Quote from stu:
The believer is eating some chocolate pudding and although it tastes bad insists to the person who has never tasted it before that it is really very good.
The non believer can see the pudding eater indeed, he tried to eat the pudding in the past and hears the pudding eater insist that....
"Pudding allows you the freedom of choice to eat it or not." but finds non existent puddings remain to be an Illusory perception and offer little choice by themselves.
"The proof of the pudding is in the experience, which comes via the process of eating it." Unfortunately for some iIllusory Puddings offer illusory sustenance.
"Since Jello has made many types of pudding, Jello eaters are free to chose whatever they like." Which shall it be Jello or Pudding.? Different types of illusory sweets offer little in the long run by way of nourishment.
Those who presume to question whether God and religion is all some make it up to be, cause the religious believer to become very defensive very quickly. Statements of faith in most anything else lead to open discussion and generally speaking, discussion intended to reach some kind of consensus. Examining the weaknesses in a proposition may lead to a strengthening or open other avenues for progress------But not statements of religious faith. They cannot be examined. It's all or nothing, no questions to be asked. Just the blind acceptance of someone else's protestations. One reason alone which makes these statements less true, as truth is there to be examined.
Why do believers get so paranoid? I have some opinions on this.......
I simply asked , right from the beginning if this was opinion or provable fact. One event of 'In my opinion' would have set the tone, but the religious always assume the dogmatic statement must prevail.
Obviously an opinion is just a point of view, a definitive statement is put forward as a fact not a point of view.
Getting your knickers in a twist about someone asking if this stuff you are stating is just opinion or fact , suggests you should perhaps question if your obvious requirement for unsubstantive reasoning may be restricting your progress in the understanding of a simple question, let alone your need to make remarks of criticism against the questioner for simply asking it.
My terms were not. those of proof of your beliefs, indeed I have no terms laid out . I had a simple proposition that the statements you make as definitive cannot be so. You only had to say once that they were your opinion. I said in my previous post I now had the confirmation. That was that. End of query. But no....Instead you continue to protest. A sure sign of weak faith?
You do not know what my terms of proof are for anything, you have never asked.
The truth is (and a big problem for the religious)....... doing the lab work requires you to be objective.
I make no protest, I merely repeat my personal experiences, and submit that anyone can verify whether or not those experiences are able to be proven. They can be proven by anyone who is willing to do the labwork.
No one is able to verify a scientific theory on theory alone, labwork, or objective proof is required to satisfy the scientific creed.
So what is unscientific about the practice and application of faith? For you it is theory only, for me it is science. For those who whish to move beyond theory, practice is available to anyone.
You definitively define what you believe is a definitive statement, as if it were a fact, and it may be a fact to you, but that certainly doesn't make it a fact for others.
When a scientist is unable to quantify and objectify something, for him it becomes subjective.
The key point is that it become "subjective in his mind only" not universally. History has shown what scientists once thought to be subjective experience became objective as science was able to penetrate deeper into the layers of subtle material existence.
The reality is all that you can truly say:
"Based on the objective knowledge I possess at this time, and the means available to me to gather further information, I can neither objectively verify or deny the truth of that man's personal experience, nor conclude necessarily that his experience would be valid for me, without having the personal experience myself."
The statements I made are absolutely objectively definitive from my perspective, and subjective definitive from your point of view----your opinion based on the criteria you set forth and your point of view. You are setting forth the criteria, not I.
What you see as opinion, I see as a personal fact.....as my point of view is a fact for me, as much of a fact as knowing whether or not at any given time one is lucid, dreaming, hallucinatory, or in a heightened enlightened state of mind.
That you have a need to clarify and define a personal experience as either opinion, fact, or folly from your perspective with such continued vigor is simply an obsession.....that is a fact for me.
Of course anyone can verify for themselves whether or not my statements are fact for themselves.
They may simply do the labwork for themselves.
