Religion, Atheism, and Deism -and the middle ground.

[Mystic]

I've discussed some issues over they years, here and on other forums and I would like to summarize my conclusions.

Religions often make claims that cannot be verified. For example, if we lived during the time of greeks, and we were told stories of Zeus and the other greek gods, we would have no means of verification. On this site, this is often used for Christianity and Islam as well as God or Creator or Supernatural realm.

When it comes to Christianity the claim seems to be different then how Zeus can be not verified per own it's claims, because it introduces a thing that mediates the truth and imparts knowledge, the third of the trinity, the holy spirit. The holy spirit somehow can impart this knowledge of Christianity being true.

Some counter arguments I get is how can you know a sequence of words are divinely inspired by a feeling. How do you know? It seems Christians themselves admit some parts of the Bible seem to be boring, but it's how it all comes together. Anyways, it seems the spiritual force of holy spirit can impart this knowledge somehow according to Christianity.

We can make a general argument that there exists a spiritual force that can make us know words are inspired or revealed by God.

Muslims seem not to emphasize on experiencing with the a spiritual force to know the truth of Quran but try to talk objectively, since, the Quran has nothing similar to it, it's therefore divine since none of humanity could bring a Chapter like it's own chapters.

Personally I find as a result, saying, we require empirical type evidence or some sort of philosophical proof aside from what these two religions have brought forth to not be rewarding in bringing us anywhere.

A problem has to be shown in the means of proof they offer or we can bypass that and just bring about problems within in the holy book or teachings of the religions to show it's not true.

The next issue I want to get at is what I find to be a middle ground. While skepticism is healthy, I think accepting spirituality is also healthy along side of it.

Just because we are skeptical of religious claims of stories and claims of divine authorities, it doesn't take away the possibility of the human nature being given spiritual realities and ways of knowing these realities.

A metaphor I find applicable is the tree of life. In Quran, there is talk about the cursed tree and talk about the blessed tree. These are metaphors to our spiritual realm nature with our actions and growth. How we grow blessed towards the light or cursed towards evil and darkness.

There is similar talk in the bible I think.

While these books maybe false, it doesn't mean all such mystical things are to be ignored.

Lastly, while belief in a spiritual realm or reality to humans is not necessary to live a meaningful worthwhile life and it's true Atheists should be respected as opposed to being seen as people deserving of eternal torment, it can be said that knowledge of these things can still enrich one's life.

[Simon Moon]

When it comes to Christianity the claim seems to be different then how Zeus can be not verified per own it's claims, because it introduces a thing that mediates the truth and imparts knowledge, the third of the trinity, the holy spirit. The holy spirit somehow can impart this knowledge of Christianity being true.

Doesn't matter if it is a different claim, it is still unsupported with anything that can be verified.

I don't think you actually know what the term 'verify' means. Using one's own experience to verify one's own experience is not verification. If it were, then we shouldn't be locking up schizophrenics in hospitals.

There is no method to verify that one's own 'spiritual' experience reflects some actual experience.

Some counter arguments I get is how can you know a sequence of words are divinely inspired by a feeling. How do you know?

And this is the crux of the matter. You seem to be implying that this counter argument falls short. Breaking news...it doesn't.

Anyways, it seems the spiritual force of holy spirit can impart this knowledge somehow according to Christianity.

No it doesn't. What it actually seems, is that many Christians CLAIM that an unprovable, unfalsifiable, supernatural being imparts knowledge. But this is a nonstarter, because the supernatural itself is unsupported by evidenced and unfalsifiable.

The hurdles that have to be cleared to even approach the probability that a personal deity that can magically impart knowledge to humans, are monumental, to say the least.

We can make a general argument that there exists a spiritual force that can make us know words are inspired or revealed by God.

If you want to call bare assertions, unsupported by evidence, an argument, have at it.

Muslims seem not to emphasize on experiencing with the a spiritual force to know the truth of Quran but try to talk objectively, since, the Quran has nothing similar to it, it's therefore divine since none of humanity could bring a Chapter like it's own chapters.[/quote}

So they claim.

[quote]Personally I find as a result, saying, we require empirical type evidence or some sort of philosophical proof aside from what these two religions have brought forth to not be rewarding in bringing us anywhere.

Yes, we know. That's because you would rather believe what makes you feel good, instead of believing what is actually supported be demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument. Neither of which you have, which is why you continue to tell us why it is so unimportant for your beliefs.

A problem has to be shown in the means of proof they offer or we can bypass that and just bring about problems within in the holy book or teachings of the religions to show it's not true.

Theists have both of these things going against them.

Personal experience is insufficient evidence to convince others, except the gullible. ALL religious texts have internal contradiction, external contradictions, historical and scientific errors, etc.

The next issue I want to get at is what I find to be a middle ground. While skepticism is healthy, I think accepting spirituality is also healthy along side of it.

You will never convince me that believing something for bad reasons is healthy.

Just because we are skeptical of religious claims of stories and claims of divine authorities, it doesn't take away the possibility of the human nature being given spiritual realities and ways of knowing these realities.

Please:

Provide demonstrable evidence that there are 'spiritual realities'. I have yet to even hear a coherent definition to define 'spiritual'.

That humans have the ability to know 'spiritual realities' exist.

A metaphor I find applicable is the tree of life. In Quran, there is talk about the cursed tree and talk about the blessed tree. These are metaphors to our spiritual realm nature with our actions and growth. How we grow blessed towards the light or cursed towards evil and darkness.

The fact that some profound sounding passages are found in religious texts, does not add a bit of credibility to them. They either stand or fall on their own merit.

it can be said that knowledge of these things can still enrich one's life.

Yes, beliefs that make someone feel all 'warm and fuzzy' can have positive effects on some individuals.

I'd rather believe what is true, or at least likely to be true.

[Mystic]

It can be said our sense of goodness, value, love of others, justice, is all spiritual.

This is what I kind of wanted to imply by the title. It's ok to not believe in something, but why lump everything by the sentence that you need empirical type evidence for it, and if you don't get that evidence, then it's not worth believing.

[Simon Moon]

It can be said our sense of goodness, value, love of others, justice, is all spiritual.

This is EXACTLY what I meant in my original post when I said, "I have yet to hear a coherent definition for the term 'spiritual'."

Every person I ask to define the term, has given me different definitions. A word that has so broad a range of definition, is almost meaningless.

This is what I kind of wanted to imply by the title. It's ok to not believe in something, but why lump everything by the sentence that you need empirical type evidence for it, and if you don't get that evidence, then it's not worth believing.

Because, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument is the single best method humanity has ever come up with to verify realty.

I care if my beliefs are true, or at least likely to be true. Believing something that doesn't meet that criteria, because I want it to be true, is gullibility.

[Mystic]

We don't use that for moral truths. We don't use it to measure a value of a good moment we are having with a wife or husband. There is a lot we don't use falsifiable evidence or reasoned argument for. There is a lot that is intuitive.

Also even if that is the single best method to verify reality, it doesn't mean there isn't alternative methods.

[Rampant.A.I.]

We don't use that for moral truths. We don't use it to measure a value of a good moment we are having with a wife or husband. There is a lot we don't use falsifiable evidence or reasoned argument for. There is a lot that is intuitive.

Oversimplification. There's also a lot of subconscious thought, hopefully conscious thought that goes into it, along with repeating patterns from childhood and early development.

Also even if that is the single best method to verify reality, it doesn't mean there isn't alternative methods.

What methods? Intuition is based on past empirical experience of events, and subconscious memories. I can "intuit" it's probably not a good idea to put my face on a griddle. Doesn't mean anything is going on beyond a rudimentary understanding of how things work.

[rsb]

Well, I think the historical evidence is clear, those great minds who actually sought to see god found truth, and scientific fact, and the petty bureaucrats and theologians who used the claims of those before them like warlords either co opted their views or tortured them as heretics.

The real question is why would god all powerful and all knowing father of all the universe, care if you actually believed in him or made jokes about him, unless your were a lying evil theological black magic warlord and he cared even slightly about us? If he was like a bad ass spartan father and didn't think we were wimps, he might even trip us or hit us to make us work out our minds harder. While this is all entertaining from the view of mythology, a more basic question emerges, will you fight for truth?

Are you a wimp and a liar or strong and truthful? Maybe that is more important that how much you relate to any deity.