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.
There is a difference between evidence and proof. Your problem is that people require more reliable evidence or even proof before allowing your position. The fact is that commitment to finding truth IS most often accompanied with a commitment to work for an orderly society with what reliable information IS available. Religion is only committed to living it's perceptions.
nate that (statement above in bold) could be said about any person or any group
"you nate are only committed to living your perceptions"
"Trans and MPD and Matadora and Arach are only committed to living their perceptions"
"secular humanists are only committed to living their perceptions"
"non profit organizations are only committed to living their perceptions"
"human beings are only committed to living their perceptions"
There is a difference between evidence and proof. Your problem is that people require more reliable evidence or even proof before allowing your position. The fact is that commitment to finding truth IS most often accompanied with a commitment to work for an orderly society with what reliable information IS available. Religion is only committed to living it's perceptions.
it (statement in bold above) sounds like it might be saying the same thing as this post a few pages back
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I think you are overstating the case. It's not "whatever they want" - but people's personal views of spirituality are contextually sensitive to their metaphysical assumptions. Thus it isn't a free-for-all, but it is a range of views that you seem to find annoying.
If it is not a fact then any claim that it is true is suspect. Anything that is only subjectively true for some people cannot be treated the same as facts that are true. You want to pretend that anything YOU consider true is somehow as valid as something that is a verified fact which is preposterous.
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.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-27-2018 at 10:43 PM..
But it's credible, as it is known to happen to others. Gaylen would probably say that no -one can experience what another experiences.
True, but since the experiences look to be the same experiences, we can say they are the same and we can believe they really happen and are a 'fact'.
I don't Know for certain that Mystic actually had the experiences. He could have made it up as a story based on what he heard happened to others. But I m inclined to credit his claim.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-27-2018 at 11:05 PM..
But it's credible, as it is known to happen to others. Gaylen would probably say no -one can experience what another experiences, but since the experiences look to be the same experiences we can say they are the same and we can believe they really happen and are a 'fact'.
I don't Know for certain that Mystic actually had the experiences. He could have made it up as a story based on what he heard happened to others. But I m inclined to credit his claim.
but didn't you say in a different post that visits from angels are not true?
the point i'm making is not to discuss his "event." it's to point out it can be "true" or a "fact" for him that it happened, but others would not consider it "true" or a "fact."
But it's credible, as it is known to happen to others. Gaylen would probably say no -one can experience what another experiences, but since the experiences look to be the same experiences we can say they are the same and we can believe they really happen and are a 'fact'.
I don't Know for certain that Mystic actually had the experiences. He could have made it up as a story based on what he heard happened to others. But I m inclined to credit his claim.
so then interactions with the Divine are credible because they are known to happen to others. Visitation by angels really happen and are a fact. Miracles are known to really happen and are a fact.
That appears to be the reasoning you are using in post above.
so then interactions with the Divine are credible because they are known to happen to others. Visitation by angels really happen and are a fact.
That appears to be the reasoning you are using in post above.
Well done. Yes, they happen. It is also known that how they are interpreted is not the same, so the evidence is that humans interpret them differently, so you need religions to spread one particular interpretation.
Thus atheists accept the experience, may even try to duplicate it. But they do not accept any of the various interpretations put upon them. Using the same evaluation of the evidence (even if we have no personal experience of the experience) we find that no one interpretation is any more credible than any other, so no interpretation is deserving of credence, even if the experience itself is.
Oh, and of course the faith -based claim of the believer that THEIR experience is interpreted corectly, but all the others are not, is also not deserving of credence, even if the claim to the actual experience, Is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
but didn't you say in a different post that visits from angels are not true?
the point i'm making is not to discuss his "event." it's to point out it can be "true" or a "fact" for him that it happened, but others would not consider it "true" or a "fact."
Yes. You are on the right track. It's not a question of the data, but of the semantics. Start with what you mean and then agree on the words you use to describe it. Don't start with what You mean, then suppose that it means the same for the other person. It is the reason for so much missing each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so then interactions with the Divine are credible because they are known to happen to others. Visitation by angels really happen and are a fact. Miracles are known to really happen and are a fact.
That appears to be the reasoning you are using in post above.
And now I fell into my own trap I am of course talking of a particular experience called 'The Mystical experience'. I may have had it, but I think not. I think i might have had a 'conversion' experience, but reversed (deconversion) that other deconverts have described - odd because I was already an atheist. I'm still wondering about that.
But of course there are delusions. We know about dreams (and on all the data they are Delusionary. The do not reflect a reality, though them may be related to what has happened to us, or what we were thinking about. But the mind plays all sorts of tricks. Tricks of experience, tricks of memory. Even without damage or ilness affecting the brain.
Experiences and imaginings, shall we say, are related in many ways, but i think there is a difference, Or maybe not. Maybe in one way - you can't trust them as True, even if having them is a fact.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-27-2018 at 11:14 PM..
Well done. Yes, they happen. It is also known that how they are interpreted is not the same, so the evidence is that humans interpret them differently, so you need religions to spread one particular interpretation.
Thus atheists accept the experience, may even try to duplicate it. But they do not accept any of the various interpretations put upon them. Using the same evaluation of the evidence (even if we have no personal experience of the experience) we find that no one interpretation is any more credible than any other, so no interpretation is deserving of credence, even if the experience itself is.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Oh, and of course the faith -based claim of the believer that THEIR experience is interpreted corectly, but all the others are not, is also not deserving of credence, even if the claim to the actual experience, Is.
if you'll notice, i don't use the word "faith" in these discussions at all. It's one of those words used to beat people over the head. i notice you use it a lot. in just that way. you also tend to polarize and drag into every post "theists do this" and "atheists do that" which again are not what is being addressed or discussed. challenge for you: can you post without using the words "atheist" "theist" "believers" at all. See what the result is.
the behaviors, logic, rationale, reasoning, and word usage I am trying to discuss and address about the distinction between "Facts" and "views/opinions/beliefs", and "true for you" but "not true for everyone" have nothing to do with what a person's "religion and spirituality" beliefs are. They are pertinent to everyone.
...Yes. You are on the right track. It's not a question of the data, but of the semantics. Start with what you mean and then agree on the words you use to describe it. Don't start with what You mean, then suppose that it means the same for the other person. It is the reason for so much missing each other.
that's why it is good for people to clarify what they mean when they use a certain word.
and that's what I'm trying to do with problematic ways that people use "true" and the flawed logic it then leads people to.
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.
if you'll notice, i don't use the word "faith" in these discussions at all. It's one of those words used to beat people over the head. i notice you use it a lot. you also tend to polarize and drag into every post "theists do this" and "atheists do that" which again are not what is being addressed or discussed.
the behaviors, logic, rationale, reasoning, and word usage I am trying to discuss and address about the difference between "Facts" and "views/opinions/beliefs", and "true for you" but "not true for everyone" have nothing to do with what a person's "religion and spirituality" beliefs are. They are pertinent to everyone.
Yes. I am not disagreeing with you. I am hoping to clear up that you and Mystic are talking about the same thing but perhaps using different words.
You didn't use the word Faith. I did. Ihad a need to explain why people think things are 'true' for themselves, whether or not they are true for anybody else. And of course why different experiences (or differently interpreted, rather) are dismissed as false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
that's why it is good for people to clarify what they mean when they use a certain word.
and that's what I'm trying to do with problematic ways that people use "true" and the flawed logic it then leads people to.
Yes. Using it as 'true' for another is flawed use. to me 'true' is what actually is. All that we can do is work out what that truth is.
It is true that the earth goes around the sun. It is worked out from the evidence, but that evidence fits so wel that it is accepted as true, and true for everyone.
True 'for one but not for another' is different. Like the Mystic experience is true for all the interpretation is true only for the individual (given a religious conditioning of the interpretation of the experience). Thus there is an equivocation going on, so long as the way the terms are being used is understood. Assuming that all parties understand the usage.
You think and post very quickly.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-27-2018 at 11:27 PM..
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.
Well done. Yes, they happen. It is also known that how they are interpreted is not the same, so the evidence is that humans interpret them differently, so you need religions to spread one particular interpretation. 
I am of course talking of a particular experience called 'The Mystical experience'. I may have had it, but I think not. I think i might have had a 'conversion' experience, but reversed (deconversion) that other deconverts have described - odd because I was already an atheist. I'm still wondering about that.
You think and post very quickly.