choices. Jesus and other teachers helped give us guidelines but as Sam correctly points out , it is ultimately up to us as individuals.
A smart person would not compare an unknown source of water with a higher power because a smart person would follow the stream to its source. A smart person would not “follow” a stream that didn’t exist.
The problem is, you apply a different standard of evidence to this than you do to other things you believe. They’re not valid because you’re the only one who’s satisfied by them. It’s your right to interpret vibes in any way you choose. But that doesn’t make them “valid.” In order to have your parking ticket validated, someone has to see a receipt. Where’s your receipt?
As there is no God, I don’t. Nor do I want a god, or a connection to one.
The claim that God is "well from which all love is drawn " is both silly and insulting. It’s part of the standard religious claim that one’s only worth is from religion.
No, I’m saying the sky is blue, because I can look out the window and see it; faith has nothing to do with it. People who mindlessly follow dogma tend to come to bad ends; that’s not a statement of faith, but an observation of what actually happens to such people.
I at least try to base my beliefs on reality, believers don’t. Religion is based on it’s followers emotional neediness and self delusion, and has no connection to reality. It’s madness under a different name.
A smart person would probably quench their thirst and not even ask. Two smart people who drank would still get their thirst quenched even if they didn’t know the source or agree on what the source was. Look, I qualified it with an* if * It’s obvious you don’t agree, and I don’t care. I explained that it wasn’t insulting but you in this post are implying that believers must not be smart people. That is insulting as well as blatantly and obviously wrong.
No I don’t. I’m simply noting the difference between subjective evidence and objective evidence and how it applies to spiritual beliefs. It is you and Der Trihs who keep trying to judge something that is objective and subjective by using only objective evidence. That IMO is incorrect. It* is* valid if I realize that my subjective evidence isn’t objective proof for anything and I don’t try to force others to accept it as such. That’s why I think Christians who insist their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one and God’s will are morally and spiritually wrong for doing so.
My own subjective evidence is perfectly valid for me to deicde what I believe, SINCE EVERY HUMAN DOES THAT
Speaking of lousy analogies, whats that parking ticket stuff? SHeesh. If I was a smart ass I’d answer “God has my reciept since he is the one who collects and tallies the bill.” but that would only be smart ass and doesn’t refelct my actual beliefs.
