Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it (statement in bold above) sounds like it might be saying the same thing as this post a few pages back
The difference, Tzaphkiel, is that those committed to religion are most often committed to the idea that they are right and other possibilities do not exist. The idea that perceptions may be open to change can't happen.
...the standard model and QM, although incomplete and messy, can support the notion that parts of the universe love you, forgive you, and will remember you forever. Why do we need this magic?
I also consistently avoid words like "magic!" "superstition!" "faith!" "Omni" because they are generally used on this forum to beat people over the head or bludgeon.
and as i said this is not talking about "interpretation" at all. Purely to address what is "true for you in your life" may not be a "fact." And what is a "fact" to you may not be considered a "fact" by others.
Interpretation is precisely what you have been talking about. To distinguish we have to look at what the physical occurrence was. That is fact. How it affects you or what you believe about it IS interpretation. That is why there is no such thing as "fact for you," there is only what you believe about what actually happened.
yes there are two worlds that us people in the middle are stuck between.
fundymental theist fascism and anti-god socialism. Both of these worlds are a major threat to freedom.
no matter how you slice it tzap, telling people "blind faith is good for supporting a dude died, woke up, and flew away" is not even close to my belief of "use what we do know to describe what we don't know." you need false equivalence to maintain yours, I only need science data.
yes, they both are a "belief system". They are not equal processes for forming a more valid, self-correcting, belief system. Your claim is like stating I can take my 2007 galant on a race track in this sundays race because its a car.
some religions have major flaws. They don't allow for self-correcting ideologies. I do agree with you, that my belief system "atheism" has equally retarded views that pigeon holds believers that try and change to recruit followers to atheism. examples are "apologetics', meaning change a belief based on science, is bad and that cherry picking, meaning toss out the bad and keep the good, is nowhere need as good as literal letter of the belief system. Like literally deny everything because one is anti-whatever..
I don't expect you to understand this, you have a religion to protect. But there are many middle of the roaders that do understand. Self-correcting belief systems are more valid than literal belief systems. Sure, I wish they changed faster, but most people can't adapt fast enough. lmao, especially when we get old.
I'll extend to you the same challenge i gave to Trans. See if you can post on this thread and get your point across without using the words religion theist atheist faith
When you start trying to categorize opinions and personal preference as "more valid" it's like toddlers arguing what flavor of ice cream is best.
Interpretation is precisely what you have been talking about. To distinguish we have to look at what the physical occurrence was. That is fact. How it affects you or what you believe about it IS interpretation. That is why there is no such thing as "fact for you," there is only what you believe about what actually happened.
There are two separate and distinct parts.
1. An event happens
2. Assigning meaning to that event, deciding or interpreting what the event means.
Again....what "actually happened" comes first.
Pause. Take a breath.
Then a person interprets it, decides what it means.
In the post i made using the example of MPDs event, i was only addressing and talking about the occurrence of the event. Period. Full stop. Not any interpretation whatsoever.
Many people believe (in the example) that MPD had an event. I'm still waiting for his response to what the terminology he uses on the event happening (I.e. fact, true, believe, know). Not the meaning or interpretation later assigned to it.
Those are two separate and distinct parts. In the MPD example many people "believe" it is "true" he had an event. A much muuuuuch smaller group "believe" that his interpretation and the meaning he later assigned to it is "true."
Most people would agree that how a person interprets events in their life is "opinions views beliefs" and not "facts."
People who insist every claim must be substantiated using the standards science uses for proof and evidence and repeatability, would not consider even the occurrence of MPDs event to be a fact or true because "anyone can say anything" "anecdotes are campfire stories and fairy tales" "he could be making it up"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-28-2018 at 10:35 AM..
Interpretation is precisely what you have been talking about. To distinguish we have to look at what the physical occurrence was. That is fact. How it affects you or what you believe about it IS interpretation. That is why there is no such thing as "fact for you," there is only what you believe about what actually happened.
I will have to disagree with you. Consciousness events are not physical in the normal way that is considered. We have a physical brain event producing a consciousness event. But that is always the case with absolutely everything we experience. What my critics would consider a fact is the physical brain event but that is acknowledging nothing since that is always the case. What they will allow themselves to consider as a fact requires the validation of other brain events. The tricky part is what Tzaph argues and that is that each individual interprets their brain event differently. This is the conundrum. My critics argue that since some people can interpret their brain events in ways that are not consistent with the way most others would, that we can NOT trust our interpretations of our brain events. I do not have such a low opinion of my ability to interpret my brain events accurately. If there had been some intervening factors, like substance use, or trauma, or some external factors potentially affecting my ability to interpret my own experiences, I would yield to my critics. But no such factors existed.
I was very disciplined and retained sober control over my consciousness. I know when I am dreaming (a frequent critique) and I know when I am in other altered states. No one has countered my assertion that as long as I can control what I experience (as in lucid dreaming) that the source is my own subconscious. But when I cannot control the experience, it is real. Transients that intrude on my experiences are NOT under my control so I consider them real. I had many experiences besides the one that erased my atheism and they were all NOT under my control. I have previously recounted my "tests" of these experiences to assure myself that they had nothing to do with me or my consciousness. But since they were only "tested" by me they have no impact on anyone else's opinions. I accept that. But for ME, there is no confusion or uncertainty at all.
So then MPD what words would you yourself use regarding the occurrence of the event (not the subsequent interpretation). How would you answer section below in orange?
C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i am saying they are different. and i am saying they are treated different.
These are different:
"beliefs/opinions/views" are not the same as "facts"
something can be valid for me but that does not mean it is valid for someone else.
NOT the same. Different. That is what I am pointing out.
Example
MPD claims he had an "event" in meditation.
MPD would you say you "believe" you had an "event"
or would you say it is "true" you had an "event"
or would you say it is a "fact" you had an "event"
or would you say you "know" you had an "event"
(not talking at all about your subsequent "interpretation" of the event. just talking now only about the "event" itself that you claim you had in meditation)
the occurence of this "event" can not be measured or verified by anyone except him. so it may be "true" for MPD he had this "event." He is the only one who knows whether he made it up whole cloth. If he did not make it up, or has convinced himself that he did not invent it, then he considers it "true" in his life that this event "really happened" to him.
However does that make it a "fact" ? Because not everyone agrees that MPD had an event and it can't be verified or validated. some believe he had an event. some take him at his word he had an event. some say "anybody can claim anything happened" some say "anyone can make up anything" some say "it is an anecdote (or campfire story or fairy tale or delusion or mental illness or wishful thinking or loneliness)" and "it is an unsubstantiated claim, it is not a fact "
your event may be "valid" and "true" for you MPD.
but no one else can even verify it happened so it is not considered "valid" or "true" by everyone else.
They would NOT say it is a fact.
So then MPD what words would you yourself use regarding the occurrence of the event (not the subsequent interpretation). How would you answer section below in orange?
C
I would say it is "true" I had an "event"
I would say it is a "fact" I had an "event"
I would say I "know" I had an "event"
I would say I "believe" I encountered Jesus (Comforter) or God in the event
I would say it is "true" I had an "event" I would say it is a "fact" I had an "event"
I would say I "know" I had an "event"
....
[Final line removed since not looking at interpretation at this point just the occurrence of event]
So using this example (line above) it shows a case where it can be a fact for someone (Mystic) but not a fact for everyone (those who consider anecdotes to be unsubstantiated claims but NOT to be facts.)
That illustrates and confirms the point I was trying to make about the problems that occur in using the words "true" and "fact"; and seeking to recognize and clarify the distinction between not just a "fact" and a "belief view opinion." But also between "fact for someone" may not be "fact for everyone."
So using this example (line above) it shows a case where it can be a fact for someone (Mystic) but not a fact for everyone (those who consider anecdotes to be unsubstantiated claims but NOT to be facts.)
That illustrates and confirms the point I was trying to make about the problems that occur in using the words "true" and "fact"; and seeking to recognize and clarify the distinction between not just a fact and a belief view opinion. But also between fact for you or fact for everyone.
I would take it as given that each of us determines our personal experiences to be fact unless otherwise shown some reason(s) to doubt them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
