What is ID?

[Colter]

Sounds like complete gibberish. I have no idea what that means.
It is my observation that whenever someone claims to believe something (anything) on "faith", what they are really saying is that they have to invoke "faith" because they don't have an actual valid reason instead. After all, if they HAD a good reason, they'ld just give me that particular reason, instead of invoking faith.

It is also my observation that generally, all those people will typically NOT believe anything else on faith. For all other things in their life, they suddenly require rational evidence.



And the way to find out which concepts are accurate or "erroneous", is by seeing/testing if they match reality.



Well, that was a pointless tautology....
Care to try again?



Still have no idea on what it means.
Nore have you clarified how they can be verified to be actual truths.

It seems you're just making bare claims.

Religious truth is verified by experience.

You have no idea what any of it means because you aren't spirit born. Atheist who were once just as clueless about spiritual realities as you concede that you are, all said the same things that you say before their awakening. Afterwards they realize they have the gift of faith and the accompanying insight of eye of the spirit.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Well there you have it! Some people have claimed to now know the truth. Checkmate, atheists.

 

[Colter]

Well there you have it! Some people have claimed to now know the truth. Checkmate, atheists.

And its a gift of Love, but the stubborn Atheist is the child in a family who rejects their parents guidance. Its a safer place for the ego, ironically a mechanism of our evolutionary past.


"Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking." UB 1955

 

[Gene Parmesan]

And its a gift of Love, but the stubborn Atheist is the child in a family who rejects their parents guidance. Its a safer place for the ego, ironically a mechanism of our evolutionary past.


"Religion must continually labor under a paradoxical necessity: the necessity of making effective use of thought while at the same time discounting the spiritual serviceableness of all thinking." UB 1955

There are no shortage of people that have claimed "enlightenment" through methods that appeal to mutually exclusive ideologies. You'll have to forgive me if I withhold judgement about their claims based simply on the fact that they claimed it.

 

[Colter]

There are no shortage of people that have claimed "enlightenment" through methods that appeal to mutually exclusive ideologies. You'll have to forgive me if I withhold judgement about their claims based simply on the fact that they claimed it.

Find enlightenment yourself and you can then claim it to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religious truth is verified by experience.

Yet, I bet you dismiss the experience of muslims, hindu's, etc?

So what is it about the experience of christians that you find more believable then the experience of muslims or hindu's?

You have no idea what any of it means because you aren't spirit born.

What is "spirit born" and how would you know that I aren't that?

Atheist who were once just as clueless about spiritual realities as you concede that you are, all said the same things that you say before their awakening.

Theists who were absolutely to have access to these special hidden realms of reality as you claim to be, said the same things that you say before they realised that it's all simple superstition and gullibility.

Afterwards they realize they have the gift of faith and the accompanying insight of eye of the spirit.

Afterwards they realise they have the gift of evidence and rationality and the accompanying insight to matching your beliefs to the evidence of reality instead of the other way round.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And its a gift of Love, but the stubborn Atheist is the child in a family who rejects their parents guidance. Its a safer place for the ego, ironically a mechanism of our evolutionary past.

Says the guy who's clinging to a dogma of which one of the tenents is that the entire universe was created just for us.

Uhu.

 

[Colter]

Yet, I bet you dismiss the experience of muslims, hindu's, etc?

So what is it about the experience of christians that you find more believable then the experience of muslims or hindu's?



What is "spirit born" and how would you know that I aren't that?



Theists who were absolutely to have access to these special hidden realms of reality as you claim to be, said the same things that you say before they realised that it's all simple superstition and gullibility.



Afterwards they realise they have the gift of evidence and rationality and the accompanying insight to matching your beliefs to the evidence of reality instead of the other way round.

* No, actually, while it was a fair bet based on your experience with people of the "chosen people" arrogance in religions, I don't dismiss faiths like that. There are truths in all religions, even Christianity is a shadow of the original gospel of Christ. I believe that all who seek God with a sincere heart will resurrect in the next life and pass through the Son enroot to the Universal Father if they choose to continue. "No one gets to the Father except through me".

* If you were spirit born you wouldn't be promoting the doctrines of doubt. If you ever swallow your pride and surrender the futile battle against your heavenly Father and have a spiritual awakening then you will know what the spirit birth is.

* Yep, even Lucifer who knew the Son lost his faith in the unseen Father. Its more difficult for egos who lost their faith to return than those who never had faith at all to find it.

* In truth the spirit is what is real while the material is transient. Atheist pretend that everything their mind believes or relies on was first tested in the math lab somewhere before you acted on it when you actually benefit from the cosmic mind spirits and morality which is innate to personality which comes from God.

 

[Colter]

Says the guy who's clinging to a dogma of which one of the tenents is that the entire universe was created just for us.

Uhu.

Love and sharing is the divine nature. To search for God is to search for everything, to find God is to fund everything.

The universe is an experiential school created for the purpose of growing up.

You are a child of the living God, by faith you may realize this ennobling truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

* No, actually, while it was a fair bet based on your experience with people of the "chosen people" arrogance in religions, I don't dismiss faiths like that. There are truths in all religions, even Christianity is a shadow of the original gospel of Christ. I believe that all who seek God with a sincere heart will resurrect in the next life and pass through the Son enroot to the Universal Father if they choose to continue. "No one gets to the Father except through me".

Yet, you are not a hindu.
And yet, hinduism is utterly incompatible with abrahamic religions.

Clearly there is something inconsistent with your claims here...

* If you were spirit born you wouldn't be promoting the doctrines of doubt.

I'm not promoting any doctrine. There's no such thing as a "doctrine of doubt". Theists are the ones that are promoting a doctrine...

If you ever swallow your pride

What does my "pride" have to do with the evidence of reality?

and surrender the futile battle against your heavenly Father and have a spiritual awakening then you will know what the spirit birth is.

That seems backwards. Basically, you are asking me to believe before having valid reasons to believe, just so that I can then convince "myself" afterwards that my beliefs are valid - and that in such a way that I can't even demonstrate to anyone else that my beliefs are valid.

Sounds suspiciously a lot like self-delusion.

* Yep, even Lucifer who knew the Son lost his faith in the unseen Father. Its more difficult for egos who lost their faith to return than those who never had faith at all to find it.

I never had "faith", nore do I consider "faith" to be a virtue or a good thing of any kind.
I don't consider gullibility to be a good thing.

I don't require "faith" to accept germ theory of desease, for example. For the simple reason that "faith" is what you require to accept something without good reason.

* In truth the spirit is what is real while the material is transient.

Truth is demonstrable (how else would you know it is "truth"?).
So, can you demonstrate that "the spirit is real"?
Can you even define what a "spirit" is supposed to be in such a way that it is actually distinguishable from things that don't exist?

Atheist pretend that everything their mind believes or relies on was first tested in the math lab somewhere

Really? I personally don't know a single one who thinks that - let alone "pretends". And neither do I.

It seems your generalised statement here, is not an accurate statement.

before you acted on it when you actually benefit from the cosmic mind spirits and morality which is innate to personality which comes from God.

More claims. Still no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love and sharing is the divine nature. To search for God is to search for everything, to find God is to fund everything.

The universe is an experiential school created for the purpose of growing up.

You are a child of the living God, by faith you may realize this ennobling truth.

Preaching and more claims. Still nothing to back it up.

 

[Colter]

Preaching and more claims. Still nothing to back it up.

Back it up? You are the one who is supposed to be doing the work of finding God.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Back it up? You are the one who is supposed to be doing the work of finding God.

If you assert something with no evidence, it can be dismissed just as easily.

 

[Colter]

Yet, you are not a hindu.
And yet, hinduism is utterly incompatible with abrahamic religions.

Clearly there is something inconsistent with your claims here...



I'm not promoting any doctrine. There's no such thing as a "doctrine of doubt". Theists are the ones that are promoting a doctrine...



What does my "pride" have to do with the evidence of reality?



That seems backwards. Basically, you are asking me to believe before having valid reasons to believe, just so that I can then convince "myself" afterwards that my beliefs are valid - and that in such a way that I can't even demonstrate to anyone else that my beliefs are valid.

Sounds suspiciously a lot like self-delusion.



I never had "faith", nore do I consider "faith" to be a virtue or a good thing of any kind.
I don't consider gullibility to be a good thing.

I don't require "faith" to accept germ theory of desease, for example. For the simple reason that "faith" is what you require to accept something without good reason.



Truth is demonstrable (how else would you know it is "truth"?).
So, can you demonstrate that "the spirit is real"?
Can you even define what a "spirit" is supposed to be in such a way that it is actually distinguishable from things that don't exist?



Really? I personally don't know a single one who thinks that - let alone "pretends". And neither do I.

It seems your generalised statement here, is not an accurate statement.



More claims. Still no evidence.

Is Love self delusion? Surely you've experienced it, but you cant prove what love is any more than I can prove the God of my experience. You could demand that I don't know what Love is because I cant define it therefore I must be gullible or delusional unless I give you an adequate dissertation on Love.

Atheist exploit this inability of people of faith to "prove" the God of our experience as proof that he does it does not exist. They get off in some self validating way by going around joining religious web sites to basically keep making the same point.

If you are interested in further study of where I'm coming from: The Foundations of Religious Faith: Paper 102, The Urantia Book

 

[Colter]

If you assert something with no evidence, it can be dismissed just as easily.

Define love so that we all know what it is? If you cant then just you are just asserting things and love doesn't exist.

 

[Colter]

"It is literally true, “Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known.” But honest doubts and sincere questionings are not sin; such attitudes merely spell delay in the progressive journey toward perfection attainment. Childlike trust secures man's entrance into the kingdom of heavenly ascent, but progress is wholly dependent on the vigorous exercise of the robust and confident faith of the full-grown man." UB 1955

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Back it up? You are the one who is supposed to be doing the work of finding God.

You're the one making the claims, not me.

What you assert without evidence, I get to dissmiss without evidence.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Define love so that we all know what it is? If you cant then just you are just asserting things and love doesn't exist.

I believe that there are feelings that we give the name "love." We describe certain actions as "loving" and our understanding of both of these things largely overlap with one another. So I don't have to have faith that love "exists," at least as we understand it. "Love" is a name we give to a experiences we absolutely have. Now, if I made a claim about the origin of love and I believed it to be true with insufficient evidence, then it would require faith.

So conversely, you can describe "God" as the experiences you have. Nobody will contest that you actually had the experiences. But as soon as you claim to know the origins of of the experiences but have no evidence for them, that requires faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is Love self delusion?

Don't be so dishonest. "love" was not what I was referring to and you know it.

Surely you've experienced it, but you cant prove what love is

Love is an emotion and it's physical underpinnings can be shown by putting your brain under a scanner. The effect it has on behaviour can also easily be demonstrated through social experiments.

any more than I can prove the God of my experience.

False.

You could demand that I don't know what Love is because I cant define it therefore I must be gullible or delusional unless I give you an adequate dissertation on Love.

Wrong. As explained above, love is an emotion that surely exists and can be demonstrated to exist in terms of brain activity and human behaviour.

Furthermore, it also is a false analogy, because love is something that exists as a property of humans. It doesn't exist apart from humans. It is not an entity that exists apart from humans.

God is supposed to be an entity that exists apart and independend from humans.

Which is totally different.

Atheist exploit this inability of people of faith to "prove" the God of our experience as proof that he does it does not exist.

False again...
I never stated that a theist's inability to support his beliefs means that what he believes is wrong or that the god he believes to be real is actually not real. Nore do I personally know a single atheist who says otherwise.

What I DO say, however, is that because the theist is incapable of supporting his beliefs with rational evidence, I have no valid reason to accept those claims.
I can also go a step further and state that for the same reason, the theist also does not have a valid reason to believe what he believes..

To say that it is currently irrational to believe X is true, does not mean that x is therefor false or not true.

It JUST means that there is no rational reason to believe it IS true.
It COULD be true. There's just no reason to assume it is.

There COULD be an undetectable dragon behind me, ready to eat me. There's just no reason to believe there is. So I don't believe it.

They get off in some self validating way by going around joining religious web sites to basically keep making the same point.

Please don't pretend to know my motivation for posting on this forum.
Also, don't pretend as if my personal reason for joining this forum is in any way relevant to the points being made in any particular discussion.

It doesn't matter what my motivation for posting here is. My arguments / points fall and stand on their own merrit - regardless of why I bother to post them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Define love so that we all know what it is?

Dictionary dot com:

1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.


Sounds about right.

If you cant then just you are just asserting things and love doesn't exist.

It demonstrably does. It exists as a property of human behaviour / emotion.
It, however, does NOT exist as an independent entity apart from humans - which you claim your god is!