While it's true that some (I would say most) spiritual experiences don't come pre-labeled, there are people whose experiences are pre-labeled, or even self-labeling. Saul's experience is one such example.

The labeling process itself is very complex, and your ability to label things is relative your experiences with such things. Seeing a new model of a car for the first time doesn't prevent you from calling it car, even though you've never seen *that* car before. But if you've never seen a car before, ever, then you might not know what to label it (or you might label it with your closest guess, like "trolley") and then learn more about the "right" label in the future with more exposure and experiences.

A big mistake that is commonly made around here is the attempt to try to classify all spiritual experiences as something so completely different from anything else you've ever experienced at all that it's impossible for there to be any way to describe it, but then also criticizing talking about spiritual experiences in more familiar terms.

If someone claimed to hear something "like a voice" the response is something like "but how can it be a voice if there was no noise?" And that gets bogged down in trying to say things like voices are physical phenomena and blah blah blah.

As with many conversations, it's possible to define the terms of the conversation in such a way that nothing can be communicated.

I am hopefully not doing this, but am instead claiming that a spiritual experience is an experience, like any other, that is then (mis?) labelled. I am not even claiming that it is not a "spiritual" experience, but just that then further labelling it with concepts and labels seems un-needed. But i realise that there is always a need to understand, categorise, and act on experiences, which is fine.

There seem to be two disjoint concerns you're raising.

The first sentence is about the labeling of experiences. I agree that experiences are generally experiences first, then are classified based on prior experiences. (Whether it's a mis-labeling is left unaddressed by that concern.)

However, at some point, that type of labeling is somewhat instantaneous depending on the types of experiences someone has, and is not necessarily a conscious labeling process. For example, pain is reacted to before it's cognitively understood as pain. You can see a car for the first time, and understand it's a car without going through a conscious cognitive sorting process. So the "experience first, then label" may or may not be completely accurate.

The second sentence is about the necessity of certain terms to further label experiences. Is the term "spiritual" needed? Certainly, it might be possible to use other labels to label such an experience. But why would "spiritual" be the unnecessary label and not those other ones?

Also, what creates the necessity of a label? I can label something as "spicy" and it would be understood and sufficient for many purposes. The labels "mild" and "hot" aren't really necessary. But they do add something to the label that isn't communicated by the original label. So such extra classifications can have value, even if not strictly necessary.

I think it can be a mistake to keep arguing about the analogy, instead of changing focus back to the topic, but this is an interesting idea on it's own right. I'm not sure what you think you "learn" from pain that is not inherent in the experience. I think Aaron is correct in that "pain is reacted to before it's cognitively understood as pain". You don't need to have any knowledge or understanding of anything whatsoever, to "get" pain when you first feel it, even if it happens after the fact, and you don't have the words to describe it.

This is really the point of debate. It's either one of two things, either God speaks and communicates that he is Christ, or he does not. If he does not, then it's one of many things, including my own psyche fooling me, or another entity altogether. I concede that any one of these is possible, but through my perspective, the messenger being Christ is the most convincing to me. This is reinforced by the time and research I put into investigating the Bible and Christianity, which came after, not before.

I meant that if you believe he could do it spiritually.

Fwiw, I'm not easily offended when it comes to people questioning my religious views, I don't think God needs me to help him. I'm just paranoid of offending other people with my views, so I've always been careful.

I've had lots of experiences that could be ascribed to a divine source but even if I were inclined to let them be 'evidence' for a god, I simply wouldn't know which one to choose. I completely fail to understand how people make that choice which is what leads to to believe that for the most part, they're simply going along with societal 'education' and believing whatever region happens to be predominant in their culture.

And we finally arrive at the dreaded F word. I think it signals the end of this conversation because it is an almost impenetrable barrier to reason and I certainly don't have the tools to pierce it when it's strong. Faith is more than just a strong conviction or belief, it is a what is needed use when there is no good reason to believe something. If faith were not required for a belief in a god because there were actually incontrovertible evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we.

The most clever part of faith is that it is set up as a positive reinforcement loop. The 'faithful' are told that their views views will be criticized but that is just a test of their faith, that people will try to make them lose their faith, but that is also just a test of faith. Everything that should weaken faith is a test, and who doesn't want to pass tests?

Another interesting element of this is that like many other religious people, your beliefs are based mostly on personal experience. It's a pattern I've noticed over the last few years. You've had some experiences that you can't explain and you appear to have latched onto a mainstream belief system. For the record, I almost never rely on personal experience to prove anything, it's the most unreliable form of evidence that there is IMO.

As I've said, I don't think that the right or wrong of your beliefs can ever be irrelevant to how you live. Few people live in a black and white world where the consequences are identical regardless of the truth of beliefs. The ones that do are considered fanatics and extremists and you don't strike me as that type.

Absolutely that's what you're doing IMO. You have decided what to believe.

No, there are many explanations that are as good as, if not better, but you've chosen this one. I think that your beliefs say more about you than they do about the beliefs themselves. If you'd grown up in an Islamic country, I strongly suspect that you'd be a Muslim with equally strong conviction.

This is essentially where I was going with my line of questioning. I don't think, from anything NR has said, that he can be sure that it is Jesus Christ specifically who is 'active' in his life, or in fact, that any supernatural force is active in his life.

Firstly I have managed to steer clear of RGT for a good while. Perhaps I've mellowed, but I think your responses are about as candid as I've seen and I thank you for them. Especially this...

...I would point out though that you can't be somewhat confused and right. Only somewhat confused and wrong if your concepts are contradictory. In your case you clearly believe Chist is God and other people would claim to know god and believe that Christ is not god. There is no reality where the statements Christ is God and Christ is not God can both be true. So I couldn't see how you could hold a view other than those people are as you put it somewhat confused. If you can't concede that I'm very interested how that can be the case.


You realise it doesn't matter if there is many only any, So if one person maintains a view contradictory to yours then your only conclusion would be that they are somewhat confused.

Again as candid as any response I've seen. Do you see though that to anyone outside of your experience you being somewhat confused is the most reasonable conclusion for them to draw. For what its worth I would gladly have the world think I was somewhat confused if I could know God and have eternal life.

If you wouldn't know which one to choose, then why would it be so bad for someone to choose to ascribe it to a divine source instead of non-divine one? You're clearly presenting a failed argument.

This is very similar to one that's used about language. In English, using "he" as the generic third person pronoun is considered by some to be sexist. But others simply shrug and say it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, then there should be no problem to switching to "she" as the generic third person pronoun. Yet they argue against such a switch. So clearly, it does matter at some level to that person to retain that position.

Back to your argument, if you simply wouldn't know which one to choose, then why would you be so firm in your positioning in the sentence that follows?

According to this, someone is more likely to be choosing wrong simply because everyone else is choosing the same thing. That's clearly a flawed argument. (It's also a flawed argument to say that everyone is choosing the same thing, so it's more likely to be right -- though that one has at least some of merit if you believe some sociological/economics research that shows that the crowd is more often right than wrong on average.)

Also, this type of argument has repeatedly been shown to be false, as there are many adult converts *in both directions* showing that there are plenty of people who reject both what they've learned as children and whatever the dominant culture is.

Far be it for me to tell you what you have or have not experienced, but since your language suggests that the experience was not convincing, and was ambiguous, and since you logically decided it was unimportant, it makes sense you did not incorporate it. As an aside, Im curious, since you admit that you've had experiences which may or may not have been divine (unless you're only saying it for the sake of your argument), if you ever pursued this further? You mention that it is an impossible choice to make, but if you believe that God may have been trying to reach you, it wouldn't be ridiculous for you to visit different religious venues, and see if anyone of them fits, whether mosque, or temple, or church.

I'll just sidestep the whole faith talk. I do believe it is misunderstood as a black and white concept, where it is not always the case.

I think it's difficult to go through life and not rely on your personal experience. You go through life relying on your senses, and your interpretation of the world.

One thing I'll note, is that if I latch on to a religion, you object that it's just another mainstream belief system, but are you less inclined to be critical of craig1120 for concluding in his own belief system? It seems to me that if I concluded in my own "religion" you would not see that as plausible either, so in a sense, you are rejecting spiritual knowledge in general. Which is fine, you have the logical right to do so based on your perspective, but I think it would be more honest if you admitted to rejecting the spiritual side altogether, instead of only objecting to the end result. Unless I misunderstood you, and you don't reject spiritual knowledge, but it seems like you reject this as a possibility, especially spiritual knowledge and revelation.

Many people do this. You believe certain things without certainty, and you subject yourself to that lifestyle, even though there are other possibilities that would cause you to live differently. At some point you take a stand and say, "this is what I believe" and in order to not be a hypocrite, you live a certain way.

It could be what I'm doing, I already conceded as much, but it seems to me like you will not even entertain the possibility that God might exist. It seems you don't even want to grant me the fact that I believe that God exists, but that I have to be forcing this unwarranted belief on myself.

My intention has never been to convince you that God exists and that he is Christ, but I did think I could possibly convince you that I believe this, and it is not based on an irrational stance. I have gone as far as admitting that I could be deceiving myself, but even in this scenario, it is beyond my ability to detect and correct. What I am not doing, is simply deciding on God because I want God to exist, even if you don't believe that. I'm not purposely lying to myself, or simply choosing the closes God around. God existing is convincing to me based on my experiences, the bible, other Christians, and has been reinforced by these as well.

Objectively, I can concede that if it is not God, it is one of many things, but I've never heard you objectively admit that it could be God. I know you reject God, but in a sense you're doing the same thing you accuse me of doing by not examining that possibility. I could totally be wrong, but I could also be right.

Thanks for the kind words. RGT is a pleasant place, there is no shortage of great thinkers, and even when people disagree, they are still civil. There will always be some hurt feelings, but that's the nature of religion.

I wrote that with a few things in mind, trying to cover all my bases. There is a conception, however misguided, that all roads lead to God. Whether you follow Christ, or Allah, or Buddha, salvation is granted on the basis of each of these. In that sense, my seeing Christ, and another seeing Allah, would technically mean we are both right, since God takes many forms.

The other possibility would be that there is a God or entity that lies to us. To me, he says he is Christ, and to the Muslim, he says he is Allah. We are not wrong per se, since we are hearing correctly, but we are wrong since the information is incorrect, as God is neither of these.

Yes, any person believing the opposite would be contradictory, but I don't think I need to throw away my beliefs if I discovered a man who claimed to know Buddha.

Yes, I recognize that, which is fine from their perspective, although I think a better explanation is that I actually believe in Christ, and don't need to lie to myself to do it.

It's good to be objective, I have no problem understanding and admitting that I could be mistaken, plus it would really shut down the conversation if I took a hard stance of being right. And yeah, I accept that not everyone will believe me, even my own family, it's just part of life.

I'm not sure that we can sidestep it. If you're employing faith then we're coming at this from such different paradigms that I doubt we'll ever meaningfully communicate on the issue. I'm incapable of employing faith and see it as being intellectual dishonest. We wouldn't accept a scientific conclusion from someone who claimed it true simply because they believe that it is, why would we accept a claim simply because the context is religion? It's why I can't accept fully this approach to the acquisition of knowledge. 'Here, take this pill. Why? Because it will cure you. How do I know it will cure me? Because I really really believe that it will'.

Would you take the pill? Probably not, but you've subscribed to a theory that explains life the universe and everything based on personal experiences that you can't easily explain.

Let me clarify. I've had experiences which, were I inclined to the spiritual, I might have concluded supported one of the god theories. Not being inclined to the spiritual, I had a completely different take on them. I don't believe in ghosts, or lake monsters (just as two examples of issues where I believe that people interpret experiences in the way that they want to) for the same reasons. People have faith that Nessie exists. They have to because there's no evidence. They 'just know' or they 'know what they saw'.

I have a friend who is the polar opposite to me. He once witnessed a plastic bag behaving oddly on a windy day and concluded that 'something' was trying to send him a message through the bag's behaviour. I'm not kidding, this is true. Now, I'm curious how much respect you would accord his belief? Is he likely to be correct? What assurances could he give you that he is that you would take seriously? Would' 'I know what Is aw and felt' convince you?

Of course, but what I meant was that if I were arguing a viewpoint, I wouldn't rely purely on my own experiences. What do they really prove? Nothing. Do you believe people who say they saw the loch Ness Monster because they say that they did? Or, at that point, would you start looking for supporting evidence?

My point was that if claimed a belief that no one else in the world shared, like my friend with the plastic bag, I seriously doubt that you would afford it the same credibility that you clearly afford to mainstream religions. A lot of people agreeing about something doesn't actually make them right and when one person does it, people are even more inclined to just imagine them deluded, right?

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion." By the way, even if you're wrong you're not technically deluded since there are enough people sharing your delusion that it's not considered a delusion.


I think there's a big difference between you being wrong and me being wrong because you're living as if it were true and I'm living as if it were not. For example, if I'm wrong then in my delusion I haven't been praying to a god when I should have been. If you're wrong, you've been talking to yourself whilst believing that you were talking to a god and that god was actually talking back. Which is the worse delusion really? Which of us is really more comfortable accepting that we've been deluding ourselves? Which of us is more liekly to cling to our belief systems? I think this is a big factor in what we really mean when we admit to being able to 'accept that we could be wrong'.

I realize I haven't actually responded to your last post that was actually to me (I will! Probably. Eventually :P) but:

1) I bet you are actually capable of employing faith.

2) Why is faith intellectually dishonest, even as a purely epistemological category? If you said it was dishonest to rely on faith but present conclusions as though they were rationally justified, or scientifically valid, I would agree, but how is it dishonest to rely on faith if you are entirely open and forthcoming about the fact? It has always seemed clear that you not only believe it is wrong to rely on faith, but in some way also immoral, which may be what you really mean to convey, but certainly N_R is not being dishonest?

3) For the kinds of questions which are amenable to scientific investigation, we should rely on scientific methods to tell us what there is to be objectively known about those subjects. The contention is that there are certain kinds of questions (not necessarily limited to the label "religious" or "spiritual"), or certain parts of reality, which are not approachable in this way. For example science may address questions about Humanity in a certain way. What is Man? How did we evolve this or that characteristic? But there is a very real sense in which science does not answer Who is Man? Who am I? Or at least it does not address the intuition that this "who" is more than a set of characteristics and a particular history

I think you tend to reduce "faith" to an epistemological category (unjustified belief) and I don't think that captures everything there is to say about faith as a religious experience. It begs the question by assuming from the get go that there is nothing real that exists beyond what may be rationally known. Faith is not just an intellectual process, it is an openness to a something "more" which is not entirely available for scientific or rational inquiry. This is why even a religious person may reject a "faith-based" argument for a particular medical treatment, preferring science, and yet believe by faith in the symbols tied to their religious experience

I may not take the pill, but I may be inclined to do research on the pill, and pursue the possibility more rigorously if someone is that convinced.

This is what I mean that it's not all black and white, that even though you may at first approach something with faith (confidence in something unseen), it may lead you to discover something tangible, where your faith helped you to get there. You may not want to hear anything biblical, but there is scriptural evidence for this.

If someone is convinced they saw Nessie, then there are several explanations. Perhaps someone fooled them by putting a plastic monster in the water. Perhaps they saw something that resembled a sea creature, but it was simply floating debris. Perhaps they hallucinated. Perhaps there is some sort of sea creature, and they actually saw it. They could also be lying to try to make money, but the obvious answer is not that they just believe it on a whim because they want Nessie to exist. That could be true, but it's not the go-to.

It depends, perhaps he's seen too many movies, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that God could speak to him though something mundane. I'd have to speak with him to make up my mind, maybe there is more to it than just seeing a bag, or maybe he just finds beauty in the regular, and sees it as spiritual.

I may be inclined to believe that they believe, and as I noted, I may be more inclined to look into it myself based on that account.

Sure, I could be deluded, God may not exist. We all could be deluded. You may be a brain in a vat, arguing with yourself about God. Unlikely, but possible. Or more likely than that, God could exist, and you may not be aware of him.

It doesn't matter if I'm wrong, I have to live by my convictions. I think you're making the mistake of comparing our spiritual experiences. Perhaps we have had identical experiences, and I've made the choice to see it as spiritual revelation, and you dismissed it as unimportant, but there is also the possibility that our experiences were not the same, and it was not my inclination that led me to follow it, but inherent in the experience was a conviction that led me to be inclined.

Wow.

Just wow. This statement does make me wonder how genuine you are being about what you believe and know. Why would you aim to cover all bases instead of just presenting your view.

Gobsmacked by this. God takes many forms stated as fact. How did you arrive at this?

This is just a long winded way of saying you could be deluded.

I didn't suggest that I asked you to concede that to hold onto your beliefs you would have to also believe the man claiming to know Buddha is lying or deluded.

Actually believing in Christ and not lying to yourself are all consistent with delusion

And again completely candid, But can you accept that its more than just credibility so much of this becomes incredibly frustrating for people actually struggling with life. Are you aware for arguments sake of both the prevalence of violence against and self harm of homosexuals. You would have to concede that a lot of Christian attitudes don't help in these matters and yet you are so flippant about god presenting as either christ or buddha when the acceptance of homosexuality and the very very very very real impacts that would imply are so markedly different depending on whether one follows christ or buddha.

I've presented my view ad nauseam. I believe in Christ. What I'm doing here is simply objectively looking at every possible explanation and alternative truths. I think it's odd for you to jump all over this, after having presented some doubts about my view, and me having humoured them. I don't believe that this is true, but it's possibly true, philosophically. If I only presented my view and refused to look at other alternatives, this would make for a terrible conversation.

It's a view that some have taken, that all religions lead to God. It's not the most credible idea, but you could argue that God reaches people differently. I'm not saying I believe it, it's just a possibility, I was answering your earlier question.

Of course I could be deluded, so could you. I may not even exist, you can't prove that.

Sure, that is a possibility, that he is deluded. It's not the only explanation in an exhaustive sort of way, but it's a possibility.

Could be a delusion, or could be the truth.

I don't know what this has to do with me personally. My beliefs should not be frustrating to anyone, I don't condone the harm or mistreatment of anyone, on the contrary, I live my life in a way that I help many people. If some Christians mistreat anyone in the name of religion, or God, that should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and not generalized to my beliefs, or how I formed them. I think we can objectively examine this, and not be frustrated.

I am not saying that its your psyche fooling you, I am saying that theres the experience, and then a whole load of concepts and ideas tacked on after the fact, based on what you have learned throughout your life. You had the experience, you wondered "what the **** was that!" so you went and did research, and found something that matched, vaguely or otherwise. BUT, the initial experience did not in any way come attached with your final findings, and , when you have that experience again, it does not come attached with any of your findings, just that after the fact again, you go " oh, theres jesus again". Your conclusions are based on the society you grew up in, the available information for you to research, prior beliefs, and so on. When you first had the experience, you didnt know it was jesus/god the first time until AFTER you had researched it.

If you are telling me that there was a voice, that you knew wasnt yours, and wasnt from anyone else, that said "This is jesus here" then fine, but thats not how you have described it.

You said earlier

When you touch the stove, you dont understand pain, you "understand" ie have an awareness of, a set of sensations

Similarly in your god experience, you dont understand that it is god ( Notice how you change your wording here, you understand pain, but you understand that it is god) you "understand" ie have awareness off, a set of sensations ( unless you are changing your description of the events and saying there is now a voice?)

It comes back to this question, "how do you know that it is christ"?

I am saying that , from the base, raw experience itself, you do not know its christ. Its only learned information that tells you that it is christ.

If you are sticking with "I just know" , then we are going to continue to go round in circles which is fine, its none of my business really.

I dont know what "do it spiritually" means. Could he speak to me, either out loud or in my head? Yes, most likely. But you have stated that he hasnt done that with you. You said it was an experience or feeling, not a voice.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with you. If it is the case that I'm imposing myself onto this experience, I am doing subconsciously, and cannot possibly admit that this is the case. I maintain that spiritual experiences can contain inherent revelations about God, and that you don't need to step away and impose other things onto it. I am more willing to believe that my own psyche is fooling me than to believe that I'm adding Christ into the equation because he's the most popular God, or because it made the most sense, after the fact.

I still have not heard anyone concede that it could simply be God, which does not strike me as objective, considering I've been able to concede that the explanation can be a multitude of things.

We are not on the same page with the pain metaphor. My goal was to show that when you feel pain, you simply feel pain. It doesn't matter how or when it happens, it's irrefutable and persuasive, and I could not possibly convince you that you are not in pain when you touch the stove. It wasn't supposed to be an exact analogy, except that I can't answer the question "how do you know you're in pain?" like I can't answer the question, "how do you know it's Christ?", because both are inherent. Edit: Just so we don't keep going in circles, I'll add: Or because I was fooled somehow into believing it.

It really doesn't matter how, presumably an omniscient and omnipotent being could find a way to relay information to you. I'm not asking you to believe it, but there seems to be some difficulty from you to even admit that it's possible that God could exist and reveal himself.

I get that I could be mistaken, and I accept that, even though I believe in Christ. I also understand you do not believe in Christ, and you think that my experiences are easily explained, which is fine, but you should be able to easily admit that there is a possibility that it is Christ.

For mine by a huge margin your view that Christ talks to you is the most interesting facet of the conversation. General chit chat as to the many and varied views held in the world is slightly pedestrian to me. And I argue that you don't really explore alternative truths you more often want to conflate them with your truth as some sort of explanation and then go on to reject them which prevents actually reducing your view to a point that allows objective scrutiny.

You used the concept of multiple paths to god to support the concept that two people could be right about contradictory truths they hold. And now you say its not the most credible idea and that you don't believe it (conflation then rejection). Does that mean now that you have an alternative more credible reason that two people can be right about contradictory truths or you accept that two people cant correctly hold to contradicting truths?

I have been deluded in my life and come to that understanding later based on further evidence and am sure there are concepts that I am currently deluded about.


I am contending that along with lying that it is an exhaustive list. One more alternative would of course refute that. And your alternative is...?


Agreed.

Agreed. I was out of line. I didn't realise you were supportive of homosexuality. In my experience most Christians aren't.

If I didn’t allow scrutiny, I wouldn’t be posting in a forum that is predominantly atheist, and I certainly wouldn’t be so open about my beliefs, especially when the kindest interpretation I am granted is that I’m delusional.

One can believe something, and acknowledging he could be wrong, and examine where and how he could be wrong, and not need to change his views. From my perspective, I believe in Christ, as he is the most convincing explanation to me, but I am objective enough to acknowledge there are other explanations.

I don’t believe in this particular ideology, but it is still is possible. I’m not trying to win some point here, I just noted that it was possible, even if unlikely. I only included it in the first place, because I was making an exhaustive list in answering your question. I think we are on two different wave lengths, not everything I say is meant as some ploy for me to ultimately be right, that has never been my objective.

Since I personally believe in Christ, obviously I think those who believe in other Gods are mistaken, and if Christ were not God, I would be mistaken.

Me too.

Aside from lying, all roads leading to God, and the evil genius, I think it’s exhaustive, but this is RGT so someone may think of others.

If by supportive, you mean that I treat them like everyone else, then I support them whole heartedly, but I don’t think God approves of homosexuality.

On a related note, my friend's little sister came out of the closet, and I know it's been hard for her. I can't help but wonder if I'll be invited to the wedding, given that I'm a Christian...

Based on what?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums

My view is based on the definition of faith that I'm using, that it's only required when we don't have a good reason to believe that something is true. The 'leap of faith' application of faith. I think it's dishonest because I see it as a type of self aware special pleading.

I also find something distasteful about the way it reinforces religious beliefs by inculcating the view that anything that challenges those beliefs is a 'test' of your ability to believe something without a good reason.

Yes, I understand that science is simply one of several methods of acquiring knowledge, just one branch of Philosophy. I understand the restrictions imposed on that approach by Methodological Naturalism and I get the idea of the differing paradigms between the scientific and religious approaches. All part of the education I've received here

Yes I agree with the bolded but not what you said directly after that. I don't think faith is all that there is to religions, it's simply the part they require to take the step from hypothesizing their gods, to believing those hypotheses to actually be correct, but it doesn't entirely capture or describe the religious experience/process.

For me to be begging the question, I would have to be unable to show that the belief is unjustified but, frankly, the religious are unable to show that is is justified and the burden of proof is on them for having made the positive claim, so I don't think that there's anything I need to do. If I couldn't justify a belief I would be more circumspect in proffering it but religion requires certainty, and that comes from faith, and that's something I consider dishonest.

In any case, I'm not entirely writing off religions as a way of acquiring knowledge because of that. They address the supernatural, which science (at least the naturalistic approach) can't address, and I'm sure we've made progress into understanding many aspects of the human condition because of religions. But religions hold many beliefs that cannot be supported other than by using what I consider an unjustified belief and that's where I struggle with them.

So, the certainty of the individual offering you the pill wouldn't satisfy you? You'd need more than that? How then have you convinced yourself based on your own certainty, can you see how circular that is?

This is not how I use the word 'faith'. Faith isn't a suspicion that could lead to further discovery, faith is a belief in something that required someone to simply believe precisely because there weren't any good reasons to. If you have a good reason to believe something is true, then you don't need faith.

Scriptural evidence for anything other than it being an example of historical record is not convincing to me and frankly it's just begging the question again. I don't believe god exists, so naturally I'm not going to place any confidence in the bible as evidence for anything that suggests that god exists. I don't think anyone should. Even if god existed, the bible couldn't be trusted.

My point was that you would not be convinced of the existence of the monster simply by someone offering such 'evidence' (their personal experience). Now, what's the difference between the Loch Ness Monster and any of the god theories? Why do so many of the religious rely on personal experience, such an unreliable type of evidence? If Nessie isn't helping, we can move onto UFO abductees as another example of how unconvincing personal experience anecdotes would be to you.

I'm not comparing our experiences, I can't do that because I have no idea what yours were. I was simply pointing out, in response to your suggestion that I haven't had any that have convinced me that god exists, that actually I might have, but they simply failed to convince me that god exists because of the difference in how you and I perceive our realities.

I actually can't imagine what would constitute proof to me that any of the gods really exist. In light of our current understanding of how our brains fool us all the time (cognitive biases) there's literally no personal experience that I would trust. So, this is the crux for me, how is it that your personal experiences were so convincing to you? How did you get from not believing, to believing the explanations provided by a mainstream religion with such certainty?

I forgot to ask you to elaborate on this. What other aspect of faith is there than it being used to hold a belief?

Beliefs that ties should be worn straight or that your driveway should be free of leaves are things where I think personal preference or bias is completely fine. The same goes for beliefs in mystical entities with no real face, trait or consequence; for example deistic gods. These are of even less importance, and I have no beef with faith in these matters.

However once religion gets doctrinal; once we step from "mystical entity" to "tells me how how to see Indians" or "demons cause downs syndrome"... then we're in different territory. Now the belief has consequence.

Sure, we can treat "faith" equally on the intellectual level in these matters. We could have a discussion on the faith of rocks being affected by gravity, and on some philosophical level we could argue that the faith component might not be different than faith in God wanting you to occupy the holy land.

But on the practical level, in the actual world, to hold these to be equals is absurd.

I've noted some beliefs that you hold which are clearly false, which would mean you don't really have good reasons to believe that they're true. Yet you believe them. And try to find things to support the "truth" of those beliefs. So clearly, you are capable of "faith" (as you've defined it) and you take many such leaps of your own, and I guess that makes you dishonest.

This does not follow from your definition of faith at all.

Humans (like yourself) hold many beliefs that cannot be supported.