How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did not change what I said, you are simply sidestepping the vast record of history regarding the reality of the spiritual realm.

The only evidence you've mentioned so far is the historical record of belief in the 'spiritual realm'. I've explained why that doesn't mean the spiritual realm is real, and why if it did, you'd have to accept the spiritual realms and deities of all other historic religions as equally real. You haven't yet given a reasoned counter-argument.

I quoted you using a couple different "plural" terms - now you are denying it.

I think you're mistaken, 'appeal to tradition' and 'appeal to the masses' are logical fallacies, not 'plural' terms. If you don't mean those, please quote the 'plural' terms you're talking about.

..but if you are going to keep denying the elephants in the room...I prefer not to. Either come around to dealing with the obvious (elephant)..

What 'obvious' elephant?

...ask questions about what you don't know instead of claiming what you know nothing about, change your attitude from defensive to welcoming...or I am going to ignore your posts.

I have asked questions; I welcome any reasoned response to the points I've raised. if you can't answer them, or don't want to answer them, just say so. But put me on ignore if you wish.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You are quoting a false dichotomy.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a logical fallacy is at all, because this statement does not in any way relate to the post that you're commenting on...

 

[Freodin]

What 'obvious' elephant?

This is most certainly not the "obvious elephant" that Scott means... but I see one quite clearly here. And he is called "Colter".

Here he is, right in front of everyones eyes... the "what if someone came with the same arguments as yours, but for a different 'knowledge'" person. One who presents one out of these vast histories of the reality of the spiritual realm. One who even cites Jesus.

And with all of Scott's bluster about the "truth" that he is presenting us, contrasted with the "lies" and "false claims" that others present us... now that he has the chance to adress this directly... guess who gets completely ignored?

That's right! The Urantia Book guy!

It is just so much easier to to accuse an atheist of having the wrong attitude, being unresponsive or rebellious... then to adress someone who also accuses the atheists of having the wrong attitude, being unresponsive and rebellious but regarding a completely different 'spirituality'.

 

[ScottA]

So spiritual logic must work in the same way on spiritual evidence in the spiritual court as worldly logic does on worldly evidence in a worldly court - otherwise the world wouldn't be a manifestation of what is on high in respect of how evidence is used. Which would seem to contradict your 'simple fact' that "physical worldly logic, is different then spiritual logic".

I think you'd be able to explain how 'spiritual logic' works if you knew anything about it - or if you hadn't made it up.

I will rephrase my answer:

Yes, the evidence is used the same.

No, it does not contradict: The usage is comparable, but the substance is completely different.

The problem arises when you want to have physical evidence for spiritual matters, without first excepting the fact that the entire physical world is the evidence you are asking for. So...you have been given everything you have asked for...but you do not recognize it for what it is. Instead of seeing the world for what it is, you (and the unbelieving world) simply see the world as being what it is made of - which doesn't answer the question...anymore than what the physical makeup of the human eye is, compared to how it works. Except with the human eye, you accept the fact that there is a brain - where in the case of the world, you do not except that there is a brain (God). And if you think you can cut open the skull, or hook up electrodes to God - the answer is, No.

So, then, all the world and the universe are evidence of God...and personally, even your own mind is proof of what you do not accept of what is unseen of God. Yet when we say, No, we cannot show you God...you expect that we can or that He does not exist, as if you could show us your own mind, and that it is not too much to ask.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a logical fallacy is at all, because this statement does not in any way relate to the post that you're commenting on...

Likewise for 'false dichotomy' - I didn't present any dichotomy, let alone a false one - which accounts for the lack of explanation of why it's false...

I think that post was taken from the 'Big Book of Random Criticisms'

 

[ScottA]

Likewise for 'false dichotomy' - I didn't present any dichotomy, let alone a false one - which accounts for the lack of explanation of why it's false...

I think that post was taken from the 'Big Book of Random Criticisms'

If your argument is semantics...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If your argument is semantics...

I think the point is that if you're going to be taken seriously, you should probably understand the terms you throw out.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If your argument is semantics...

Well, yes - it would help if you made sensible and relevant comments with words you understand.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, yes - it would help if you made sensible and relevant comments with words you understand.

You are asking for way too much.

 

[Colter]

This is in response to Freoden's attempt to get Scott and I into a cage match over our beliefs.

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION


"The unity of religious experience among a social or racial group derives from the identical nature of the God fragment indwelling the individual. It is this divine in man that gives origin to his unselfish interest in the welfare of other men. But since personality is unique—no two mortals being alike—it inevitably follows that no two human beings can similarly interpret the leadings and urges of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds. A group of mortals can experience spiritual unity, but they can never attain philosophic uniformity. And this diversity of the interpretation of religious thought and experience is shown by the fact that twentieth-century theologians and philosophers have formulated upward of five hundred different definitions of religion. In reality, every human being defines religion in the terms of his own experiential interpretation of the divine impulses emanating from the God spirit that indwells him, and therefore must such an interpretation be unique and wholly different from the religious philosophy of all other human beings.

When one mortal is in full agreement with the religious philosophy of a fellow mortal, that phenomenon indicates that these two beings have had a similar religious experience touching the matters concerned in their similarity of philosophic religious interpretation.


While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences (the diverse interpretations of other and diverse mortals) to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric—circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.

Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values—goals—than on beliefs—interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs—creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.


That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this "sense," "feeling," "intuition," or "experience" which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal—the Adjuster is prepersonal—but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." 1955

 

[Freodin]

This is in response to Freoden's attempt to get Scott and I into a cage match over our beliefs.

Uuuuh... a cage match! Two egos enter, one ego... well, both egos leave. Both of you would be too convinced of your own position to admit defeat.

But, seriously, no, I don't want a "cage match". The problem that I have with you two is that both of you love to attack the validity of the atheistic position as well as the character of atheists... both from a position of superiour knowledge... and while you both stand there and shout at us for not agreeing with you, you happily ignore the fact that the person next to you attacking the atheists is completely wrong according to your own position. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least doesn't need to be confronted.

Both of your insistence to claim all "religious experience" as support for your position if you can, and ignore all "religious experience" if you can't use it as support... that doesn't strengthen your claims.

 

[Colter]

Uuuuh... a cage match! Two egos enter, one ego... well, both egos leave. Both of you would be too convinced of your own position to admit defeat.

But, seriously, no, I don't want a "cage match". The problem that I have with you two is that both of you love to attack the validity of the atheistic position as well as the character of atheists... both from a position of superiour knowledge... and while you both stand there and shout at us for not agreeing with you, you happily ignore the fact that the person next to you attacking the atheists is completely wrong according to your own position. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, or at least doesn't need to be confronted.

Both of your insistence to claim all "religious experience" as support for your position if you can, and ignore all "religious experience" if you can't use it as support... that doesn't strengthen your claims.

The quote I provided is the best explanation for the variation of religious experience. I haven't discounted Scotts experiences at all, you were trying to use differences of opinion that we may have to make a point.

I'm sympathetic with some of the points atheist make.

 

[Freodin]

The quote I provided is the best explanation for the variation of religious experience. I haven't discounted Scotts experiences at all, you were trying to use differences of opinion that we may have to make a point.

I'm sympathetic with some of the points atheist make.

The quote offers your (or your books) "best explanation"... and sadly it does discount Scott's experiences.
The "differences of opinion" that you do have make your respective positions incompatible.

Of course, this is just my view of that... both of you would have to directly adress these differences to find that out.

Extent your sympathy to my prognosis that this will not happen. It is just too convenient to ignore each other and only adress the unbeliever.

 

[Colter]

The quote offers your (or your books) "best explanation"... and sadly it does discount Scott's experiences.
The "differences of opinion" that you do have make your respective positions incompatible.

Of course, this is just my view of that... both of you would have to directly adress these differences to find that out.

Extent your sympathy to my prognosis that this will not happen. It is just too convenient to ignore each other and only adress the unbeliever.

Jesus taught unity not uniformity, but I agree with you that Christian do have strong theological disagreements with each other, but faith is generic. I recall that Scott dismisses the UB, that's ok with me, what's important is that he has faith and is in partnership with God by doing his will. Scott is saved.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Its current science, but you may not believe that exists either:

Measurements of thousands of galaxies’ motions toward and away from us reveal that the Milky Way sits on the edge of a gigantic supercluster of galaxies.


http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/laniakea-home-supercluster-09032014/

And?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good grief... why does this remind me of similar nonsense in Scientology?

It's the science fiction aspects of the Uranus book.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wish you'd make up your mind.

I'm not denying the report (as I already made clear); I'm denying that it necessarily reports reality. The plural of report isn't reality, or you'd have to acknowledge all other religious beliefs as true.

This is all rather random... I didn't quote anything, and there's no dichotomy there - false or otherwise. Are you sure you're OK?

I'm aware of the quote. Einstein's is just one of many interpretations of time held by physicists - and such a 4D block omnitemporal universe view doesn't help your case, implying, as it does, that all action is deterministic and inevitable, thus negating libertarian dualist ideas of free will. Try again.

Perhaps it's a spiritual report and that's why Scott can't use physical words to give it to anyone lol.

 

[Colter]

And?

You were wrong as usual, it didn't come from the UB although it is verified by the UB.

 

[bhsmte]

You were wrong as usual, it didn't come from the UB although it is verified by the UB.

Does everything have to be verified by the UB, for you to give it credibility?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will rephrase my answer:

Yes, the evidence is used the same.

No, it does not contradict: The usage is comparable, but the substance is completely different.

The problem arises when you want to have physical evidence for spiritual matters, without first excepting the fact that the entire physical world is the evidence you are asking for. So...you have been given everything you have asked for...but you do not recognize it for what it is. Instead of seeing the world for what it is, you (and the unbelieving world) simply see the world as being what it is made of - which doesn't answer the question...anymore than what the physical makeup of the human eye is, compared to how it works. Except with the human eye, you accept the fact that there is a brain - where in the case of the world, you do not except that there is a brain (God). And if you think you can cut open the skull, or hook up electrodes to God - the answer is, No.

So, then, all the world and the universe are evidence of God...and personally, even your own mind is proof of what you do not accept of what is unseen of God. Yet when we say, No, we cannot show you God...you expect that we can or that He does not exist, as if you could show us your own mind, and that it is not too much to ask.

When one claims "X is evidence of Y"....one should at least explain the "how" and "why" of the evidence and what it's evidence for. Otherwise, all you've done is create another bare assertion that lacks any evidence.

You were wrong as usual, it didn't come from the UB although it is verified by the UB.

The Uranus Book is continually updated with new scientific views that weren't in the original version lol. The science in the original version that's since been proven wrong gets replaced with correct science.

It's unfortunate that your space aliens weren't any smarter than the scientists of earth in the day that it was originally written...or you might have an impressive text there. As it stands, you're referring to a widely debunked joke amongst "religious" texts.