Total Posts:69|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Spirit and Anosmia

Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 8:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Emotions vary significantly so that we are able to discern love from hate, feeling angry from feeling good, etc. Emotions also, at least for me, vary within themselves. That is to say, the love I feel for my wife is distinctly different from the love I feel for my sister or cousin. The love I feel for my brother, is different than the love I feel for my friends. For me, there is a distinct difference between this kind of love, and that kind of love. The same applies to anger and other emotions. I can tell them apart as well as I can discern the difference in colors.

It is because I am able to identify the plethora of emotions that I have been experiencing for the last 57 years that I take issue with those that insist that I am confusing the emotion I feel through the conviction of God's Spirit with a conventional, easily explained emotion. If I can discern between several kinds of love, it should logically follow that I should be able to discern between a unique emotion and a commonly felt emotion. Sure, it can be argued that I'm interpreting a common emotion as something unique, but it be just as easily argued that I am not.

Those who have never been touched by the Spirit of God, for whatever reason, have only conventional emotions to argue from, and therefore insist that anyone claiming to have felt the Spirit of God is clearly confusing a conventional emotion with an alleged divine one. Basically, they're saying that if they have not felt the Spirit of God, then no one has.

Now, to be fair, they base that argument on the fact that no one can prove that God, or His Spirit, exists, and if the Spirit is unproven, then so is its so-called "touch". But not everyone agrees with the logic employed to doubt or dismiss the existence of God.

Those that have been touched by the Spirit of God, know that such an emotion that the Spirit gives cannot be confused with a conventional one. But no one can transfer their own personal emotion to another; the synapses that fire off in their brain can effect only their "heart", and not that of anyone else. Because the doubter and disbeliever remain "unaffected" by their doubt and disbelief, they are unable to feel the unquestionable difference, and thus they are compelled to attribute the unique emotion to misinterpretation. And we're back to, "I have not felt that for which there is no sound logic, so neither have you."

But that logic is not so sound.

I posted the following in another thread, but it bears repeating, especially here.

When I was a correctional officer, I knew a large hand full of inmates who had been abused and rejected all their lives who would just as soon cut your throat as listen to you try to convince them of something as silly and preposterous as love. They had never felt it, so neither had anyone else. As far as they were concerned, anyone who claimed to have any kind of feeling or connection to love was a delusional fool. Love was never anything more than a brain rotting lie inflicting the small-minded, gullible, wishful thinking masses.

It's a shame that their disbelief denied them one of life's more exquisite emotions.


I once approached one of those inmates, who was sharing a tender moment with members of his gang. We had argued (he against me and other inmates) about the existence of love several weeks earlier, so I challenged him to deny that he felt love for his friends. He told me to get out of his face, and insisted that love had nothing to do with feeling good. He told me that love continued to be purely in my imagination.

Can anyone find logic in that?

Let's say I am enjoying the scent of a rose, and a group of people with anosmia (the inability to detect odors) come up and tell me I'm only imagining that the rose has a scent. Being unable to prove otherwise, right there and then, should I agree with them, and be untrue to myself? Or should I point out that their insensitivity fails to negate the fact that I can indeed sense the beautiful fragrance of the rose.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 4:32:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 8:03:30 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Emotions vary significantly so that we are able to discern love from hate, feeling angry from feeling good, etc. Emotions also, at least for me, vary within themselves. That is to say, the love I feel for my wife is distinctly different from the love I feel for my sister or cousin. The love I feel for my brother, is different than the love I feel for my friends. For me, there is a distinct difference between this kind of love, and that kind of love. The same applies to anger and other emotions. I can tell them apart as well as I can discern the difference in colors.

It is because I am able to identify the plethora of emotions that I have been experiencing for the last 57 years that I take issue with those that insist that I am confusing the emotion I feel through the conviction of God's Spirit with a conventional, easily explained emotion. If I can discern between several kinds of love, it should logically follow that I should be able to discern between a unique emotion and a commonly felt emotion. Sure, it can be argued that I'm interpreting a common emotion as something unique, but it be just as easily argued that I am not.

Those who have never been touched by the Spirit of God, for whatever reason, have only conventional emotions to argue from, and therefore insist that anyone claiming to have felt the Spirit of God is clearly confusing a conventional emotion with an alleged divine one. Basically, they're saying that if they have not felt the Spirit of God, then no one has.

Now, to be fair, they base that argument on the fact that no one can prove that God, or His Spirit, exists, and if the Spirit is unproven, then so is its so-called "touch". But not everyone agrees with the logic employed to doubt or dismiss the existence of God.

Those that have been touched by the Spirit of God, know that such an emotion that the Spirit gives cannot be confused with a conventional one. But no one can transfer their own personal emotion to another; the synapses that fire off in their brain can effect only their "heart", and not that of anyone else. Because the doubter and disbeliever remain "unaffected" by their doubt and disbelief, they are unable to feel the unquestionable difference, and thus they are compelled to attribute the unique emotion to misinterpretation. And we're back to, "I have not felt that for which there is no sound logic, so neither have you."

But that logic is not so sound.

I posted the following in another thread, but it bears repeating, especially here.

When I was a correctional officer, I knew a large hand full of inmates who had been abused and rejected all their lives who would just as soon cut your throat as listen to you try to convince them of something as silly and preposterous as love. They had never felt it, so neither had anyone else. As far as they were concerned, anyone who claimed to have any kind of feeling or connection to love was a delusional fool. Love was never anything more than a brain rotting lie inflicting the small-minded, gullible, wishful thinking masses.

It's a shame that their disbelief denied them one of life's more exquisite emotions.


I once approached one of those inmates, who was sharing a tender moment with members of his gang. We had argued (he against me and other inmates) about the existence of love several weeks earlier, so I challenged him to deny that he felt love for his friends. He told me to get out of his face, and insisted that love had nothing to do with feeling good. He told me that love continued to be purely in my imagination.

Can anyone find logic in that?

Let's say I am enjoying the scent of a rose, and a group of people with anosmia (the inability to detect odors) come up and tell me I'm only imagining that the rose has a scent. Being unable to prove otherwise, right there and then, should I agree with them, and be untrue to myself? Or should I point out that their insensitivity fails to negate the fact that I can indeed sense the beautiful fragrance of the rose.

Just supposing that were the case, why does the deity play stupid games and not enable everyone to feel its presence in an irrefutable way?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:33:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 4:32:02 AM, JJ50 wrote:

Just supposing that were the case, why does the deity play stupid games and not enable everyone to feel its presence in an irrefutable way?

My apologies for taking so long to respond, but there are few things that require my constant attention right now. I have responded to this question on this site before, but I would like to go into it a bit more in depth, and will respond as soon as I am able.

Again, my apologies.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:14:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You first admit that this argument does no more than show you *might* not be misinterpreting experiences, then in the very next paragraph you jump to the conclusion that these "unique" emotional experiences are not only correctly interpreted as such, butalso necessarily divine in origin.

I've got to be honest; that's seriously shoddy reasoning.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:21:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 4:32:02 AM, JJ50 wrote:

Just supposing that were the case, why does the deity play stupid games and not enable everyone to feel its presence in an irrefutable way?

Is it "stupid games" for God to lighten the accountability of His children?

Who receives the greater punishment for a misdeed, the child who unquestionably knew better, or the child that didn't necessarily know better?

God does not force His Spirit upon us, because we might reject that Spirit, and then there would be no forgiveness. (Matthew 12:31"32, Mark 3:28"29, Luke 12:10)

For reasons the Bible does not make clear, Lucifer rejected God, or God's ways, and cannot be forgiven. From this we see that man may also reject the Spirit, even when he cannot deny that it came from God.

God leaves it to us to choose. If we choose not to seek His Spirit, then we cannot be held accountable for the greater sin of receiving His Spirit, and then denying it. (2 Peter 2:21)

Then again, we also cannot receive the greater reward.

God will not force men to do that which will gain them the harshest judgment. (Gal. 6:7)

If we want to feel God's Spirit, we must seek it. It will not be forced upon us. In this manner, God may be able to judge mercifully, and yet justly.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 1:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:14:06 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
You first admit that this argument does no more than show you *might* not be misinterpreting experiences, then in the very next paragraph you jump to the conclusion that these "unique" emotional experiences are not only correctly interpreted as such, butalso necessarily divine in origin.

I've got to be honest; that's seriously shoddy reasoning.

Before I challenge the accusation of "shoddy reasoning", I would like to know how you read that I first admit that the argument does no more than show that I "might" not be misinterpreting emotions, (not experiences).
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 8:20:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 1:43:28 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Last sentence of paragraph two. Also, emotions are experiences...

I stated that it can be argued that I'm misinterpreting, not that it's a possibility that I'm misinterpreting. I also stated that it can be argued that I'm not misinterpreting.

The "shoddy reasoning" is your own interpretation.

Emotions are the result of experiences.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:18:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 8:20:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:43:28 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Last sentence of paragraph two. Also, emotions are experiences...

I stated that it can be argued that I'm misinterpreting, not that it's a possibility that I'm misinterpreting. I also stated that it can be argued that I'm not misinterpreting.

Yes, that's precisely my point.

The "shoddy reasoning" is your own interpretation.

It's an observation on the quality of your argument. An argument you now seem remarkably reluctant to defend.

Emotions are the result of experiences.

Not always and even when they are, they are experiences in themselves. You experience an emotional state. That the state itself has some cause isn't really that surprising or significant a point.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:21:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Additionally, should the paranoid schizophrenic ignore the voices in this head at the insistence of those others who just aren't sensitive enough to hear them for themselves?

As I said; shoddy reasoning.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 8:03:30 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Emotions vary significantly so that we are able to discern love from hate, feeling angry from feeling good, etc. Emotions also, at least for me, vary within themselves. That is to say, the love I feel for my wife is distinctly different from the love I feel for my sister or cousin. The love I feel for my brother, is different than the love I feel for my friends. For me, there is a distinct difference between this kind of love, and that kind of love. The same applies to anger and other emotions. I can tell them apart as well as I can discern the difference in colors.

It is because I am able to identify the plethora of emotions that I have been experiencing for the last 57 years that I take issue with those that insist that I am confusing the emotion I feel through the conviction of God's Spirit with a conventional, easily explained emotion. If I can discern between several kinds of love, it should logically follow that I should be able to discern between a unique emotion and a commonly felt emotion. Sure, it can be argued that I'm interpreting a common emotion as something unique, but it be just as easily argued that I am not.

Those who have never been touched by the Spirit of God, for whatever reason, have only conventional emotions to argue from, and therefore insist that anyone claiming to have felt the Spirit of God is clearly confusing a conventional emotion with an alleged divine one. Basically, they're saying that if they have not felt the Spirit of God, then no one has.

Now, to be fair, they base that argument on the fact that no one can prove that God, or His Spirit, exists, and if the Spirit is unproven, then so is its so-called "touch". But not everyone agrees with the logic employed to doubt or dismiss the existence of God.

Those that have been touched by the Spirit of God, know that such an emotion that the Spirit gives cannot be confused with a conventional one. But no one can transfer their own personal emotion to another; the synapses that fire off in their brain can effect only their "heart", and not that of anyone else. Because the doubter and disbeliever remain "unaffected" by their doubt and disbelief, they are unable to feel the unquestionable difference, and thus they are compelled to attribute the unique emotion to misinterpretation. And we're back to, "I have not felt that for which there is no sound logic, so neither have you."

But that logic is not so sound.

I posted the following in another thread, but it bears repeating, especially here.

When I was a correctional officer, I knew a large hand full of inmates who had been abused and rejected all their lives who would just as soon cut your throat as listen to you try to convince them of something as silly and preposterous as love. They had never felt it, so neither had anyone else. As far as they were concerned, anyone who claimed to have any kind of feeling or connection to love was a delusional fool. Love was never anything more than a brain rotting lie inflicting the small-minded, gullible, wishful thinking masses.

It's a shame that their disbelief denied them one of life's more exquisite emotions.


I once approached one of those inmates, who was sharing a tender moment with members of his gang. We had argued (he against me and other inmates) about the existence of love several weeks earlier, so I challenged him to deny that he felt love for his friends. He told me to get out of his face, and insisted that love had nothing to do with feeling good. He told me that love continued to be purely in my imagination.

Can anyone find logic in that?

Let's say I am enjoying the scent of a rose, and a group of people with anosmia (the inability to detect odors) come up and tell me I'm only imagining that the rose has a scent. Being unable to prove otherwise, right there and then, should I agree with them, and be untrue to myself? Or should I point out that their insensitivity fails to negate the fact that I can indeed sense the beautiful fragrance of the rose.

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:56:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:18:23 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 1/23/2015 8:20:00 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 1:43:28 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Last sentence of paragraph two. Also, emotions are experiences...

I stated that it can be argued that I'm misinterpreting, not that it's a possibility that I'm misinterpreting. I also stated that it can be argued that I'm not misinterpreting.

Yes, that's precisely my point.

I'm stating that arguments that claim I'm misinterpreting my emotions are moot. If that's your point, then you are supporting my reasoning.

The "shoddy reasoning" is your own interpretation.

It's an observation on the quality of your argument. An argument you now seem remarkably reluctant to defend.

Defend what? You made a general statement that my reasoning is shoddy based on a statement that you claim supports misinterpretation even when I clarified that it does not. What exactly have you done to challenge my argument?

Emotions are the result of experiences.

Not always and even when they are, they are experiences in themselves. You experience an emotional state. That the state itself has some cause isn't really that surprising or significant a point.

Can you give an example of emotions occurring without cause? One can experience "love", but that emotion is caused by some experienced event. One doesn't say I experienced "love", as much as they will talk about the experience of their first kiss. Emotion is a "byproduct" of the experience.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 9:58:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:21:10 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Additionally, should the paranoid schizophrenic ignore the voices in this head at the insistence of those others who just aren't sensitive enough to hear them for themselves?

As I said; shoddy reasoning.

Who said anything about voices?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:19:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.

And just because someone does 'sense' something and interprets it in one way, that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Some find the scent of roses nauseating. What is subjectively pleasant for you does not make it pleasant for everyone. Your senses, your emotions, are yours and yours alone. It's not logical or reasonable to believe that what you feel is in any way universal.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:26:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:19:40 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.

And just because someone does 'sense' something and interprets it in one way, that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Some find the scent of roses nauseating. What is subjectively pleasant for you does not make it pleasant for everyone. Your senses, your emotions, are yours and yours alone. It's not logical or reasonable to believe that what you feel is in any way universal.

People may react differently to the scent of a rose, but that doesn't change that fact that it is nonetheless the scent of a rose.

However people feel it, love is still love, anger is still anger, the Spirit of God is still the Spirit of God. No one confuses anger with love, even when they are feeling both at the same time. No one who has felt the Spirit of God confuses it with another emotion. There's nothing illogical about that.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:27:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 9:56:38 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I'm stating that arguments that claim I'm misinterpreting my emotions are moot. If that's your point, then you are supporting my reasoning.

What you're actually stating - whether you realise it or not - is that you've given no reason to show why you aren't misinterpreting them. You've said it can be argued either way, which means your entire argument boils down to "maybe this!". Which is a crappy argument.

Defend what? You made a general statement that my reasoning is shoddy based on a statement that you claim supports misinterpretation even when I clarified that it does not. What exactly have you done to challenge my argument?

You've clarified no such thing. Perhaps you don't understand the implications of your own statement.

Can you give an example of emotions occurring without cause?

I didn't say without cause, did I?

One can experience "love", but that emotion is caused by some experienced event.

But I thought you just said that emotions weren't experiences?

One doesn't say I experienced "love", as much as they will talk about the experience of their first kiss. Emotion is a "byproduct" of the experience.

One does say that they experienced fear, joy, surprise, anxiety, excitement, sadness and so forth. Sometimes in the context of "an inexplicable sense of X". Emotional states are the result of neurological processes. Now, if you could point me to some that, under scans, showed no neurological processes attached, then you'd have something interesting to say.

As to the hearing voices point, I am saying that simply because someone experiences something does not mean their interpretation of that thing is correct. The woman who smothers her baby or the man who stabs his best friend because voices - ones he indisputably experiences - told him to does not mean other people are insensitive to a real voice.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:42:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:26:32 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:19:40 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.

And just because someone does 'sense' something and interprets it in one way, that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Some find the scent of roses nauseating. What is subjectively pleasant for you does not make it pleasant for everyone. Your senses, your emotions, are yours and yours alone. It's not logical or reasonable to believe that what you feel is in any way universal.

People may react differently to the scent of a rose, but that doesn't change that fact that it is nonetheless the scent of a rose.

However people feel it, love is still love, anger is still anger, the Spirit of God is still the Spirit of God. No one confuses anger with love, even when they are feeling both at the same time. No one who has felt the Spirit of God confuses it with another emotion. There's nothing illogical about that.

Yes, there is. There is no emotion called the Spirit of God. There is ecstasy, joy, peace, and a host of others but nothing about a Spirit. Once again, you're trying to make your personal emotions and perceptions into fact and they are not. They are just your perceptions and your emotional state. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu, would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? Of course not. Please try to provide a better argument.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:46:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:27:22 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:56:38 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
I'm stating that arguments that claim I'm misinterpreting my emotions are moot. If that's your point, then you are supporting my reasoning.

What you're actually stating - whether you realise it or not - is that you've given no reason to show why you aren't misinterpreting them. You've said it can be argued either way, which means your entire argument boils down to "maybe this!". Which is a crappy argument.


Sorry, you don't get to tell me what I'm really saying. I've shown more that sufficient reason that I'm not misinterpreting those emotions.

Let me be more clear. I'm saying some people will argue that the emotions can be misinterpreted, but that they are incorrect. Do you confuse anger with happiness?

Defend what? You made a general statement that my reasoning is shoddy based on a statement that you claim supports misinterpretation even when I clarified that it does not. What exactly have you done to challenge my argument?

You've clarified no such thing. Perhaps you don't understand the implications of your own statement.

Actually, it's pretty clear that you're the one who doesn't understand.

Can you give an example of emotions occurring without cause?

I didn't say without cause, did I?

Did you have to?

One can experience "love", but that emotion is caused by some experienced event.

But I thought you just said that emotions weren't experiences?

We also experience breathing. Should that be classified as well?

One doesn't say I experienced "love", as much as they will talk about the experience of their first kiss. Emotion is a "byproduct" of the experience.

One does say that they experienced fear, joy, surprise, anxiety, excitement, sadness and so forth. Sometimes in the context of "an inexplicable sense of X". Emotional states are the result of neurological processes. Now, if you could point me to some that, under scans, showed no neurological processes attached, then you'd have something interesting to say.


They also say that they "felt" fear, joy, anxiety, etc. If you want to relate experience to feelings, knock yourself out, but saying that I experienced the Spirit of God sounds a bit more awkward than, I "felt" the Spirit of God.

As to the hearing voices point, I am saying that simply because someone experiences something does not mean their interpretation of that thing is correct. The woman who smothers her baby or the man who stabs his best friend because voices - ones he indisputably experiences - told him to does not mean other people are insensitive to a real voice.

Do you "interpret" love from hate? And voices have nothing to do with my argument.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:49:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:42:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:26:32 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:19:40 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.

And just because someone does 'sense' something and interprets it in one way, that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Some find the scent of roses nauseating. What is subjectively pleasant for you does not make it pleasant for everyone. Your senses, your emotions, are yours and yours alone. It's not logical or reasonable to believe that what you feel is in any way universal.

People may react differently to the scent of a rose, but that doesn't change that fact that it is nonetheless the scent of a rose.

However people feel it, love is still love, anger is still anger, the Spirit of God is still the Spirit of God. No one confuses anger with love, even when they are feeling both at the same time. No one who has felt the Spirit of God confuses it with another emotion. There's nothing illogical about that.

Yes, there is. There is no emotion called the Spirit of God. There is ecstasy, joy, peace, and a host of others but nothing about a Spirit. Once again, you're trying to make your personal emotions and perceptions into fact and they are not. They are just your perceptions and your emotional state. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu, would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? Of course not. Please try to provide a better argument.

You are simply proving my point. You believe that because you have not felt the Spirit of God, that it therefore cannot exist, and, as such, no one else has felt it either. I have clearly shown the lack of logic in that thought. My argument does not have to be any better.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 10:52:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:49:36 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:42:32 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:26:32 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:19:40 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:05:09 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 9:50:27 AM, dhardage wrote:

You are sensing aromatic chemical compounds that you subjectively find pleasant. It's a physical sensation that provokes an emotional response. It could be argued that love, and any emotion for that matter, is nothing more than the same thing. What you are expressing is a poor analogy of scent, a physical sense, for love, a purely emotional response.

Anything can be argued, but where has it been established that I'm confusing emotions.

I suppose it would be a poor analogy if it was an analogy of scent, but it is not. It is an analogy of a lack of sense. Just because some are unable to "sense" something does not mean that everyone else fails to sense it as well.

And just because someone does 'sense' something and interprets it in one way, that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Some find the scent of roses nauseating. What is subjectively pleasant for you does not make it pleasant for everyone. Your senses, your emotions, are yours and yours alone. It's not logical or reasonable to believe that what you feel is in any way universal.

People may react differently to the scent of a rose, but that doesn't change that fact that it is nonetheless the scent of a rose.

However people feel it, love is still love, anger is still anger, the Spirit of God is still the Spirit of God. No one confuses anger with love, even when they are feeling both at the same time. No one who has felt the Spirit of God confuses it with another emotion. There's nothing illogical about that.

Yes, there is. There is no emotion called the Spirit of God. There is ecstasy, joy, peace, and a host of others but nothing about a Spirit. Once again, you're trying to make your personal emotions and perceptions into fact and they are not. They are just your perceptions and your emotional state. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu, would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? Of course not. Please try to provide a better argument.

You are simply proving my point. You believe that because you have not felt the Spirit of God, that it therefore cannot exist, and, as such, no one else has felt it either. I have clearly shown the lack of logic in that thought. My argument does not have to be any better.

I have said that your emotions don't prove the existence of anything. If they did then all religious experiences would have to be proof of the existence of their respective deities. I note you did not respond my query about the Spirit of Vishnu. Are you afraid of the answer?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:19:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 10:52:03 AM, dhardage wrote:

I have said that your emotions don't prove the existence of anything. If they did then all religious experiences would have to be proof of the existence of their respective deities. I note you did not respond my query about the Spirit of Vishnu. Are you afraid of the answer?

I was sidetracked by my family. My apologies.

When scientists argue about the evaluation of evidence, should we assume that they are all wrong? Could at least one of them be right? Or would it be logical to assume that they are all wrong and never get anywhere?

I will venture to say that many Christians who claim that they have felt the Spirit of God are mostly just fooling themselves. But that in no way negates the existence of the Spirit of God, that just means people are human.

I have never felt the Spirit of Vishnu, so I cannot say what it feels like. But I understand your argument. You are saying that everyone feels the spirit of their particular belief; an imaginary spirit that creates a unique feeling.

I mostly agree, and including that in my argument would have made it better, so you were right in that much, and I therefore owe you another apology.

There is much more to the Spirit of God than just "feeling" it, but I have no way to logically explain that, so it is left unstated. I can only state that the Spirit of God is not remotely confused with any other emotion. If I could compare it with a feeling of the Spirit of Vishnu, I would, but I can't. Once you have found the planet Mars, you don't look for it elsewhere, because there is only one planet Mars. I did not seek for another Spirit, because I have not found anything that indicates that there would be more than one.

Just like the scientist analogy; just because many things are wrong does not mean that all things are wrong. But until one feels the Spirit I'm talking about, they can only believe that all things spiritual are wrong. Does that make them right?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 11:19:54 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 10:52:03 AM, dhardage wrote:

I have said that your emotions don't prove the existence of anything. If they did then all religious experiences would have to be proof of the existence of their respective deities. I note you did not respond my query about the Spirit of Vishnu. Are you afraid of the answer?

I was sidetracked by my family. My apologies.

When scientists argue about the evaluation of evidence, should we assume that they are all wrong? Could at least one of them be right? Or would it be logical to assume that they are all wrong and never get anywhere?

I will venture to say that many Christians who claim that they have felt the Spirit of God are mostly just fooling themselves. But that in no way negates the existence of the Spirit of God, that just means people are human.

I have never felt the Spirit of Vishnu, so I cannot say what it feels like. But I understand your argument. You are saying that everyone feels the spirit of their particular belief; an imaginary spirit that creates a unique feeling.

I mostly agree, and including that in my argument would have made it better, so you were right in that much, and I therefore owe you another apology.

There is much more to the Spirit of God than just "feeling" it, but I have no way to logically explain that, so it is left unstated. I can only state that the Spirit of God is not remotely confused with any other emotion. If I could compare it with a feeling of the Spirit of Vishnu, I would, but I can't. Once you have found the planet Mars, you don't look for it elsewhere, because there is only one planet Mars. I did not seek for another Spirit, because I have not found anything that indicates that there would be more than one.

Just like the scientist analogy; just because many things are wrong does not mean that all things are wrong. But until one feels the Spirit I'm talking about, they can only believe that all things spiritual are wrong. Does that make them right?

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 11:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.

"Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from vi"7;, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu"). Adi Shankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root vi"7; means 'enter into'." Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu Sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: "The root vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra 'whatever that is there is the world of change.' Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. Chinmayananda states that, that which pervades everything is Vishnu."

Sounds like a spirit to me.

" The answer is no.

Really? So my emotional response is somehow wrong while yours is somehow right? What makes it so?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:02:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 11:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.

"Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from vi"7;, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu"). Adi Shankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root vi"7; means 'enter into'." Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu Sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: "The root vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra 'whatever that is there is the world of change.' Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. Chinmayananda states that, that which pervades everything is Vishnu."

Sounds like a spirit to me.

Sounds more like the atmosphere to me. Is there a testimony of millions who have felt this "spirit"?

" The answer is no.

Really? So my emotional response is somehow wrong while yours is somehow right? What makes it so?

My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:02:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.

"Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from vi"7;, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu"). Adi Shankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root vi"7; means 'enter into'." Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu Sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: "The root vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra 'whatever that is there is the world of change.' Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. Chinmayananda states that, that which pervades everything is Vishnu."

Sounds like a spirit to me.

Sounds more like the atmosphere to me. Is there a testimony of millions who have felt this "spirit"?

It's actually pretty close to the omnipresent Christian god in definition. And yes, there are millions of Hindus who believe as fervently and devoutly in their deities as you do yours.

" The answer is no.

Really? So my emotional response is somehow wrong while yours is somehow right? What makes it so?

My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?

Ah, your 'overwhelming feeling' is somehow fact while mine would not be? And what 'supportive actions' are you claiming, please?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:04:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:02:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.

"Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from vi"7;, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu"). Adi Shankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root vi"7; means 'enter into'." Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu Sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: "The root vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra 'whatever that is there is the world of change.' Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. Chinmayananda states that, that which pervades everything is Vishnu."

Sounds like a spirit to me.

Sounds more like the atmosphere to me. Is there a testimony of millions who have felt this "spirit"?

It's actually pretty close to the omnipresent Christian god in definition. And yes, there are millions of Hindus who believe as fervently and devoutly in their deities as you do yours.

I do not believe in the fundamentalist Christian schizophrenic spiritual trinity God. So the definition mostly fails for me. Also, you did not provide the testimonies of the masses who "felt" the "spirit" of Vishnu. One can believe in the non-existent Bigfoot without feeling its spirit.

" The answer is no.

Really? So my emotional response is somehow wrong while yours is somehow right? What makes it so?

My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?

Ah, your 'overwhelming feeling' is somehow fact while mine would not be? And what 'supportive actions' are you claiming, please?

You asked a question to avoid a question. I am supported by the testimony of millions who have sought and felt the Spirit of God. I have felt it, and am confident at my age to know the difference between the Spirit of God and another emotion. My conviction is not hypothetical. What supports your hypothetical feeling, aside from internet sites that talk about no more than belief without spiritual conviction?

I have to take care of some things, so my next response won't be for a while.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 12:38:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:21:37 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:04:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 12:02:28 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:43:26 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:38:27 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 1/23/2015 11:29:00 AM, dhardage wrote:

You did not answer my question. If I said I felt the Spirit of Vishnu would you automatically assume that Vishnu existed? It's a simple yes or no answer. I'll wait.

The answer is no. Because I just read through five sites about Vishnu, and, unless I missed something, could find nothing about it being a spirit or having a spirit. You couldn't have felt the spirit that Vishnu doesn't appear to have.

"Adi Shankara in his commentary on the Sahasranama states derivation from vi"7;, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Vishnu"). Adi Shankara states (regarding Vishnu Purana, 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root vi"7; means 'enter into'." Swami Chinmayananda, in his translation of Vishnu Sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: "The root vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra 'whatever that is there is the world of change.' Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. Chinmayananda states that, that which pervades everything is Vishnu."

Sounds like a spirit to me.

Sounds more like the atmosphere to me. Is there a testimony of millions who have felt this "spirit"?

It's actually pretty close to the omnipresent Christian god in definition. And yes, there are millions of Hindus who believe as fervently and devoutly in their deities as you do yours.

I do not believe in the fundamentalist Christian schizophrenic spiritual trinity God. So the definition mostly fails for me. Also, you did not provide the testimonies of the masses who "felt" the "spirit" of Vishnu. One can believe in the non-existent Bigfoot without feeling its spirit.

" The answer is no.

Really? So my emotional response is somehow wrong while yours is somehow right? What makes it so?

My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?

Ah, your 'overwhelming feeling' is somehow fact while mine would not be? And what 'supportive actions' are you claiming, please?

You asked a question to avoid a question. I am supported by the testimony of millions who have sought and felt the Spirit of God. My I have felt it, and am confident at my age to know the difference between the Spirit of God and another emotion.conviction is not hypothetical. What supports your hypothetical feeling, aside from internet sites that talk about no more than belief without spiritual conviction?

I have to take care of some things, so my next response won't be for a while.

" Also, you did not provide the testimonies of the masses who "felt" the "spirit" of Vishnu."

Nor did you provide the millions of testimonies that you claimed, only gave a number. I responded in kind.

"My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?"

My question was hypothetical so I don't claim an emotional response. I asked if, based on my statement that was identical to yours with the exception that I replaced God with Vishnu, would you accept that as proof that Vishnu existed. You have answered that question now.

" You asked a question to avoid a question."

No, I asked you to be more specific about a general statement you made so I could more accurately evaluate its value in this discussion.

"I am supported by the testimony of millions who have sought and felt the Spirit of God."

Argument from popularity. A fallacy where many believers is presented as evidence for the validity of an assertion. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

"I have felt it, and am confident at my age to know the difference between the Spirit of God and another emotion."

A purely subjective statement that cannot be tested in any way. Age is no guarantor that your emotional response is any more valid than anyone else's. It has no value as evidence that either this God of yours or his spirit exists.

" What supports your hypothetical feeling, aside from internet sites that talk about no more than belief without spiritual conviction?"

The feeling is hypothetical and requires no support for purposes of discussion. At no point in time have I mentioned spiritual conviction. I have only asserted that your belief in this supposed Spirit of God is based on nothing but your subjective emotions and cannot be taken as viable evidence that either your God or his Spirit exists outside of your mind.

I also have things to do so this will be my last post for a time. Good day, sir.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:05:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 12:38:10 PM, dhardage wrote:

" Also, you did not provide the testimonies of the masses who "felt" the "spirit" of Vishnu."

Nor did you provide the millions of testimonies that you claimed, only gave a number. I responded in kind.

That you are prepared to challenge theism as you do gives me cause to wonder how you could not know that millions of Christians claim to have felt God's Spirit. Logically, you would know, and I'm sure you do, but instead of pushing it, I did the research for both of us.

I typed, "Why I am Christian" into Google. I randomly chose ten testimonies, and each one mentioned feeling God's Spirit. I then typed, "Why I am Hindu", and read the first ten positive testimonies listed. After that, I typed, "Why Hinduism is true", and read the first ten positive testimonies in that list. Not one of the twenty testimonies I read stated anything about conviction of spirit of any kind. In fact, one testimony criticized Christianity for requiring such a conviction. With Hinduism, it is mostly feeling a oneness with nature, as well as freedom of belief, that makes Hinduism correct. Gods weren't looked at spiritually as much as being seen as idols of inspiration.

You have my thanks (not sarcastically). Today I know quite a bit more about Hinduism and Vishnu than I did yesterday, (a good thing). And I know enough that I can confidently say that the Hindus don't receive a conviction of spirit, anything like the Christians do, to confirm their beliefs.

"My conviction is based on an overwhelming feeling, unlike any other emotion, often accompanied by supportive actions. What is your emotional response based on?"

My question was hypothetical so I don't claim an emotional response. I asked if, based on my statement that was identical to yours with the exception that I replaced God with Vishnu, would you accept that as proof that Vishnu existed. You have answered that question now.

" You asked a question to avoid a question."

No, I asked you to be more specific about a general statement you made so I could more accurately evaluate its value in this discussion.

"I am supported by the testimony of millions who have sought and felt the Spirit of God."

Argument from popularity. A fallacy where many believers is presented as evidence for the validity of an assertion. Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true.

Let's take a look at the inmates I mention in the OP. If they asked you how you know "love" exists, what would you say? If you said that billions of people have felt it, and the inmate called that "argument from poplularity", would you agree with him? Would you agree that just because lot's of people believe love exists, that does not make it true? Or is it possible that argument from popularity isn't always a logical fallacy?

"I have felt it, and am confident at my age to know the difference between the Spirit of God and another emotion."

A purely subjective statement that cannot be tested in any way. Age is no guarantor that your emotional response is any more valid than anyone else's. It has no value as evidence that either this God of yours or his spirit exists.

It most absolutely can be tested. But such a test requires faith in God, which is mocked by atheists and others, as they reject the existence of God. So, in a sense, it is true that it cannot be tested, but only by those who are sure that trying is a waste of time. For many of those who believe otherwise, the test has given positive results.

" What supports your hypothetical feeling, aside from internet sites that talk about no more than belief without spiritual conviction?"

The feeling is hypothetical and requires no support for purposes of discussion. At no point in time have I mentioned spiritual conviction. I have only asserted that your belief in this supposed Spirit of God is based on nothing but your subjective emotions and cannot be taken as viable evidence that either your God or his Spirit exists outside of your mind.

And we're back to, "If I haven't felt it, then neither has anyone else."
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.