RE: Howdy
May 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm
(This post was last modified: May 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm by theVOID.)
(May 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm)Dreamer Wrote: Well, for one thing, I don't come to conclusions about the nature of reality based solely upon personal experience. Rather, if the scientific evidence is sketchy or nonexistent, then I default to personal experience. Science is the underlying basis--what can be proven. But for what is inbetween--if it is neither proven nor unproven or has conflicting evidence/interpretations--then I consider what my own experience has told me.
If you don't come to conclusions then why do you have such beliefs?
If the scientific evidence is sketchy or nonexistent the default should be non-judgement. You seem to have the position 'If you can't disprove it then I'll believe it until you can'. It should also be mentioned that there are good reasons for not making judgements on such experiences, that being the nature of personal experience is such that it produces a potentially unlimited number of contradictory conclusions.
Do you believe there is any practical benefit to believing what you do in the interim?
(May 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm)Dreamer Wrote: And my definition of God, what I believe in is roughly this: The interconnectedness of all people and things. I am God, you are God, my dogs, the monarch butterflies, etc. Not some judgmental asshole deeming people worthy of damnation or eternal bliss. Not a being or deity at all, really.
Interconnected in what way? And if you believe this then aren't you in fact making a judgement about the nature of reality?
Also, perhaps you should find a different word to use other than God?
.
