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.
No it does NOT. How other people see my personal EXPERIENCES is not the issue. I do NOT disparage personal EXPERIENCES. It is STORIES that are NOT the direct personal experiences of the storyteller that present the problems and can deserve the adjectives you mistakenly apply to me.
i will leave it to others to comment on this, including how "religion and spirituality" beliefs different from your own "deserve" to be denigrated.
Trans he listens to you, have at it, give it a go.
i will leave it to others to comment on this, including how "religion and spirituality" beliefs different from your own "deserve" to be denigrated.
Trans he listens to you, have at it, give it a go.
Stop lying about me, Tzaph. YOUR interpretations of what I say are unbelievably corrupt and egregiously in error. I said nothing about denigrating religion and spirituality beliefs that differ from my own. I specifically referenced superstitions, magical beliefs, primitive and barbaric content devoid of any substantiation that exclude any PERSONAL experiences of living individuals.
No, I do not. I accept personal experiences but as I said, we can disagree about what the experience IS. What I call "magic superstition primitive ignorant nonsense" are hearsay that relates things that are patently NOT possible or are primitive and barbaric in content.
I think it's one of the modern myths that magic is primitive superstition. It's human nature to want to feel superior, and modern humans want to feel superior to those that came before us.
Anthropologists who studied primitive tribes found that there was nothing primitive about them, except their technology. Whether or not their religions were mere superstition is a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, since magic has been practiced in all cultures at all times, there is very likely something real about it. Unfortunately, modern science has so much contempt for what they call magic, most scientists won't study it.
I think it's one of the modern myths that magic is primitive superstition. It's human nature to want to feel superior, and modern humans want to feel superior to those that came before us.
Anthropologists who studied primitive tribes found that there was nothing primitive about them, except their technology. Whether or not their religions were mere superstition is a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, since magic has been practiced in all cultures at all times, there is very likely something real about it. Unfortunately, modern science has so much contempt for what they call magic, most scientists won't study it.
That's not really true. Most scientists don't care what the claim is so long as we can test it, reproduce it, and offer a mechanism for it. we don't have contempt for it. we have contempt for people that push conclusions on us that have absolutely no observational support. for example. we know medical miracles happen every day. But stating they are because something is going 'poof there it is" is quite another story.
In fact, most science people love when they are proven wrong, it means we learned something new. Thats, why many of us were 1/2, bummed they found the higgs field. it would have been way cooler if we didn't.
look at me, I spent 20 years proving theist wrong. just to discover that the system we are in is better described as "life'. In fact, its is far more valid to be classified as "life" as opposed to "non-life". It still shows no theist god, but it also offers a better explanation, offers better mechanisms, and makes better predictions than "deny everything", religions are all wrong" (like that has any determination on how the universe works for a rational person), and "we (atheist) can't talk about it like that because some theist can use it and make atheism harder to sell, (again, like any rational person could buy into that one).
"they are all delusional", I have no idea how a person can buy into that one. But hey, they buy into a 6day earth, don't they?
No it is not a fact for everyone because people have different criteria for how and when they use the word fact, and what they claim is or is not a fact.
People can, and will, argue about whether a particular event is or is not a fact. But if X is a fact, then is a fact for everyone, even if some people insist that it is not a fact. If it is a fact that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, then assertions to the contrary are simply false. Believing that water is made of little rubber duckies does not make it true that water is made a little rubber duckies.
Of course subjective preferences become a bit more tricky. If it is a fact that I like ice cream, then the fact "gaylen likes ice cream" is true for everyone. Some people might not know that I like ice cream. Some people might not believe that I like ice cream, even after I tell them so. But if it is a fact that I like ice cream, then it is a fact that I like ice cream - whether anyone else believes it or knows it or not.
If I am mistaken about the meaning of the term 'ice cream', then I could be wrong in believing that I like ice cream. In that case it is simply not a fact that I like ice cream, even though I believe I like ice cream. For example, it might actually be Sherbert that I like, but I mistakenly believe that sherbet is called ice cream. I can't be wrong about the fact that I like "this stuff" (subjective idexical) that I put in my mouth right now, but I can be wrong if I mistakenly judge "this stuff" to be ice cream when in fact it is Sherbert. I can't be wrong about the fact that I am experiencing pain or pleasure, but I can be wrong in my interpretation of the nature of that which is causing my pain or pleasure.
If a particular conception of God happens to be True, then the fact that God exists is a fact for everyone, whether they believe in God, or not. But 'God' is such a weird and wildly variable term that an interesting question arises: could my belief in God make it true for me that God actually exists (subjectively for me), even though this same God does not exist objectively - or subjectively for other people? Typically in a case like this we would say that someone is experiencing something imaginary. But what if my belief in this "imaginary" being sometimes facilitates emotional or physical healing? (i.e. physical manifestations that would not have occurred without the subjective experience of belief). What if it facilitates the answering of prayers? What if these physical manifestations do not violate any laws of physics, but are nontheless not purely deterministic (i.e., they are consistent with something like quantum uncertainty?)
People can, and will, argue about whether a particular event is or is not a fact. But if X is a fact, then is a fact for everyone, even if some people insist that it is not a fact. If it is a fact that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, then assertions to the contrary are simply false. Believing that water is made of little rubber duckies does not make it true that water is made a little rubber duckies.
Of course subjective preferences become a bit more tricky. If it is a fact that I like ice cream, then the fact "gaylen likes ice cream" is true for everyone. Some people might not know that I like ice cream. Some people might not believe that I like ice cream, even after I tell them so. But if it is a fact that I like ice cream, then it is a fact that I like ice cream - whether anyone else believes it or knows it or not.
If I am mistaken about the meaning of the term 'ice cream', then I could be wrong in believing that I like ice cream. In that case it is simply not a fact that I like ice cream, even though I believe I like ice cream. For example, it might actually be Sherbert that I like, but I mistakenly believe that sherbet is called ice cream. I can't be wrong about the fact that I like "this stuff" (subjective idexical) that I put in my mouth right now, but I can be wrong if I mistakenly judge "this stuff" to be ice cream when in fact it is Sherbert. I can't be wrong about the fact that I am experiencing pain or pleasure, but I can be wrong in my interpretation of the nature of that which is causing my pain or pleasure.
If a particular conception of God happens to be True, then the fact that God exists is a fact for everyone, whether they believe in God, or not. But 'God' is such a weird and wildly variable term that an interesting question arises: could my belief in God make it true for me that God actually exists (subjectively for me), even though this same God does not exist objectively - or subjectively for other people? Typically in a case like this we would say that someone is experiencing something imaginary. But what if my belief in this "imaginary" being sometimes facilitates emotional or physical healing? (i.e. physical manifestations that would not have occurred without the subjective experience of belief). What if it facilitates the answering of prayers? What if these physical manifestations do not violate any laws of physics, but are nontheless not purely deterministic (i.e., they are consistent with something like quantum uncertainty?)
Just some musings and speculations.
it is a fact that MPD claims he had an event.
it is a fact that it is an unsubstantiated claim.
it is a fact that his claim to have had an event is not verifiable, and is not repeatable using the scientific method.
It is a fact his claim can not be proven in a court of law.
it is a fact that on this forum people use the word "fact" in different ways to mean different things.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 10-28-2018 at 11:04 PM..
(1) it is a fact that MPD claims he had an event.
(2) it is a fact that it is an unsubstantiated claim.
(3) it is a fact that his claim to have had an event is not verifiable, and is not repeatable using the scientific method.
(4) It is a fact his claim can not be proven in a court of law.
Mostly true, but be careful: For #3, the fact that he claimed to have an event is verifiable. We can simply ask him: "Did you make that claim?" We can also look back through posts and find various places where he made the claim. I suspect you meant to say that his interpretation of the experience cannot be verified as being a correct interpretation. The claim "it was Jesus" cannot currently be verified although if it was, in fact, Jesus then, potentially, someday Jesus himself could verify M's claim for us. As for "not repeatable..." I assume you mean that the event is not repeatable. This is a bit complicated. Technically, no particular event is ever repeatable, since each and every particular event is a unique instance. But, as a type of event, it presumably might be repeatable. M might have the exact same type of event again. He might have the event while hooked up to brain-scanning technology so that we can study the neural properties of his experience. But, unless something inexplicably magical happens, we can't verify that his interpretation of the event is correct. We can't verify that it is, in fact, Jesus he is encountering (unless it is, in fact, Jesus, and the Savior is in a mood to step up and verify M's interpretation for us).
The basic idea is that we have to keep in mind a distinction between the ontological aspects of experience (what is, what exists, what properties it has, what is the nature of it) on the one hand, and the epistemological aspects (what we can know, how we can know it) on the other hand.
Quote:
it is a fact that on this forum people use the word "fact" in different ways to mean different things.
Perhaps your are right about this, but it would be helpful if you could give us a couple of specific examples of different people (preferable other than yourself) who are using the word 'fact' in incompatible ways. Thus we could assess whether or not people really are using the word 'fact' in incompatible ways, or whether you are simply misinterpreting them. (Again, keeping in mind that people often very obviously disagree about what is or is not a fact. But, in the process of disagreeing, they can still be using the word 'fact' consistently.)
i will leave it to others to comment on this, including how "religion and spirituality" beliefs different from your own "deserve" to be denigrated.
Trans he listens to you, have at it, give it a go.
Not me, I'm still trying to get Mystic's trouser -buttons out of my toecaps.
I think it's one of the modern myths that magic is primitive superstition. It's human nature to want to feel superior, and modern humans want to feel superior to those that came before us.
Anthropologists who studied primitive tribes found that there was nothing primitive about them, except their technology. Whether or not their religions were mere superstition is a matter of opinion.
In my opinion, since magic has been practiced in all cultures at all times, there is very likely something real about it. Unfortunately, modern science has so much contempt for what they call magic, most scientists won't study it.
There have been a few studies done on some of the magical claims - Dowsing, Astrology, spirit-jewellery, Homeopathy, Prayer and the like, and the results do nothing to persuade scientists that there is anything there to study, other than the areas of the brain that are activated when people believe these claims.
No doubt the same lobes that lit up when the Martian pareidolia (1) - face had the believers in Martian Atlanteans demanding that NASA spend time and money investigating this supposed Martian-Aztec sculpture and disinclination to do so produced howls of 'What are they refusing to admit? What are they hiding?" When they did, the results were dismissed as Fakes as stridently as our Pal Littlewitness dismissed any photos or films of the plainly curved earth.
(1) (My Mars-face) Another word i can't spell. ...nope - another word that spellcheck has never heard of.
There have been a few studies done on some of the magical claims - Dowsing, Astrology, spirit-jewellery, Homeopathy, Prayer and the like, and the results do nothing to persuade scientists that there is anything there to study, other than the areas of the brain that are activated when people believe these claims.
No doubt the same lobes that lit up when the Martian pareidolia (1) - face had the believers in Martian Atlanteans demanding that NASA spend time and money investigating this supposed Martian-Aztec sculpture and disinclination to do so produced howls of 'What are they refusing to admit? What are they hiding?" When they did, the results were dismissed as Fakes as stridently as our Pal Littlewitness dismissed any photos or films of the plainly curved earth.
....and bringing it a bit closer to home (closer, at least, than another planet!).... the same lobes (brain regions) that light up when experiencing the placebo effect.
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.
Not me, I'm still trying to get Mystic's trouser -buttons out of my toecaps.
(My Mars-face) Another word i can't spell. ...nope - another word that spellcheck has never heard of. 