Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Chap]

Of course, that's not my argument and never has been.

Just for the record.

The self-erasing figment of the imagination formerly known as Hoops had an argument?

[_Themis]

I'm not asking for an argument. I'm asking for evidence.

No, you are asking for absolute proof. Evidence has been given, and you have plenty in your own life. You are dodging again in a weak attempt to try and put some claimed spiritual sense on the same level as the physical senses. No one has argued for any absolute knowledge of what is real. We make the assumptions and interpretations based on what we perceive. If they work we usually conclude that it is an good approximation of what is real, not that we know that in any absolute way that you are dishonestly asking for. If something works better we conclude it is a more accurate description of what is real. You want the spiritual to be on the same level, but it is not, and many if not most religious people accept this even though their spiritual experiences are important to them. There is very little agreement that their is some spiritual sense, or what information it is communicating about reality. This differs with the physical. of the 5 senses they are also not on equal footing with each other, becuase some work better then others. Sight is usually considered the best. I know you will not present any evidence for why the spiritual is on the same level as the physical in regards to how well they work

You two in particular reduce every discussion down to empiricism.

I don't, but I do show why the physical has a much better track record. If you want to change people minds you need to present your own evidence. So far you have not. I suspect becuase you can't. My position is not really that different from many other religious people. by the way I know people here tend to make bad assumptions, I am not atheist, but consider myself more agnostic.

I am simply asking for your logical conclusions why empiricism is the best way to access what is real.

We have shown them, and I suspect you already understand this. It's from what has a better track record of working. Again this is what is relevant when we can't know anything in any absolute way. This world we are in might just be the perverted imagination of some powerful alien child.

I've made no religious claims, I've used no religious language, I'm simply meeting you on your turf and asking you to explain yourself.

I doubt you know what turf I am on. I have only argued for what is relevant, and why we conclude certain things are most likely reality. Something I suspect you already accept anyway. You just want to believe something else is on the same level without showing any evidence for why anyone else should accept it as such.

I'll note that neither of you have offered any explanation or evidence.

You might want to look it up to understand what evidence really means.

[_BartBurk]

Did he mean that faith in Christ is a choice or that faith in Mormonism is a choice? I find those to be two entirely different things. I think it is probably Biblical to say that faith comes as a free gift from God. I suspect it is also true that continuing to have faith after initially receiving the free gift is a choice we continue to make. I also tend to believe that how we choose to live out our faith in Christ whether it be through Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism or any other way is likely a choice we make.

[_Hoops]

No, you are asking for absolute proof.

AQbsolutely not.

Evidence has been given, and you have plenty in your own life.

For external reality? Please cite it for me.

You are dodging again in a weak attempt to try and put some claimed spiritual sense on the same level as the physical senses.

I have not appealed to anything spiritual.

No one has argued for any absolute knowledge of what is real.

I'm not asking for that. Please cite where I have.

We make the assumptions and interpretations based on what we perceive.

Exactly. But assumptions are not evidence.

If they work we usually conclude that it is an good approximation of what is real,

You've made a gigantic logical leap here. For one who likes to exclusively appeal to logic and reason, you are not seeing the speck in your eye. The fact that something works does not mean it is indicative of external reality. In fact, even granting the use of your term "work", you still have nothing. All youhave is your experience with it/them.

not that we know that in any absolute way that you are dishonestly asking for.

I'll take ANY evidence at all, at this point. Not proof, just something that is not dependent on your experience.

If something works better we conclude it is a more accurate description of what is real.

Why? This doesn't even make sense. Surely you see that. because something works it's real? If it works less well, it's less real? they're degress of real-ness? Please give me evidence of such.

You want the spiritual to be on the same level, but it is not,

fI've offered no such conclusion.

and many if not most religious people accept this even though their spiritual experiences are important to them.

So logic and reason by consensus. S

There is very little agreement that their is some spiritual sense, or what information it is communicating about reality.

Oh this tired old canard. What does this even mean? And what does this have to do with ANYTHING?

This differs with the physical. of the 5 senses they are also not on equal footing with each other, becuase some work better then others. Sight is usually considered the best. I know you will not present any evidence for why the spiritual is on the same level as the physical in regards to how well they work

You two in particular reduce every discussion down to empiricism.

I don't, but I do show why the physical has a much better track record.

Track record for what? Talk about circular reasoning. You're basically saying that your experience can be trusted and I know this because of my experience. You fail.

If you want to change people minds you need to present your own evidence.

That is not my intention at this point.

So far you have not

Quite true.

I suspect becuase you can't.

You suspect I can't not provide evidence for a position I have not taken? How profound.

My position is not really that different from many other religious people. by the way I know people here tend to make bad assumptions, I am not atheist, but consider myself more agnostic.

I don't really care what your position is. Nor buffalo's nor chaps. I care whether or not any of you can provide any evidence, or draw logical conclusions, about this subject.

We have shown them, and I suspect you already understand this.

That's bull. You have even shown that you can access external reality, let alone that empiricism is the best way to do so. All you give me is some nebulous phrase like "it workd better."

I doubt you know what turf I am on. I have only argued for what is relevant, and why we conclude certain things are most likely reality.

I don't really care what turf your on. That's not the point. But your conclusions are based on faulty reasoning, whether it "works better" or not.

Something I suspect you already accept anyway. You just want to believe something else is on the same level without showing any evidence for why anyone else should accept it as such.

You have yet to show me that your experience is on any level, let alone the same level as something else.

You might want to look it up to understand what evidence really means.

Ah, the old "My thinking is just so superior to yours" defense. How brilliant.

[_Buffalo]

[_honorentheos]

Hoops,

It appears the previous conversation is running it's course.

I'd be very interested in hearing your expanded thoughts on the comment mentioned previously.

Thanks.

[_emilysmith]

Faith is not a choice, neither is disbelief. It is all a product of culture. Ex-mormons have the advantage in all these debates because they have experienced both cultures.

Plenty of people have gone to sincere great lengths to connect with the divine and have come away with nothing. How could it be a choice?

Also, free will is an illusion. There is no action, thought or behavior that is free from cause and effect.

Faith is not a choice. Choice is an illusion.

[_asbestosman]

Faith is not a choice, neither is disbelief. It is all a product of culture. Ex-Mormons have the advantage in all these debates because they have experienced both cultures.

And felons have the advantage in their debates over law-abiding citizens since felons have experienced both cultures.

Uh, yeah. Besides the fact that such a thing ignores the many converts to Mormonism.

[_Buffalo]

Faith is not a choice, neither is disbelief. It is all a product of culture. Ex-Mormons have the advantage in all these debates because they have experienced both cultures.

And felons have the advantage in their debates over law-abiding citizens since felons have experienced both cultures.

Uh, yeah. Besides the fact that such a thing ignores the many converts to Mormonism.

Not knowing anything about Mormonism and then converting to it is not the same thing as being a faithful Mormon and then losing your faith.

Classy, though, comparing ex-Mos to felons.

[_emilysmith]

And felons have the advantage in their debates over law-abiding citizens since felons have experienced both cultures.

Uh, yeah. Besides the fact that such a thing ignores the many converts to Mormonism.

Felons, generally, don't have any type of advantage precisely because of their culture.

You lack imagination if you cannot conceive of how a chain of cause and effect can lead to someone's conversion. There have actually been studies on many of the factors that lead to a conversion, and, while interesting, is largely irrelevant since you are wrong.