People of faith, religion, or reason (from Askers’ view) have this failing of sorts to argue from their present stand point.
They are more likely than not be unable to associate with their secular reasoning to form a convincing platform with which to lay their beliefs on upon conversion to the former, or religious and faithful in the latter secular aspect.
Having converted to their choice belief, why do they have difficulty in explaining their beliefs from the viewpoints once held so dearly (on assumption having experienced both) ?
As illustration:
One claims the spiritual effects is physically evident which probably cannot be verified by empirical means or is dismissed as coincidental.
The other demonstrates empirical evidence for which spiritually cannot be proven.
Kindly refrain, if you please, ad hominem attacks of all parties participating. Thank you.
2007-01-24
23:43:30
·
7 answers
·
asked by
pax veritas
4
in
Religion & Spirituality