Do you ever get sick of the toxic stuff on forums?

[Sabby]

See, you can't use a well understood and defined thing (coding) as a comparison for something undefined (Spirituality).

The fact you don't understand computer coding doesn't mean you can't read a basic description of it. You can comprehend the concept of computer code Iron.

I reject your definition of Spirituality not because I am unable to approach it, but because it is not a definition at all. Let's break down your definition.

Spirituality.
A combination of faith, personal understanding, and attempts to understand the world from a faith based perspective.

Faith is belief that is not supported by evidence.
Personal understanding is not a thing by itself. What do you claim to understand?
To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

So really, the only tangible message I get from your description is 'Things are strange, but I believe, because the world is strange'.

Can you understand why that is an unusable definition?

[Ironwolf85]

Having Followed the discussion a bit, its gone in circles for a while, can you just please define "What is Spirituality" in simple terms, cause i sure as hell cant figure it out >.<''

See, you can't use a well understood and defined thing (coding) as a comparison for something undefined (Spirituality).

The fact you don't understand computer coding doesn't mean you can't read a basic description of it. You can comprehend the concept of computer code Iron.

I reject your definition of Spirituality not because I am unable to approach it, but because it is not a definition at all. Let's break down your definition.

Spirituality.
A combination of faith, personal understanding, and attempts to understand the world from a faith based perspective.

Faith is belief in phenomena that is not supported by evidence.
Personal understanding is not a thing by itself. What do you claim to understand?
To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

So really, the only tangible message I get from your description is 'Things are strange, but I believe, because the world is strange'.

Can you understand why that is an unusable definition?

you have two points good points there
A. I didn't explain right *facepalm*

B: To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is' that is actually close to the foundations of Buddisim.

I suppose it's trying to understand the mysteries of the universe through that lens. Usually working towards a great personal, social, and religious truth.

[Kythia]

To understand the world from a faith based perspective literally means 'to perceive the world as it is'.

Could you expand on this please.  I don't see the leap.  You claim that "faith" means " a belief in something not supported by evidence" but that understanding the world through the lens of faith means seeing the world as it is.  For me, using that definition of faith would mean almost exactly the opposite.  So yeah, could you explain how you got to that line please.

[Andy]

The term spirituality lacks a definitive definition,[1][2] although social scientists have defined spirituality as the search for "the sacred," where "the sacred" is broadly defined as that which is set apart from the ordinary and worthy of veneration.[3]

Copypaste from Wikipedia..

Using Spirituality as a defined term is dumb >.<''

[Sabby]

I used poor wording there. Let me amend that.

To see the world with a faith based outlook would mean simply taking everything on face value. I doubt that's the definition you intended, but is the words you used. Faith is belief without evidence. To see a bird fly with a faith based outlook would be to simply accept that birds fly. It provides no answers or utility, it simply points to what is apparent.

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

[Kythia]

That makes more sense.  Thanks

[Sabby]

Your welcome. I have no desire to cause misconceptions, so don't allow me to get away with unclear wording xD

[Shjade]

To see the world with a faith based outlook would mean simply taking everything on face value. I doubt that's the definition you intended, but is the words you used. Faith is belief without evidence. To see a bird fly with a faith based outlook would be to simply accept that birds fly. It provides no answers or utility, it simply points to what is apparent.

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

Actually, you're...pretty much wrong in every respect there, at least when correlating faith perspective with face value.

If you see a bird fly, and based on that you accept that birds fly, you are making an assumption based on evidence. Specifically, the evidence that you actually saw a bird flying. You saw it. It is a thing that happened and, moreover, a thing that can be recreated consistently. That is seeing the world at face value.

A faith based perspective of that example would be believing that birds fly because someone told you that birds fly, but you haven't actually seen a bird flying yourself or been given any evidence of birds flying aside from having been told it's true. Believing that is accepting bird flight on faith.

Faith and "what is apparent" are rarely coincident given that, if something is apparent, you don't need faith to accept it. It's right in front of you.

Edit: *tilts head* Unless I'm misreading and you didn't mean literally seeing a bird fly.

[Sabby]

Hmmm. I have to agree with you. I was trying to create an example of a first hand experience being faith based, but now I'm not sure I can do that. Your description is far better then mine. Thank you.

See, part of the reason my attempt to describe a faith based outlook on life is that people don't really see life through faith :/ Yes, I did attempt to describe how someone applies faith to direct experience, but as Shjade pointed out, they really don't do that. They apply their reasoning when experiencing the world around them.

Until someone can actually give me a proper description of their spirituality or their faith, the only rational conclusion I can draw is that they attribute their thoughts to these concepts, instead of deriving conclusions from them.

[Shjade]

Benefits of working at a church. ;p

[Kythia]

Hmmm. I have to agree with you. I was trying to create an example of a first hand experience being faith based, but now I'm not sure I can do that. Your description is far better then mine. Thank you.

So you don't believe there are any first-hand, objective, experiences that can be viewed through faith, as you have described it? 

So, in essence - and assuming you are equating "I see the world through faith" with "I am willing to believe both things for which there is evidence and things for which there aren't" rather than the more ludicrous "I will solely believe things for which there is no evidence" - you don't think there is any difference between seeing the world through faith and not.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure I understand your argument.

[Ironwolf85]

A faith based outlook provides nothing.

I'd argue it has it's merits, moreover having a faith based perspective, allows the questioning of said faith on it's own terms. "I have been told birds fly, I've never seen one, they do fly, why did (insert name of appropriate deity here per time period and culture) make them that way?"

It is part of how we developed the scientific method actually.


Holy crap we need to move this to another topic, we are getting more off topic my the moment.

[Sabby]

So you don't believe there are any first-hand, objective, experiences that can be viewed through faith, as you have described it? 

So, in essence - and assuming you are equating "I see the world through faith" with "I am willing to believe both things for which there is evidence and things for which there aren't" rather than the more ludicrous "I will solely believe things for which there is no evidence" - you don't think there is any difference between seeing the world through faith and not.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just making sure I understand your argument.

I did do a rather substantial edit just before your response, hoping to get it in quick enough, but I apparently didn't :/ Apologies for that.

You can reread if you like, but I'll try and respond.

To be honest Kythia, I only ever try and use words like spiritual and faith in this way for the sake of argument. I really don't think they have the utility people claim they do. When you say you have a 'faith based worldview', that really imparts nothing to me. I know the definition of faith, and when I try to run direct experiences through that filter, they seem incompatible.

And as Shjade pointed out, my attempt to place faith as a filter in a real world scenario failed.

[Shjade]

On topic: it's kind of an easy question, Iron. I'm pretty sure just about everyone dislikes toxicity on forums they frequent, with the main exception being the people who generate that toxicity. There's not really much of a debate to be had there. ;p

[Kythia]

To be honest Kythia, I only ever try and use words like spiritual and faith in this way for the sake of argument. I really don't think they have the utility people claim they do. When you say you have a 'faith based worldview', that really imparts nothing to me. I know the definition of faith, and when I try to run direct experiences through that filter, they seem incompatible.

Whilst that's fair enough as a life philosophy, it does cause us in the here and now some problems.

Ironwolf's position was that you lack the experience to understand what he means by faith.  I will stick with his red and colourblind example.  You, yourself, confirm that you do not understand what he means by faith.  Assuming Ironwolf is arguing in, well, good faith - which there is no reason to doubt - that causes a problem.  You do not understand what he means by the word, he says it is a lived thing that cannot be explained but - and here I'm putting words in his mouth a little - is recognised by those that have it.  You find that argument condescending and refuse to accept it.  Leaving aside the issue of whether an explanation being condescending makes it untrue, whilst you hold that position and ironwolf, for the sake of civility, tries to find other and necessarily inferior ways of explaining it, I don't think there can be a meeting of minds.

Why not shift the question to one which will allow you to form your own definitions - namely "What distinguishes a world seen through faith from one which is not", you can then jury-rig your own definition as something that causes that difference.

Shrug. Considerably more than two cents there but I'm pretty gobby.

[Ironwolf85]

that's... pretty damn insightful...

[Kythia]

Benefits of working at a cathedral ;p

[Sabby]

I asked for a definition of spirituality, not faith. Faith was part of Ironwolfs answer.

I'm not expecting to walk a mile in his shoes, I just want a definition that isn't word salad You can claim that the definition appears flimsy and nonsensical because I'm not equipped to receive it, but that doesn't help your side either. I can use that same reasoning to defend almost anything.

I was abducted by alien Geese. I can explain this through a combination of faith, personal experience and understanding the world through a faith based world view.

Do you accept my claim? Well, I guess your just not equipped to understand, and I'm incapable of describing how I am equipped to understand.

Isn't it convenient how that renders me unapproachable? I can't explain myself, and you can't get more information from me.

[Kythia]

Now you're being a little unreasonable.

Ironwolf claimed that an aspect of "spirituality" was a "faith based worldview".  You reject that.  His other two aspects have received far less of a challenge from you, so I assumed it was that one - the one you focused on - that was the major sticking point.  His attempt at explanation has not been successful and has been rejected by you.  But you claim you want a definition.  I have suggested a way of getting one which ironwolf, to judge by his comments, accepts.

You, for reasons which aren't clear, reject that route as well and continue to ask for an explanation of something you have already rejected.  Because, one would presume, you disagree with the saying about the definition of insanity. 

It was only a suggestion and I don't really care either way, but I really don't see your objection.

[Sabby]

I have rejected his explanation, correct. I also reject his continued attempts to clarify his definition, as they do not make it any clearer. The definitions presented are completely unusable to anyone who don't already accept the definitions, making them completely inert.

Why must I accept special pleading here? Is there any other definitions I must regard as unapproachable in the same way Irons definition of spirituality is unapproachable?

Name one please. If not, I must assume that I am expected to make an exception just for this instance, and I see no reason to.

[Kythia]

I must assume that I am expected to make an exception just for this instance, and I see no reason to.

Are you trying to understand what is meant by spirituality, faith and similar related terms or are you trying to score rhetorical points?  Because I'm only willing to help you with the first.  I am at an absolute loss to understand how "people who understand that term have said an exception must be made in order to understand it" isn't a reason if your goal here is, as you keep claiming, to actually understand the terms.  If your goal is to be dogmatic and refuse to engage, though, then I think you've pretty much succeeded.

I care little and think I'm done here.  I was, for the record, trying to help a conversation which had got stuck move to somewhere more productive.  I'm no longer sure that is what the participants wish, though, so I'm wasting my time.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I've encountered a great deal of toxicity over my time in various chats and forums. I'm a passionate woman. I feel deeply and some topics cause me  to get very emotional.  I try to identify those topics and react appropriately. Sometimes meaning that I steer clear or bow out of a conversation.

Political discussions can get heated very quickly. There are those that are so strong in their loyalty to a chosen party that they will agree simply because they are affiliated with that party. Sometimes these individuals will dislike or discount a candidate or political figure simply because they are affiliated with the opposing party. 

Religion can be much the same way. Some refuse to even entertain why a person would choose Faith over science. Others refuse to believe anything scientific and go solely on faith.

I myself am not affiliated with any political party. In fact I steer clear of that whole thing apart from occasionally discussing my own views or something political in nature from the news. That's just my personal choice. I also happen to be a Christian and lean heavily on my faith.

I think the most important point has already been made. But I wish to add to it. There can be civil discussions and even civil debates between two opposing viewpoints. But when it gets exhaustive for me is when it becomes an all out 'I'm right you're wrong' war. When there's no longer a mutual understanding and respect for both points of view. If this occurs, I feel that it's best to do as others have said and avoid getting into those types of discussions with certain people. I know people personally that politics and religion are off limits when we visit.

[Sabby]

Kythia, your response is far too jumbled. I have no idea how to begin to address it.

I simply asked Ironwolf to define spirituality, and I find his definition unusable.

If that was made unclear during the discussion, I apologize. I will simply lay it out there and back down.

[IStateYourName]

I tend not to bother trying to argue with religious fundamentalists, be they Christian, Muslim, whatever.

It's not because I necessarily hate them.  As long as they do not try and force their beliefs onto me, they can go around thinking there's a big dude in the sky that hates us and the Earth is only 6,000 years old.  "It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg" so long as they respect my rights, and the fact America is an explicitly secular governed country.  It's just that there's no point in debating them. 

Debate and discussion are fine when they consist of two or more parties engaging in a rational co-examination of agreed-upon, verifiable facts.  It's even fine if facts are in some degree of dispute, as long as evidence introduced into the discussion is accepted.  It's even okay if interpretations of the facts differ.

But when one side says, "this unverified, unsourced Bronze Age book is the ultimate truth, our interpretation of it is the only valid interpretation, and we won't accept anything the contradicts said interpretation, no matter how repeatedly replicated or well-sourced," well then, there's not much point in continuing the discussion.  There's no common frame of reference.

[Ironwolf85]

Simply put the explanations I give are coming off as "Insane Troll Logic" because you have a totally different set of life experiences than I do Sabby. The more I try and explain, the weaker my argument becomes, because I'm no super genus, just a regular guy.

Can I make a suggestion, try reading the book of five rings by Miyamoto Musashi, it is combat and samurai from a Spiritual Shinto perspective.
It isn't perfect, but it might give you some insights man.