Proving all (other) religions wrong.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 526
Topic's author
#1
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong? 

This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right? How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?

(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)

#2
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't this would take change a Religious person's mind.
My reason would be for this: More than likely they did not use reason to get into Religion so why would they use Religion to reinforce their beliefs or hear other viewpoints in a reasonable way instead of an emotional one?
I think this forum post is still good when you can point out that most claims that other Religions are wrong can be used for the very Religion they are sponsored too. 

(Special disclaimer: proving other viewpoints wrong does not prove your viewpoint right it only disqualifies the debunked viewpoint.)
Making sure they do not commit a false dichotomy. 


#3
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Ain't nobody got time for that
Topic's author
#4
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Ain't nobody got time for that

And yet here we are.
#5
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?

They are allowed to believe whatever they like, that's what makes beliefs and religions worth pursuing for them. Some people might perceive perfection in their religions or scriptures but it's simply not so however it does keep the soul interested and creates passion for them, gives them a sense of purpose and self worth. There doesn't even need to be perfection that's not necessary. What is necessary is that the soul has a source to learn from and collectively exist with at all levels and I'll explain below where my opinion is relevant to the topic.

This includes those who think all religions are "a little bit" right or that they all secretly somehow agree with each other. If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?

Lol the definition you are searching for is Omnist….Omnism " is the recognition and respect of all religions; those who hold this belief are called omnists (or Omnists)."
But an Omnist doesn't have to like or respect everything within religion, nor is an Omnist obligated to follow religion at all....it just takes the position that religions are the study of the spiritual nature of the soul and creation and they all can have useful information or they may have very little useful information. One can learn from a variety of sources just like one can read an abundance of books about a single topic, then embrace what is useful and what works and discard what is useless. Spirituality comes into play here and helps the individual observe what is useful through application and participation. Most things are more obvious than not IMO.

The soul is not obligated to follow religion, but if the soul is interested in what the nature of the Creator and the soul are, and if they wish to congregate and exist collectively with others like-minded than this is what makes a variety of religions useful for a variety of individuals. It can be viewed like as a family or a unit, where collective societies are not just limited and bound to our earthly experience here but they continue on with out experience. Those that love their families, traditions and cultures get to express those desires and beliefs in the created worlds (multiverses) and chase their passions and interests. Their usefulness is their individual impact on the environment they exist within and the souls around them. People might not understand that when a soul leaves their physical body they still have a life a purpose and meaning for their existence, they still have places to go and things to do, dreams to pursue, desires not yet met.... you get the point hopefully.

How have you determined that one religion really isn't top dog?

Well within my beliefs (Omnism in this case) and my understanding of it there actually could be but it's unlikely. A better way to put it would be maybe one religion operates at a higher conscious level of awareness than another, meaning there could be one religion which has more knowledge and a higher spiritual perception as well as less useless or inaccurate information. This can be seen or observed through the teachings themselves and the contents within, what motives they have ect ect.  They don't all have to be equal, and is doesn't have to be just one over the other. They all are unique and have something to offer the soul.

So in a sense you could look at religions like spiritual "detectors" and each detector could be of higher or lower quality, picking up deeper knowledge or just surface level knowledge. Spirituality has no real limits even though everything works within the realm of logic and commonsense so there could actually be a type of hierarchy of religions and spiritual sources. The created worlds are so vast and includes so many features and layers of understanding and discovery no one religion could ever tough such a vast and dynamic reality. So religions are limited to what their originators know and observe and that could be higher or lower on the scale of spiritual knowledge. Yes, this puts their followers on the same scale but no soul is limited to any religion, rather the soul chooses what it desires and what it wants to follow and limits itself, if an individual finds beauty in their beliefs they get to obtain what it is that they truly believe is good if they too are good. This is where you see Karma come into play, because once the soul enters into creation and a dualistic environment they become accountable for all they do whether good or bad, and experiences can be both good or bad.
But the point I want to make is that even the lowest level religion could have some interesting facts you just never know until you dig in, each path has something for the soul and it's followers and there are all types of souls and followers.

If you understand that religions are just interpreting the nature what they observe, and there is no culture or religion that the Creator favors over another and rejects everything else then this should be blatantly obvious. But this is a good thing, atheists and non-believers hate fundamentalism and religious extremism and they also don't want to be forced to accept stupidity like killing animals or stoning gays. But they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true. When one looks at religions like I just explained they can see it for what it is, a vast range of information and the available body of knowledge and facts (as well as inaccuracies) that correlate with the nature of Theism. One can examine this body of knowledge and acquire useful information that is relevant for the full scope of their experience.

Topic's author
#6
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
While it is a very interesting opinion piece and is definitely worth a second read your post fail to address the question of how you know. Your very good at explaining what you believe but we've never gotten past "because claims". If I may here's an example of the language I'm talking about. 
they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true.
It's easy to make bald assertions. Indeed that is something omnists fundamentalists and religious moderates claims all have in common.
#7
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
3
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
I can with the highest degree of confidence say Hinduism is the only true religion which satisfies both the intellectual and spiritual needs of human societies. It has withstood the test of time and taught us passive resistance and dialogue can change the course of history without resorting to violence or reaching out for the sword. It has given us leaders like Mahatma Ghandi who liberated a nation without firing a single shot and Martin Luther King who took a shot but won the civil rights for African Americans. Both pursued passive and peaceful resistance, an approach that is the hallmark of Hinduism.

Christianity is a stolen religion from the Jews and remains fractured at the core with over 30,000 different denomintions of Christians. Was Jesus God or a deluded Jewish carpenter's son, was he an incarnate of arch angel Michael or simply an unemployed homeless wino who made wine from water to feed his addiction and convinced others to drink it too? Jesus proved that being filled with the spirited beverage can sometimes reveal what is often hidden in the subconscious. It brought out the liar in Peter and something more sinister in Judas who betrayed the wine maker by drawing attention to his messianic aspirations. The spirit that filled Jesus affected him differently. It turned into a death wish.

Islam is another world religion. It started with an illiterate Arab who claimed God singled him out to reveal his vision of the world. Unable to write the illiterate Arab recited to scribes what he heard which he had committed to memory. This formed the basis of the oral tradition followed by Muslims. It inspired generations of illiterates to follow the prophets example and listen to his revelations. There are 800 million illiterate Muslims out of 1.4 billion whose convictions are stronger than their understanding of their scriptures that they cannot and have not read. But that is equally matched by Christians whose faith substitute their own ignorance of their scriptures.

Hinduism is a religion that focuses on spirituality and personal development and is not dependent on a benevolent creator. The checks and balances are built into ones Karma (self accountability) and not dictated by some external force or being. The goal is enlightenment and the highest achievement is spiritual bliss which is the transcendental conquering of physical and material desires that are only distraction or insatiable illusions. One achieves Nirvana if successful and breaks away from the cycle of rebirths (Samsara). Or the process known as reincarnations is repeated according to ones Karma at each cycle

There is anecdotal evidence for this process of reincarnations from recollections of past lives experienced by many people. The scientific evidence is found in prodigies. People exhibiting incredible talents and abilities at very young ages that is only possible if they accumulated their skills in past lives and their current genius was the cumulative result.

Other scientific studies have measured the effects of spiritual activity in controlled groups such as Buddhist monks and Nuns and found not only how spirituality affects their brain activity with predictable patterns, but also how it affects the objects such as cancer patients. When these spiritualists concentrate on the wellbeing of the patients, studies have found a dramatic improvement in a high percentage of the controlled group.

I am a Vedantist and therefore a spiritualist. I have participated in scientific studies and have demonstrated many of the states such an unusual brain activity, control heartbeat and a enhanced sense of empathy. I can from a group of pictures empathize with the ones I identified as physically sick from some ailment, disturbed, low energy, poor aura, depressed, maleficent or mentally ill.

The only reason these studied cannot be applied in practice is because of the draconian malpractice laws that are instituted by very powerful groups who have a vested interest in keeping research from interfering with their bottom line.

Topic's author
#8
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Harikrish
No offense but I really don't like talking to you. Have a nice day anyhow.
#9
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok so how do you know all the other religions (besides yours) got things wrong?
You have to distinguish what's about this reality and what's about a person's thought of paradise or the metaphysical aspect. Whatever is about this reality we can clearly see if it's right or wrong, at least by majority standards or science. If science says we are born gay and have no choice in the matter... religion is wrong. But if religion says you shouldn't kill, then they are probably right. But once it gets into sin and your going to hell... they are only talking about themselves. 

I just separate what's about this reality and what's not. If it's about morals and ethics, then it's just like any other self help or motivational book. Although that is still subjective we can agree on some things and disagree on others. We treat it like anything else we do in our lives. But when it comes to paradise, or hell... that's all the observer. They don't know my paradise, and i don't know their paradise. In that sense, i think we are all right per say. If you believe you're going to be in front of god on your knees for eternity... and you like that image, who am i to say you can't have it. If we are some kind of incorporeal mind... it even makes sense that everyone will, after death, hallucinate whatever they believe. But... i clearly know they are wrong if they are telling me my paradise is to be on my knees for eternity in front of god. Bc that's simply not paradise to me. 

So it's that distinction... what are they saying about this reality, do i agree or disagree? What are they saying metaphysically? Do i agree or disagree? Both can be tested easily. That's how we know. Either it's a total lack of belief, or it's a truth that i live for. What i know is no one controls my mind. Influence and all that, sure... but not control (at least presently - and i guess there is a caveat that some people can be controlled)... but not myself at least. So, i can make a reasonable conclusion that if my consciousness continues after death it's me in control.    
Topic's author
#10
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
i clearly know they are wrong if they are telling me my paradise is to be on my knees for eternity in front of god. Bc that's simply not paradise to me. 
Some theist would argue that this is exactly why you will be excluded from paradise. You would agree that their claim and yours (while one may appeal to my sensibilities more) have similar levels of evidence from my perspective? 
#11
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Some theist would argue that this is exactly why you will be excluded from paradise. You would agree that their claim and yours (while one may appeal to my sensibilities more) have similar levels of evidence from my perspective?
Sure, from a theist's perspective it is... but who are they to me? Why should i bow to another human? And, what's the conclusion... i believe them and go to hell? Bc that is the only option they are giving me. Which just doesn't make sense. If it turns out to be true... well, that sucks, i get hell. But believing them would do the same. 

From your perspective i also understand. You are who you are. I wouldn't dare control you just as i would hope you don't control me. If you choose to say there isn't evidence... all i can do is tell you about my life and why i feel there is evidence. It's anecdotal however, bc if it wasn't... you wouldn't be who you are... you would be like me. So, all i can do is share my experiences and discuss them, which i enjoy doing. All i hope is it makes one think, not come over to my side. The only thing my belief does is empower you to be you, and if you want... imagine how powerful you can be. That is the prime reason i choose this belief... not really for myself, the implications just happened to favor me too, but i've always wanted more people to know, if they choose, they are powerful... we need more of that in society to make it better, not simple mindless followers which the ones that achieve power feed on. I've always been a person that cares more for others than myself. If you really understand my belief... you'll notice it is tailored to give everyone what they truly hope for. That was always my end game. I feel it's superior in that regard, but is it true.. i don't know. It seems more true than a belief that plays a childish game of "play my imaginary game or else i'll be sad/mad" ... that's what children do. That just seem flawed to me, clearly... but am i right? I don't know. I hope i am... bc i don't want to go to hell obviously. But imagine if i am right... than i get to do whatever i want and you get to do whatever you want... within reason of course bc we share this reality. But also, a further implications is you get to choose whatever you want your afterlife to be... i don't get to choose it for you. You may stay exactly as you are...skeptical. But at least, i'm sure you have an imagination and can think of a paradise if i am right... i'm also saying, you can have that. None of it is my choice, it's yours and everyone else's. That is the beauty of such a platform. 

So... i think this is the one platform that you can say is wrong, but you are ultimately saying i'm right if you get what you want. And, the platform doesn't make any promises, guides, morals, etc for this life... so there really nothing there to say wrong to either. It's a win win platform that i think everyone should hope is right... but again, i'm not in control of anyone else. They'll do what they believe bc likely that is what's true for them. We can only lambaste what they say the rest of us should do... and in regards to it being right that they can... well, it just seems very man-made. But we can both be wrong... no one knows. But following some logic and reasoning, i think we can at least suspect it's wrong with reasonable conclusions.  

Topic's author
#12
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Outplayz
If you really understand my belief... you'll notice it is tailored to give everyone what they truly hope for.
That is very nice of you. It would be nice if my desire to believe something could make it more real but thay is not what I observe. I suppose whether you are right or I am I will someday cease to exist. Think I'm ok with that. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and was quite unbothered by it.

#13
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That is very nice of you. It would be nice if my desire to believe something could make it more real but thay is not what I observe. I suppose whether you are right or I am I will someday cease to exist. Think I'm ok with that. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and was quite unbothered by it.
Off the platform i've chosen to favor... we can't say where we were before here, but there is some anecdotal evidence that some remember certain things, including myself. But that isn't something we can prove. Plus, in such a platform... we shouldn't and can't remember... it would spoil this experience. And your desire to make something real doesn't happen here. This would be the desire. To me, it's a C-rate desire and i don't know why i'm here sometimes... but, then the things i love about this world always show themselves to me. Even if it's small, i guess if i'm infinite i'd do this life just for that. But... none of that is provable. It's just a conclusion that can be drawn from such a platform. In the end of the day, i'm glad there are people like you bc if there weren't... i'd probably be Christian, or even worse Muslim. It was an atheist/skeptic that broke me away from religion. I can't thank that person enough. Would i have done it myself, maybe... but, i'm glad he got me out as early as he did. Everything in reality, in my eyes, is necessary for this reality.  

#14
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
While it is a very interesting opinion piece and is definitely worth a second read your post fail to address the question of how you know.

I didn't fail to address anything Secular. Look at your questions and read my answers I never fail to address questions the way they are posed, that's one thing I'm good at IS addressing questions and topics. How do I know what? I've told you how I know many times about what I believe. You're leery about my experience and testimonial evidence even though I would hope you do understand the nature of the Creator and the nature of all this.
My beliefs are first based on my own experiences and observation of this world, they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality. One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is, the numbers involved and the science behind it aren't something to just ignore. I mean it should be obvious something is going on more than peoples imaginations running wild.....could it, just could it be....because there IS an objective reality?? nooo, there couldn't be right lol?

Your very good at explaining what you believe but we've never gotten past "because claims". If I may here's an example of the language I'm talking about.

Out of all I explained and wrote for your topic questions this is what you want to point out? wow, I never would have wrote that sentence alone without all the other things I DID explain. The reason I did, is because what I did explain should have made the statement below obvious.

"they also seem reluctant to embrace Omnism but it should make sense to them, it should make sense because it's true."

It's easy to make bald assertions. Indeed that is something omnists fundamentalists and religious moderates claims all have in common.

Seriously man? Is that all you have to say about what I wrote? I'm sorry, but what exactly are you expecting when asking questions in a religious forum? I answered all you asked....I'm not sure what you want then. I am however irritated I spent the time to clearly cover your concerns only to be blown off for no real reason. You could have asked about anything I wrote, you could have argued anything you thought didn't sound right, you could have agreed ect ect but no, you just basically ignored my whole post. That's why I limit my time here because the members that participate in this part of the forum aren't serious about this. Is there any reason why I should ever participate in your topics in the future?

If this is what you are referring to below that I didn't "answer"......
 If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?

First I need to see the claim before I address that claim. Not all religions claim to be exclusively right Secular, that's more the followers so this is not really applicable. Out of all the religions Abrahamic religions tend to shun everyone else but generally it's the people that follow their religions making those claims not the sources themselves. If you disagree with that, please show me where all religious sources make that claim if you don't mind.

#15
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
That is very nice of you. It would be nice if my desire to believe something could make it more real but thay is not what I observe. I suppose whether you are right or I am I will someday cease to exist. Think I'm ok with that. I didn't exist for billions of years before I was born and was quite unbothered by it.

The nature of consciousness isn't about what people want, we can't change the nature of awareness or the nature of the soul it exists as it is. Wants and desires only come into play with the implications of what we are dealing with, it becomes something we cope with by experiencing life and chasing dreams. Ceasing to exist once your soul has been individualized is impossible, it's not an option....so it's your embodiments and bodily components that confine your experience to a lifetime and create the illusion that you did not exist prior to occupying this body and after but as you will see, when your body shuts off the lights you will still be conscious and you will still exist. You could be temporarily unconscious as the body shuts down because you will be observing that effect due to your soul being confined to its experience but once death is final the soul releases from the body. Nobody can escape that, it will happen to all of us. 
Once another body and setting has been prepared for you according to your own Karma your next experience will again be fresh and new, you will have no idea about the transitional period before and after your lifetimes if you must reincarnate. Even if you are a new soul, you still existed prior to coming here even though you have no recollection of it, you can't be here without being sent or agreeing to it. However, if you are permitted to enter the higher realms you will be allowed to know all of your past experiences. If you have a spiritual guide they too can show you things in other states of consciousness but of course, you have to be cultivating that aspect of your being.
As long as you have no interest in spirituality you will just be like you are now, accepting and believing this is all there is, that the physical sense perception is all we got and your experiences will just be limited to the physical world. That's fine and all, but one has to wonder why you hang out in religious forums if you have no real interest.
I can't help but to be interested I guess it's just my time, so I pursue it and learn about, I apply things and make it a lifestyle and this is part of the process. Processes are good though, because you will always be growing and experiencing new things and this is what makes creation interesting. Actually from the time a soul is created as a seed, it's sent into the lowest levels of awareness to evolve itself, so to be what you are right now was a progression/evolution of your soul and all your experiences. This IS in line with what we observe in this reality, embodiments and forms evolve and so does the individualized soul with it. 

Topic's author
#16
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
My beliefs are first based on my own experiences 
Which are anecdotal and subject to confirmation bias.
they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality.
Oddly most spiritual sources do not agree with each other. You can point out how people all over the world believe in spirituality but it rather undermines your position that so many of them claim that all the others must be necessarily incorrect in their beliefs. Just as an example many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and you disagree. You CANNOT both be right but you could both be mistaken. Since the "evidence" for both claims is anecdotal in nature how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed you are not both simply wrong?
One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is,
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
the numbers involved
Argument ad populum
and the science behind it
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
I mean it should be obvious something is going on more than peoples imaginations running wild.
What precisely makes this obvious? Are you certain that this is not just another argument ad populum?
 I am however irritated I spent the time to clearly cover your concerns only to be blown off for no real reason.
My intention is not to annoy but you have not offered any rational that logically explains why a Muslim who believes that you are destined for eternal torment for rejecting the islam as the exclusive correct path to understanding spirituality is incorrect but your belief that islam is just one of many sources of spiritual knowledge is correct. In fact if we eliminate any source which specifically claims that your idea of spirituality is incorrect your "evidence" becomes rather more sparse. Is there some reason you feel that he testimony of someone who specifically disagrees with you should or even could act as evidence of your position. 
you could have argued anything you thought didn't sound right
I am arguing that the many different and mutually exclusive claims made by various theists and spiritually inclined person's do not support each other's claim nor yours and also that the number of people who believe something the age of the belief and the fervency with which it is believed are irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
Is there any reason why I should ever participate in your topics in the future?
Only you can answer this question but I will say that your chances of convincing me of the truth of your claim are fairly low unless you adopt my standard of evidence at least for the purposes of our conversations. If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
If this is what you are referring to below that I didn't "answer"......
 If that is your belief how do you know that other religions are wrong for claiming to be exclusively right?
This is exactly what I am referring to.
First I need to see the claim before I address that claim. 
I have offered two examples (christian and islamic doctrine claim to br exclusively correct in a way that directly contradicts any imnist claims) but they are hardly the only possible examples. Which would you like to address first?
Not all religions claim to be exclusively right Secular, that's more the followers so this is not really applicable.
I never claimed that they were. I try to avoid such blanket statement instead preferring words like some or many to words like all and every. This does not resolve the problem that the many religions Which do claim to have a monopoly in spiritual truth present to your argument.
it's the people that follow their religions making those claims not the sources themselves.
If anecdotal testimony is sufficient to support belief them the claims of the people who follow religions is a source. If not then you have nothing but old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
#17
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
My beliefs are first based on my own experiences
Which are anecdotal
So what that is irrelevant, period. If you don't trust your OWN experiences I don't know what to tell you. I trust my observations and experiences because I have a pretty clear mind and strong intuition. My experiences are therefor something I can appeal to and even rely on.
and subject to confirmation bias.
That's your opinion of course, and while it's relevant in some instances it's not final and it's not always true, depends on what we are discussing and who we are discussing it with.
they are then reinforced/confirmed through cross examination by many sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality.
Oddly most spiritual sources do not agree with each other.
Maybe if you're just looking at the surface but again not true, that is not always the case and I'm the one who has put in the time to notice this, there are many similarities and universal truths, they may have many varying claims and aspects but it's all under one umbrella of what exists and what can be experienced. And as I pointed out, not everything in religion is accurate, so contradictions don't have to be accepted, they can be worked out by what is true and accurate. If spiritual sources don't agree with each other it does not mean it's all baloney.
You can point out how people all over the world believe in spirituality but it rather undermines your position that so many of them claim that all the others must be necessarily incorrect in their beliefs.
People will always do that and again not everyone does it, I think you are referring to mainly Christian fundamentalists which only accounts for one perception. But TBH personally I think the vast reality of spirituality and experiences are what strengthen my position, what makes it a good starting point for anyone. You have a bunch of cultures and people that are trying to interpret something that is so dynamic it's going to have some differences of opinions because we are dealing with people! But again, this is all under the umbrella of what can be experienced so there are many things to look at here.
 Just as an example many Christians claim that belief in Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and you disagree.
I don't disagree because that heaven exists on a planet. What I disagree with is that it's the only one, there are many planets and many heavens. There isn't just the Christian heaven, there are good places for all of God's creation, for all cultures and good peoples. But, I don't care what some Christians claim that does not dictate what I believe.
You CANNOT both be right but you could both be mistaken. Since the "evidence" for both claims is anecdotal in nature how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed you are not both simply wrong?
Yes we can both be right, and I just explained how. It's just that one perception is limited while the other is not. When you leave the physical world into the next world it too, has galaxies, planets and many different places to exist. So there could be countless heavens.

One has to eventually look at how vast an arena of knowledge, information and experience spirituality really is,
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
Thanks for the opinion. But if you look deeper, there are many universal truths and the purpose of religion for the soul is the same. Variations don't scare me, but obviously it scares you. 
the numbers involved

Argument ad populum
Here it is relevant because it's suggested evidence. 

and the science behind it
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
That's simply because science studies the physical natural world and spirituality/religion studies the transcendent spiritual world. Two methods of study, two different natures. I've explained to you why TESTIMONIAL evidence is relevant before, it's because of the nature of Theism. This should be pretty obvious. If it's not you need to think about it more. You should not dismiss it because you're reluctant to trust someone else's experience when really you do it all the time. It's just you think if it's observed or claimed by some scientist or methods of science it has to be true. When will you ever give spirituality such a free pass like you do with science? 
The Creator and the higher dimensions exist independent of personal feelings and opinions so there is objectivity, but to experience them we have to go within not to science. I'll get to the rest of your post when I get back home later.

Topic's author
#18
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
The nature of consciousness isn't about what people want, we can't change the nature of awareness or the nature of the soul it exists as it is.
Odd, unless I misunderstand his claims outplayz actually claims that what people want specifically determines their afterlife. Since you cannot both be right but you could both be mistaken so how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed either of you are?
#19
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
odd, unless I misunderstand his claims outplayz actually claims that what people want specifically determines their afterlife. Since you cannot both be right but you could both be mistaken so how do I as a third party determine which of you is correct if indeed either of you are?

Read the whole post. 

"Wants and desires only come into play with the implications of what we are dealing with"...and then.....

The point I was making is the nature of consciousness doesn't change with wants, only experiences do. 
#20
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Science has different goals and methods than spirituality. For example spirituality depends on anecdotal testimony as "evidence" while science dismisses anecdotal testimony as irrelevant and unreliable. Please do not falsely conflate the two.
BTW what I meant by the "science" behind it is that the nature of consciousness, the soul and the Creator have been examined, studied and articulated for many ages. It can be examined similar to how we examine things through science just of a different nature, that's because it's not a subjective reality. The science behind spirituality is pretty incredible, there's more information and facts than you might realize. I'm gonna take a guess that your study of religion is probably limited, if you do at all.

#21
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Do you even know what I mean by "nature" of consciousness or the soul? I'm talking about what it is made up of, what it is, like the nature of your body or the nature of water. Water will always be wet, your body will always be flesh and blood and the nature of the soul is consciousness. It is what it is and it cannot be changed. Does that make sense? 
Topic's author
#22
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
Topic's author
#23
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
Do you even know what I mean by "nature" of consciousness or the soul?
Actually no I do not. Neither term is well defined.

#24
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@secularmerlin
It really is thousands of different non-compatible beliefs mostly based on old stories written/told by humans with a limited understanding of science mathematics and medicine.
Perhaps religions aren't all that different.  They are all based on the idea that events in the world are controlled by supernaural beings (ie gods)who can be influenced by performing ritual acts (religious practices).   The psychology of Roman Catholicism isn't that much different from that of a cargo cult.



#25
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
You're going to sit here and tell me you don't know what the nature of something means? I didn't ask you if you could define consciousness or the soul, I'm asking you do you understand what the nature of something means? I gave examples but that apparently went over your head. Outplayz and I happen to share the same basic platform, so there is no contradiction. The perceived contradiction on your part was because you didn't understand what I posted. We would both agree on the nature of consciousness and an infinite reality as well as the implications. 
#26
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
If our positions were reversed and you required a more stringent standard for what constitutes sufficient evidence I would not be obligated to adopt your standard in order to justify my own beliefs but it would be unreasonable for me to expect you to lower your standard and be offended when you do not and as a consequence remain unconvinced.
I'm not asking you to lower your standards damnit. I'm asking you to consider the nature of the Creator and all experiences associated with that reality. In this light, I'm asking you to RAISE your standards, not lower them. You are already lowering them, which is why you are limited to atheism presently.
The only thing I would be offended about is YOU not following logic and evidence. 
Topic's author
#27
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Perhaps religions aren't all that different.  They are all based on the idea that events in the world are controlled by supernaural beings (ie gods)who can be influenced by performing ritual acts (religious practices).   The psychology of Roman Catholicism isn't that much different from that of a cargo cult.

And yet each would deny that the other is a presentation of spiritual truth.
Topic's author
#28
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I didn't ask you if you could define consciousness or the soul, I'm asking you do you understand what the nature of something means?
So your saying the nature of one poorly defined term is another poorly defined term. Somehow I'm not sure that this gives me any actionable data even if I accept it axiomatically.
Topic's author
#29
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not asking you to lower your standards
Actually if you are asking me to accept a claim with no testable physical evidence then that is exactly what you are asking.

Topic's author
#30
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not asking you to lower your standards
Actually if you are asking me to accept a claim with no testable physical evidence then that is exactly what you are asking.