The right/wrong/proof issue of spirituality/religion

[NickKanieval]

Hey all, I just wanted to make a post here on something I was thinking about after going through a lot of these topics. I don't know if it's been covered before(as I didn't go through every single topic) but here's what I want to say. I see a lot of people talking about "here is proof that atheists are evil" or "this is why God is real" or "why all religion is insane" and so on and so forth into every variation that could ever possibly exist. The issue with this, of course is the acceptance that people are either going to or not going to use for proof, or evidence, whether scientifically or religiously backed or not. People are going to believe what they're ready to believe in, whether it happens to be true, or not. If you have something you regard to be true, and you want to share it with people, then cool. But the problem I see is that when people don't accept that truth(?), then it turns into needless rage, strife, malice, and even violence. The way you spread truth is by offering it to people, and letting them accept it, or not. You don't spread truth by focusing on why people are wrong for what they believe in, or why some spirituality is wrong, or why some religion is horribly insane--you offer truth freely. And you accept whether they accept it or not. I have my own beliefs, and none of them belong to any mass religion or spirituality(that I know of) and the last thing I would do if I wanted to talk to people of my beliefs is by looking them in the eye and saying "THIS is why you're WRONG, and why your GOD is EVIL, AND COMPLETELY INSANE." So back to what I said, people are going to accept something only if they are ready to. And I believe it is extremely important to also accept whether they are ready, or not ready. And that readiness may not even occur in your lifetime. So to sum up all that I say here, if you believe you have something that is true, then by the cosmos--FOCUS on THAT. Not on the people who don't believe it, not on other religions or spiritual practices, focus on that which you hold to be true, and if you want to share it, then share it, and if people don't want it, then let them deny it and follow their own way. And if people want to share in that truth, then give it to them as well. That's all I wanted to say.

[Serkat]

OK but I disagree. You don't need to be "ready to accept" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, you just need to look at the evidence. It's like you could had a chance against how your mind works. Also, atheism doesn't offer truth, it offers the result of a certain methodology. There's nothing to offer that could be expressed in any way other than anti-theism because atheism is in itself not a philosophical or scientific viewpoint any more than "anti-Invisible-Pink-Unicornism" is.

[Taosaur]

OK but I disagree. You don't need to be "ready to accept" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, you just need to look at the evidence. It's like you could had a chance against how your mind works. Also, atheism doesn't offer truth, it offers the result of a certain methodology. There's nothing to offer that could be expressed in any way other than anti-theism because atheism is in itself not a philosophical or scientific viewpoint any more than "anti-Invisible-Pink-Unicornism" is. Assuming everyone shares your belief in the proper methodology for arriving at truth, and your faith in the institutions employing that methodology. Does the evidence suggest that everyone agrees with you on these matters?

[juroara]

personal experience has led me to my truth, not evidence there is no amount of evidence to lead you to any type of truth really. fundies are proof of how much they can turn a blind eye to evidence and continue believing in what ever they want to believe in why people believe something is more important than what they believe in

[A dreamer168]

personal experience has led me to my truth, not evidence there is no amount of evidence to lead you to any type of truth really. fundies are proof of how much they can turn a blind eye to evidence and continue believing in what ever they want to believe in why people believe something is more important than what they believe in Well said/

[NickKanieval]

OK but I disagree. You don't need to be "ready to accept" that the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist, you just need to look at the evidence. It's like you could had a chance against how your mind works. Also, atheism doesn't offer truth, it offers the result of a certain methodology. There's nothing to offer that could be expressed in any way other than anti-theism because atheism is in itself not a philosophical or scientific viewpoint any more than "anti-Invisible-Pink-Unicornism" is. But the role of perception plays a large part in any proof or evidence. Proof is a fragile and even unreliable thing if the person who is perceiving is inclined to think in one way or the other. I could say that an angel healed me after I asked it to, and someone could say that because of my extreme belief that it would happen, my body healed itself through the mysteries of the human mind. An entity claiming to be God could descend upon the earth, preforming miracles left and right, and someone could say that it's all aliens with super-technology. A woman could lift a car off her child and claimed that she saw a large man in white clothes lift it up and someone could say that it was an hallucination induced by extreme panic and adrenaline, which also caused her to have extraordinary strength. There's an actual account of a woman claiming to see elves in her garden, and they taught her how to properly raise her grapes, people thought she was mad until her grapes--and consequently--wine quality rose above everyone else's. But perhaps she simply discovered the secret herself and made up the elves for fun? Except for the fact that her brain was analyzed and discovered that certain parts of it were capable of much higher energy conduction, much above the average human brain. Coincidence? Proof is really all up to who is looking at it, and then it's not longer proof, it's perception.

[Xaqaria]

It's like you could had a chance against how your mind works. WHUT

[Serkat]

Assuming everyone shares your belief in the proper methodology for arriving at truth, and your faith in the institutions employing that methodology. Does the evidence suggest that everyone agrees with you on these matters? I don't really know what you mean. I don't take everything a gray-haired guy in a lab coat says at face value. WHUT Yeah, it was kinda late already. I intended to say "It's not like you have a chance against how you mind works".

[Taosaur]

I don't really know what you mean. I don't take everything a gray-haired guy in a lab coat says at face value. Your assertion that one only needs to "examine the evidence" to reproduce your conclusions on gods and pink unicorns assumes 1) everyone is using the same body of evidence and 2) there is only one valid way to examine it. Again, does evidence suggest that everyone agrees with you on these matters?

[Serkat]

Your assertion that one only needs to "examine the evidence" to reproduce your conclusions on gods and pink unicorns assumes 1) everyone is using the same body of evidence and 2) there is only one valid way to examine it. I would agree on those. Again, does evidence suggest that everyone agrees with you on these matters? I don't get it. Perhaps this is some sort of syntactic structure the meaning of which I have never learned. Evidence suggests that a lot people don't agree with me... in particular the religious folks all over the world. Is that a valid answer? What are you trying to say? They are not disagreeing for rational reasons (1 & 2 which you named above).

[juroara]

Evidence suggests that a lot people don't agree with me... i thats all he is saying, that evidence isn't going to lead to the same conclusion

[Sornaensis]

personal experience has led me to my truth, not evidence there is no amount of evidence to lead you to any type of truth really. fundies are proof of how much they can turn a blind eye to evidence and continue believing in what ever they want to believe in why people believe something is more important than what they believe in Believing something does not make it true nor relevant. Why people believe something is simple: They've been told it's true. No idiot in the right mind would asccept Fundie mumbo crappo unless they were brainwashed into it and hidden from the evidence.

[Serkat]

thats all he is saying, that evidence isn't going to lead to the same conclusion Due to wrong methodology though... Or "different" if you will... But in fact wrong.

[Taosaur]

What are you trying to say? They are not disagreeing for rational reasons (1 & 2 which you named above). My point is that everyone is not working from the same body of evidence, nor are we all applying the same methodology to the evidence we have. You, Juroara and myself, for example, are clearly observing different, though overlapping, data sets, and using different algorithms to organize what we see into an idea of what's going on here. All three of us are likely making some errors every step of the way--my own view includes the likelihood that the whole world of time and form flows from a fundamental misapprehension of what we are. The point of the OP as I see it is that you won't get far in propagating what you take for truth if your method is to attack everyone else's ideas, nor can you deepen your understanding of your own truth by focusing on the flaws in others'.

[Serkat]

Well, as I've said, I don't have any truth that I could propagate. Atheism isn't a position as much as it is an attitude. The body of evidence amounts to absolutely nothing. I don't have a "true" alternative to god just as I have no true alternative to pixies. How would I go about debating pixies without criticizing their alleged existence on the basis of lack of evidence? My whole point is that there is no evidence to apply any methodology on. You only apply the methodology on the lack of evidence, hence atheism.

[Taosaur]

Well, as I've said, I don't have any truth that I could propagate. Atheism isn't a position as much as it is an attitude. The body of evidence amounts to absolutely nothing. I don't have a "true" alternative to god just as I have no true alternative to pixies. How would I go about debating pixies without criticizing their alleged existence on the basis of lack of evidence? My whole point is that there is no evidence to apply any methodology on. You only apply the methodology on the lack of evidence, hence atheism. So you have no ideas concerning life, the universe and everything other than there's not a god in it?