Do you agree with this statement..?

Well, you can become as analytical, or as literary as you want to become about the same idea, but it's just another one of the multiple interpretations of the same thing. That's why one person's 'simple minded' explanatation's may say everything they know, and why one person's 'scientific minded' explanation may say everything they know whilst both of these explanations are the same thing.
 
One way to make us an agent of evolution is to begin on the spiritual path of consciousness, to be a channel for the collective pure consciousness. How do we know we are on the right path? It is self-evident; one doesn't have to be told. When we eat a good meal we are satisfied, in the same way, we are satisfied with the spiritual path that we have chosen without a doubt. The spiritual pleasure experienced is much more satisfying than the worldly pleasures of the senses so one loses interest in the cruder pleasures like gambling, intoxication and illicit sex. The bliss or spiritual happiness one experiences makes one forget about those lower pleasures. We can't understand spiritual pleasure intellectually because others can't accurately describe something that is beyond the mind so we have to experience this higher pleasure by ourselves and that is how we know we are on the right path. Some might call it New Age, some enlightenment, some grace, some just call it names, but the labels don't matter. If someone is describing a piece of cake to you that doesn't mean you are eating the cake, eating the cake is much better. Everyone would rather delight in the taste rather than the description of spiritual bliss.
 
enlightenment said:
Extraordinary claims demand extraodinary evidence?

Seems fair.

The burden of proof and evidence should indeed lie with the person making the claim.

Therefore, if it is a quite spectaclar claim, then quite spectacular proof and evidence is a must, surely?

I would be surprised to hear a Christian or some other theist concur with that opening statement, since the v premise of their life is believing in an extraordianry series of claims, without any proof or evidence (and I mean real and measurable proof), of those claims.

For such a person to agree with the statement, would surely be a contradiction in terms, one would think?



*Shrugs*
Click to expand...

How about you "Prove" to me that you don't believe in God. I find it quite extraordinary that a person does not believe. I WILL need extraordinary evidence of course. A simple "I don't believe" just won't cut it. I need something substantial. You know, something that can be verified with measurable evidence.

Blessings,

GK

Edit: Disregard this post. It was just as silly as the OP. Thank you!! (GK)
 
Gatekeeper said:
How about you "Prove" to me that you don't believe in God. I find it quite extraordinary that a person does not believe. I WILL need extraordinary evidence of course. A simple "I don't believe" just won't cut it. I need something substantial. You know, something that can be verified with measurable evidence.

Blessings,

GK

Edit: Disregard this post. It was just as silly as the OP. Thank you!! (GK)
Click to expand...

WTF?

You want me to 'prove' to you that I don't believe in a god, is that what you are stating?

Okay, how about when I got married, and had a humanist wedding (god wasn't invited :D). How about my personal testimony that I do not believe that there are any gods, based on the entire lack of that little word...evidence? How about the fact that I was baptised a Catholic, then when I got to about ten, I figured out how silly the whole thing is, just as I did with the tooth fairy?

Nup, you'll not be interested in those things, huh?

Yet you are of the view, by calling the OP 'silly', that an extraordinary claim MUST be supported by evidence of the same.

All I can say to that is that I hope you never apply that same logic should the police (for example), make a serious yet inaccurate claim against you.

They would be making the claim, and by your rationale, they would have every right to do so, and the jury would have every right to convict you, all without any evidence.

Truth is you really only added to this thread to appear 'smart'.

Shame it failed so bad.

:rolleyes:
 
enlightenment said:
WTF?

You want me to 'prove' to you that I don't believe in a god, is that what you are stating?

Okay, how about when I got married, and had a humanist wedding (god wasn't invited :D). How about my personal testimony that I do not believe that there are any gods, based on the entire lack of that little word...evidence? How about the fact that I was baptised a Catholic, then when I got to about ten, I figured out how silly the whole thing is, just as I did with the tooth fairy?

Nup, you'll not be interested in those things, huh?

Yet you are of the view, by calling the OP 'silly', that an extraordinary claim MUST be supported by evidence of the same.

All I can say to that is that I hope you never apply that same logic should the police (for example), make a serious yet inaccurate claim against you.

They would be making the claim, and by your rationale, they would have every right to do so, and the jury would have every right to convict you, all without any evidence.

Truth is you really only added to this thread to appear 'smart'.

Shame it failed so bad.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, I was trying to be a smart "ass". (There is a difference) The OP was silly [IMO]. What exactly were you looking for? Would you like theist to say that since we can't provide evidence for the existence of Gawd, that He must not exist at all? When it comes to belief (Personal convictions), there is little way to provide the kind of 'proof' positive evidence you asked for to support them, yet they can still be valid realities ....

GK
 
Extraordinary claims demand extraodinary evidence?

soma said:
You do get high off of the Truth, but you have to experience it first. If you don't experience it you won't get the high.
Click to expand...

enlightenment said:
The truth about what?

No offence, but these are very seductive yet essentially meaningless terms you are using, in the context of this thread.
Click to expand...

You asked for the extraordinary evidence, and you got an answer from someone who might have experienced it. What`s your problem?

If you want to experience it pray to Jesus, LOL.

TK
 
Well maybe people cannot provide the material evidence you ask for, but are convinced themselves from evidence they and maybe others understand and experienced. If that is the case you are wrong, the evidence was provided and you didn`t see it.

TK
 
enlightenment said:
I am quite sure they have convinced themselves, TK.

;)
Click to expand...

Yes. And they might have convinced themselves after being presented extraordinary evidence. And they might have similar questions you have when they think about it.


TK
 
enlightenment said:
I am quite sure they have convinced themselves, TK.

;)
Click to expand...

Atheists apparently need more than personal experiences to verify something to be real/factual. How can anything beyond physical realities exist for atheists, then? Love, Hate, anger, sorrow, jealousy, joy, peace, etc. Are these things even real to atheists, or do they exist only in mind as mere chemical reactions? If the latter is the case, then when we experience love, anger, pride, pain, etc. it's not real at all, but rather a simple delusion, and deceptive trick of mind? :confused: There is no real evidence that these are real after all, only subjective experience of their substance, right? As a theist I have found that I don't need to convince myself of anything. The experiences I have experienced are enough to confirm certain realities about life. How else do we gain insight if not by experience itself?

GK
 
OK.. we just went around in a circle.

Frankly I don`t think no matter how much you got an explanation you wouldn`t consider it as evidence, you could try Soma who was nice enough to share with you. I`m not in the business of feeding big kids in thirst, read a book or something rather than demand an explanation. End of discussion.

What`s your point? If you have one.

TK
 
TheKhan said:
OK.. we just went around in a circle.

Frankly I don`t think no matter how much you got an explanation you wouldn`t consider it as evidence, you could try Soma who was nice enough to share with you. I`m not in the business of feeding big kids in thirst, read a book or something rather than demand an explanation. End of discussion.

What`s your point? If you have one.

TK
Click to expand...

My point is that we are into five pages of this, and still no one can provide any tangible proof of their claim.

That is the entire point.

There is no evidence.

Nothing.

Just blind belief, fella.
 
Attaining a spiritual high is a matter of learning and growing from failures and mistakes. Enlightenment, do you listen to music, alter your consciousness in any way? You seem to be closed to enlightenment or a spiritual high and that is OK, but don't be so bitter about not having an experience. We are not trying to convince you that you need this. Just take small steps and learn to enjoy the small things around you. Then you will be more positive and open to the bigger things. Enjoy and love what you are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top