For spiritualists, their "evidence" is based on what their emotions and inner senses tell them. For materialists, their "evidence" is based on what they outwardly observe in the physical world with their senses. The only reason that the materialist position is more "believable" is because it is the basic, default experience in this life. Some look for other meaning, while materialists mostly do not.
I'm not trying to change your thoughts or anything, I just think that it's unfair to unanimously decide that others' beliefs and findings are invalid just because you think yours are infallible. It's basically being narrow-minded, something people shouldn't be (as I'm sure you agree).
I, personally, vary from believing in spirituality to materialism, but I don't shun the other option when I'm focused on one, because the "evidence" we have for either one is not concrete beyond what our senses can observe. Our senses observe both physical AND emotional entities.
Thoughts?
2007-01-10 06:37:04 · 9 answers · asked by Neighborhood dude 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I sincerely applaud your question! It's rare that someone with spiritual tendencies can be as honest and open minded enough to even look at the other side accurately. Your first paragraph is spot on. I would only like to say this. External evidence is always more reliable than internal evidence. Personal emotions and experiences are biased by the minds ability to filter information into something it can more easily handle. Also, personal experience cannot be observed or analyzed by a third party. As empirical evidence it is essentially useless. However evidence from the material world for one cannot be easily faked or altered. They are observable and able to be analyzed in the same form by numerous people. The greatest flaw to personal experience as evidence is that it cannot be verified... there is only one judge of it's significance and that persons prior mental obligations will color ANY outcome thereof.
2007-01-10 06:47:27 · answer #1 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So you think youre better than everyone else, because youre a fence sitter who teeters between atheism and religion.... Tell me something I dont know.
Seems to me that both a spiritualist and a materialist will both OBSERVE the same results in a scientific experiement. However, a spiritualist and a materialist will not EXPERIENCE the same results in religion.
2007-01-10 06:42:07 · answer #2 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem with the arugment is that spiritualist say something is true because it is this way from their perspective. An materialist would try to find an objective measure of truth.
Why do you think that spiritualists all have a different idea of what truth is?
2007-01-10 06:41:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh boy, a fence sitter that thinks they're more enlightened because they can consider both sides.
I HAVE considered both sides, darlin'. I simply came to a conclusion AFTER careful review. I don't mind if you think you'll never have an answer, but don't make believe that subjective perception is just as valid as objective evidence.
They're not even on the same playing field.
2007-01-10 06:44:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I feel that if whatever exists, it's by way of definition typical and bodily/fabric/topic/vigour - in different phrases, truly. It is viable that we outline somethings as supernatural without problems considering that we do not realize the way it works certainly. I don't feel that there are matters that exist external of lifestyles - that does not make so much experience. And I obviously understand little or no approximately all that's in lifestyles.
2016-09-03 19:51:40 · answer #5 · answered by petroni 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since when are emotions a valid way to decide your life? If people live by their emotions, rather than their brains, its no wonder people kill each other all the time.
And since when is this a question? It seems more to me that you're simply making a statement.
2007-01-10 06:50:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Considering that the bible and any other religious and spiritual documents have zero physical corroborating evidence, and in most cases were drastically changed from translation to translation, any religion is inherently wrong.
2007-01-10 06:42:39 · answer #7 · answered by vertical732 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that it is unfair or narrow minded at all. Just because you "believe" or "feel" something to be true does not make it so. You can believe in Santa Claus all you want but your belief is not justified.
2007-01-10 06:42:07 · answer #8 · answered by Rance D 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
same goes other way. narrow minded to believe your god is the only one true god. ad every other is wrong.
the only non-narrow minded statement, is that one cannot know whether god exists or not, nor can they know which god it is that exists. its based on faith not on fact.
2007-01-10 06:41:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋