Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Edwardo Piet]

Theists can get angry because of their theism, because holy texts are full of angry ideas.

Atheists can't get angry because of their atheism, because "atheism" doesn't have texts and isn't full of anything, it's an absence of belief and everything else. It isn't anything, it is merely not theism.

[robvalue]

You could get angry over scepticism I suppose. But you're right, getting mad over atheism (or even plain theism) doesn't make sense.

Thank you Red Wind

You're welcome.

I'm not too sure what you were referring to in my post, but it seemed like a lovely compliment!

[Neo-Scholastic]

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.

I consider knowledge the genus and science a species within that set, one distinguished by the study of particular beings as they are found in nature. I don't think scientific knowledge encompasses the entire set.

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.

Personally, I consider all forms of transcendent truths 'spiritual', i.e. transcendent in that they are certain and apply universally to all particulars. Like metaphysics, math doesn't have to run experiments per se. I don't need to run an experiment to prove, in general, that particular beings exist or that some beings can be numbered. I also consider that type of knowledge objective because that kind of truth does not depend on the opinion or observation of any particular subject knowing them.

[Foxaèr]

Such retardation in one single being, astounding.

[brewer]

Belief, but not spiritual.

Are we justified in believing in human value?

Yes.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are we justified in believing in human value?

Yes.

Prove it.

[brewer]

Yes.

Prove it.

No.

[Mystic]

Yes.

Is it knowledge? Or should we just believe in it without knowing it to be true?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I might have a bit more respect for theism if theists would just call a spade, a spade.  Theist says to me: I have knowledge that God exists.  I know he exists because:  I have experienced him, personally.  He has shown himself to me, personally.  His existence is self-evident to ME.   How can the theist think he has obtained actual knowledge regarding God's existence if the only way he can pass it on is to just TELL people, "it's true, because I have experienced it, and I have decided that it is true, and I am telling you that it is."  How can he regard his believe as anything but individual testimonial? 

This is how you know theism is no better than any common scam - if those who stand to gain the most from it called a spade a spade, then nobody would follow them and they'd all be unemployed.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I consider knowledge the genus and science a species within that set, one distinguished by the study of particular beings as they are found in nature. I don't think scientific knowledge encompasses the entire set.

Ok, so maybe you can explain how any non-subjective phenomenon which cannot be asserted without making non-falsifiable claims can be proven so to anyone, regardless of his religion or culture? Just try and do that without dismissing the doubter as "ignorant", without ever specifying precisely what he's so ignorant of - you know you can never do that, therefore your assertions don't deserve any respect. Only science works for anyone who will examine what it finds without applying the power of suggestion and social pressure to the observer.

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.

Personally, I consider all forms of transcendent truths 'spiritual', i.e. transcendent in that they are certain and apply universally to all particulars. Like metaphysics, math doesn't have to run experiments per se. I don't need to run an experiment to prove, in general, that particular beings exist or that some beings can be numbered. I also consider that type of knowledge objective because that kind of truth does not depend on the opinion or observation of any particular subject knowing them.

A - hidey, HO!
Ok, then why don't you try writing out your spiritual equations, by which you have arrived at your conclusions on spirituality, down on paper for the rest of us to examine? What, there you theists go again attempting to compare your non-falsifiable claims to ideas which actually can be demonstrated, and in a perfectly consistent manner!
I CALL POO!!!