Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Mystic]

What scientific evidence is there to prove human worth or value?

Did you base your belief in human value on science or other then that?

Do you believe humans before scientific method were justified in believing in human value or not?

Mystic,

It IS science though.  It is the science of of our species, and how we evolved.  Having a sense of value and empathy is advantageous to our survival.  Maybe we didn't alway have scientific language to describe it, but that is what science is.  Continual progress and advancement.

Scientific evidence can prove we have a sense of value or human worth. It can even give theories to how we got that sense and perception. But I don't think it can prove that there is a such thing. Even if it did, how many humans justify their belief in human value through science. What about humans before the scientific method.

The point I'm trying to make, science isn't everything we know. The most fundamental language we have is that of love. Love teaches us how to act with different people, form relationships, how to honor our parents, how to raise our children, etc... 

The Theists believes love also teaches about the divine source, and our link to it, that we also have a soul/heart. Sometimes not everything is about proofs or evidence, while I do believe there is proofs of God and evidence for her.

In the case of love, you teach your kids love through love, and they have love and can appreciate your love, you raise them with showing some wisdom, of course, they overly trust you so will learn wrong things from you, however, that is not to say, you have to prove to your children everything from the scientific method.

I believe similarly we do have light of God with us, and the light doesn't simply manifest beautiful qualities of God, but rather it manifests it's eternal existence, it's reality, it being truth in the same way we can witness we ourselves exist.

Of course, all we can is remind about it really, signs and proofs will all make use of reminders of it's reality but if a person wants to deny every property that we know of that points to us to it's existence, then nothing can be done to prove to that person.

My point with all this, is that, we aren't the only ones relying on other then science or believing in things without either empirical evidence or philosophical proofs.

[Edwardo Piet]

Here it comes

[Red_Wind]

geh, just missed it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nah you didn't... did you?

[Red_Wind]

Nah you didn't... did you?

Got an alert that i was quoted in this thread a few minutes ago, so.....yeah.

[Angrboda]

Is there justified true belief of spiritual things?  How does one verify that their beliefs about spirituality are justified and true?

What of the spiritual is considered knowledge?

How do you distinguish between what you call a "spiritual" belief from the set of all possible beliefs?

That's somewhat akin to asking what the difference between the natural and supernatural is. In this case, it depends on the meanings of science and spiritual.

sci·ence

noun: science

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"

I'm not one claiming that there is a body of knowledge which relates to the spiritual, so what that consists of would be the job of the person claiming such a body of justified true beliefs exists. That would be you or Mystic. Mystic appears to want to claim psychological truths as spiritual. I would think that improper. The nature and basis of human mental existence is poorly charted, but that doesn't make it 'spiritual'.

What about you? What do you consider spiritual?

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's okay, Evie. [emoji41]. Being rude and condescending is his thing, I'm learning.

Indeed I have lost my patience with a certain stripe of atheist that persists in making what David Bently Hart calls "clumsy, misguided and incoherent" arguments against the existence of God.

[Edwardo Piet]

There are no "types" of atheists despite weak/agnostic and strong/gnostic.

An atheist is merely someone who doesn't believe in gods.

Atheists who are very different to others are not different because of their atheism, even the difference between weak/agnostic and strong/gnostic atheists is not a difference in atheism but is instead a difference in claims to knowledge.

[Red_Wind]

Thank you Red Wind

You're welcome.

[robvalue]

Regarding angry atheists, I see atheists getting angry with each other plenty of times, not just with the theists here. I wouldn't say I've seen a disproportionate amount aimed at the theists.

Just my observations.

But for those religious trolls who show up here just to preach about how wrong and evil atheists are, they really shouldn't expect anything but a verbal beatdown.