What kind of Religious Experience would qualify as 'proof'?

What kind of Religious Experience would qualify as 'proof'?

i think this is an interesting question.

I take the points made re proof in the sense of proving to someone else. Thats tricky. Essentially a group experience i guess. That would be the ultimate proof. But what kind of group or personal experience?

I have to say that it seems obvious to me that, if there is a spirit world then it isn't as obvious as traffic and cucumbers to most people. So there must be a reason for that.

What is important is how we would understand the experience. There is, "well that proves there is a spirit world" on the one hand and "so thats what the spirit world is about" on the other. My guess is that the second option is out of bounds simply because we are not capable of grasping it. ....... And maybe that is related to why it isn't obvious. eg if a god is love, why is there suffering and hatred? It isn't obvious how that can be the case, so it isn't obvious that god exists. ie because we cannot grasp a consistent meaning to the spiritual dimension may be the reason itself why we don't believe in it.

Maybe there is so much obvious spirit world about .... but because we can't make sense of it then we reject it as superstition. Consider the following. A family is rescued from a deep jungle tribe wiped out by forestation. They are rehoused in a city. Here they are given money to live by. But there was no money in the jungle. People traded 'things' and writing didn't exist. Such a family might look at us and see money changing hands all over the place, but to them it is pure superstition. Nobody in their right mind would swap something valuable for a bit of leaf, no matter how magical they believe its powers. However, stare in wonder because if enough people believe in a superstition it can work! This can apply to anti superstition equally well. It so happens that the woman at the bank till who hands over these strange leaves, doesn't even believe in the realm of the underworld let alone the sky gods! How barmy is that?

Science insists upon consistency. Preferably absolute consistency, but relative consistency is the absolute minimum required. It is from the communal exchange of this consistency that constitutes a degree of proof. But for many of us we don't recognise such a machine world. Even people who don't believe in religion or the supernatural often reject the idea that science can explain everything. They are like the tribes people staring at the money. Yeh it works,........ but at the same time its crazy and unconvincing.

So in the end. watching a convinced group from the outside isn't always convincing. There has to be a personal aspect, and that includes whether we are a part of the superstitious trust of the likes of science and money, or the superstitious trust of the likes of religion or synchronicity.

Or to put it another way ...... If being alive isn't proof enough of the spiritual dimension, then what lesser proof should concievably be elevated above it?

"I do not think there is or ever will be any scientific objective "proof" for god.
Of course I dont think there is any proof for love, beauty, truth or the good".

This is not enough. God's prophets opened Plan to the Jews. He told them their future that they could change it. Because human nature is weak. God give them forces to change the bad future. Why the similar cannot occur now? If god himself starts talking to us, unless it does not become the proof? After all ancient rabbis considered it as the proof. Liars name yourself "the prophets". But them do not hear. If God addresses to peoples. It will make so that It will hear, I know.

"but when I ask if you [or what ever the religion that I am asking reasonable questions about, For some reason it does not seem to apply to you]. It seems to be a double standard. I will go into detail only if any one is interested".

I the religious person, but do not consider atheists as the enemies. The atheist it "the doubting Christian" Double standards :-) are a contradiction of your emotions & my logic (for example). I choose the logic arguments.

"I do not think there is or ever will be any scientific objective "proof" for god.
Of course I dont think there is any proof for love, beauty, truth or the good".

This is not enough. God's prophets opened Plan to the Jews. He told them their future that they could change it. Because human nature is weak. God give them forces to change the bad future. Why the similar cannot occur now? If god himself starts talking to us, unless it does not become the proof? After all ancient rabbis considered it as the proof. Liars name yourself "the prophets". But them do not hear. If God addresses to peoples. It will make so that It will hear, I know.

Actually all Western counties have massive shadow around this religion question, because of their particular history, the way the topic has been defined for centuries, first by a corrupted ecclesiastical theocracy (Catholic) and then afterwards by fanatical self-righteous puritans (protestant). There is still a great collective memory of the Religious Wars (millions dead) pogroms and purges in various EU countries, and of course The Inquisition wherein the idea of the totalitarian state was invented. This is what many intellectuals think religion means - and they're right!

"This is what many intellectuals think religion means- and they're right!"

They not right! One moment please.

This is right, and it has given rise to much raising of hackles among the ranks of free thinkers. It has gotten so bad that it has become extremely difficult to raise the subject of spiritual principles without being immediately branded as religious. One finds it difficult to express a personal belief in god without assumptions being made. Few people seem willing to discuss the leap of faith from an objective viewpoint.

OK then - poorly expressed on my part. I will rephrase: that is their view, and it has considerable justification.

All this wars & victims & tirany was Antichrist handywork. Number of Beast - 666 - this is The Gospel According to Saint John 6:66 - "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him". Medieval Church Jesus is Antihrist. More proof:
The First Epistle General of John
"2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that
antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we
know that it is the last time.

2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had
been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went
out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us".
Antichrist power was destroy in modern age. Israel - reconstruction. Second Coming sun I believe

I am agreed with you, maybe I've poorly expressed, the stigma of religion is one thing. But if god exists he must exist without any permission from religion.
I've tried to ellicit some response on the discussion of the leap of faith, which I feel is fairly generic, safe, and seemingly valid. But even this raises a few hackles