Religion is a dirty word. XP

[Daxx]

The burden of proof is on those attempting to prove something. I don't have to prove I'm right, and I don't even have to defend the potential for my beliefs to be true because a disproof is impossible at this time, at the very least.

You're making claims about the world which you cannot substantiate. I guess you could say that the claims you made were only intended to be claimed as true from your perspective, and that you weren't trying to make claims about objective truth, but that calls into question why you openly made those claims in the first place without clarifying that. It also doesn't tally with your urging for other people to seek out "spiritual" experiences.

Further, if your argument is that you can reasonably maintain your beliefs despite the fact that they cannot be substantiated, why in your first post do you say "I can't believe in a Lord who's presence and effect cannot be felt." and reject any concept that cannot be founded on experiences? This is inherently self-contradictory.

Empiricism, with a touch of the "more rational" philosophical mindset for flavor. This is philosophical musing to the core, deal with it. If you don't buy it, go google "Define: empiricism"

I think you may have misread something somewhere, as that doesn't make follow on from what I wrote. Perhaps there is some implicit context that you're not making explicit.

[Sir Rebrl]

Maybe, I made those claims because I stated them as my beliefs, and as I said earlier, my beliefs were not the point of this topic. You may have interpreted what I said as urging, but I was merely making a point of how easy it can be.

I don't have to make you believe. I don't have to substantiate my beliefs for you. Please, I'll make this point one more time, [/i]my beliefs are based on personal experience[/i]. As far as I am personally concerned, they are substantiated.


I think I did misread your post a little, my point was this:
The common thread between the Google-given definitions of empiricism is that it's a doctrine of philosophy that says knowledge is derived from experience. My beliefs are derived from personal experience, compared against what I know about the physical world. Seems to fit to me.

[Chemist]

@Chemist -
I have my personal, subjective evidence for my own belief system, and I'm not trying to push any of my particular beliefs on any of you. I say adopt them if you want you, don't if you don't.

  Fair enough, especially since this is the religion section. I just want to add here that in my opinion "subjective evidence" is an oxymoron. If it isn't objective then it's not to be called evidence, even if some people treat it as such.

*shrugs* If I did change upon learning with certainty of a lack of free will, it wouldn't be my fault. XD
Till then, I'll stubbornly refuse to believe in an absence of free will.

  Just consider this:

Option A: there is free will.
Option B: there is no free will.

  If you assume B is true when in reality A is then any change is still due to your choice. That means that considering B as a real possibility can't lead you to change unless a) you decide to change or b) B is true.

[Sir Rebrl]

To be more clear, I mean subjective evidence as in it's evidence to me, words out of my mouth to you.

I've considered the idea of a lack of free will. When I was in middle school I spent hours contemplating under the assumption it were true. But that got boring, so I don't plan on bothering with it again, and I'm certainly never going to assume it's true for anything beyond contemplation.

Considering a lack of free will to be possible is one thing. It could be true, technically. But as long as the possibility of free will exists there's no point in giving in to the possibility of a lack thereof. It's a powerless theory unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, which I don't see ever happening.

[Daxx]

Maybe, I made those claims because I stated them as my beliefs, and as I said earlier, my beliefs were not the point of this topic.

Regardless of whether you'd prefer to talk about something else, by placing your beliefs in the open - especially when they are presented as an alternative to a belief system you are railing against - you are inviting scrutiny. Dodging questions by saying that you would prefer to discuss a topic that (I think) most people here seem to agree on seems a bit weak.

The common thread between the Google-given definitions of empiricism is that it's a doctrine of philosophy that says knowledge is derived from experience. My beliefs are derived from personal experience, compared against what I know about the physical world. Seems to fit to me.

Ah, but what do you do when there are multiple explanations for the same experience? I'm not actually suggesting that you are lying about what you felt/saw/experienced; I'm simply proposing that rather than inventing a supernatural origin for whatever you felt, it can be explained by known properties of the brain.

[Sir Rebrl]

Okay, more clarification. Not used to needing to clarify things so completely in a debate, hence the lack of it thus far.

I made my beliefs known casually because they weren't the point of the topic. If I had intended for them to be the main focus I would have explained everything much more in depth and much more clearly. Better?

I don't personally feel I invented anything. As I said, my experiences were powerful, moving, and clear. The closest term I can think of on the spot is divine inspiration. Keep in mind I said that term is close, not 100% accurate. I have experiences spontaneous, distinct, well defined thoughts that did not feel like my own, or sound like my own in my mind, but they did feel true.

Part of my belief system is that the energy of the universe will give you nudges now and then, urges, intuitions, and having faith in those nudges heightens your awareness of them so they feel stronger and you notice more.

Sure, those nudges may rise out of my subconscious, part of my brain clicking along and putting things together and keeping track of things without my conscious awareness, but it doesn't feel like that. Feels more like my subconscious picking up nudges from the universe and feeding them to my conscious. So I go with it on faith. Why?

Well, probably because I feel better about the world when I have faith in the universe than I did when I was atheist. I take comfort in it in times of stress and weakness. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. It doesn't affect my judgment. It doesn't incite fear of burning in Hell. It grants me hope and strength and it's fun to think about. Most importantly, it's not empty and foundation-less, so I'll never be crushed by anyone destroying my beliefs, because it's just not possible when they're flexible and built on experience.


Now, which question did I dodge? Cause I'm pretty sure I either just didn't answer clearly enough or missed it completely. I don't dodge questions.


Edit: Oh, and if you're wondering when I might explain my beliefs clearly and completely enough for any scrutiny to be considered remotely valid by me, it'll be a while. They are rather complex and I actually just started writing a series of discourses on them. Slow going, to be honest, translating the feelings into well-spoken words.

[Daxx]

So I go with it on faith. Why?

Well, probably because I feel better about the world when I have faith in the universe than I did when I was atheist. I take comfort in it in times of stress and weakness. Is that a bad thing?

I don't mean to detract from your psychological support structure, but if you're actually seeking objective truth, yes. Largely because "faith" is used to justify all sorts of objectively insane beliefs, since it obviates any attempt at critical inquiry; but also because it's a logical fallacy to believe in something simply because it makes you feel better.

Now, which question did I dodge? Cause I'm pretty sure I either just didn't answer clearly enough or missed it completely. I don't dodge questions.

This stuff's easy to miss in a lengthy converstation, so I'll copy and paste the one I asked for reference.

"Further, if your argument is that you can reasonably maintain your beliefs despite the fact that they cannot be substantiated, why in your first post do you say "I can't believe in a Lord who's presence and effect cannot be felt." and reject any concept that cannot be founded on experiences? This is inherently self-contradictory."

[Sir Rebrl]

As far as beyond the physical goes, subjective truth is wonderful by me. *shrugs* I'll go for objective when it actually matters. Also, it's not simply because it makes me feel better. That's just one reason along with the experiences.

To that I did reply that my beliefs are substantiated to me, subjectively and personally. I don't have to maintain my beliefs strongly enough to convert anybody. I have my experiences and the memory of them alone maintains my beliefs under scrutiny. If I had felt the Lord when I was atheist, had felt his presence the way I have felt the basis for my current belief system, then I'd be Christian right now.

[Daxx]

TIL some things related to this conversation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

It seems psychologists and neuroscientists have been working on this for a while.

[Sir Rebrl]

(Kinda surprised to see another post in this thread.)

I've been aware of mirror neurons since AP Psych, and everything wiki talks about in the emotional contagion article, though I hadn't heard the term.

While both of those may have, and probably did, play some part in my experiences, there are still details unexplained by science.