Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?

[Mudhammam]

I was thinking about religious indoctrination and why it's so difficult to shift and I realised it's because it's a coherent context like I was talking about before. A context is just a web of interrelated ideas/features. So a work of fiction is a coherent context in the sense that it has a lot of interrelated details that revolve around one or more central ideas. It is consistent within its own little world and that's all it needs to be to sustain itself. It doesn't have to be realistic it just has to fit together as it were because all they are are neurons providing input to other neurons and feedback loops/pockets of self-referential support. I was just thinking about it because I have a lot of religious indoctrination that still causes doubts sometimes and it doesn't have the right to do that because all that 'knowledge' about God... all that quantity over quality interconnected detail... did not come through evidence or with my informed consent; it was indoctrinated. It's just so frustrating that it is even given the time of day by my mind as potentially true, due only to the size of the context making it experience-able as 'real' in the same way a dream, book, or hypnosis is.. Islam for instance, is something I know absolutely nothing about... I don't know any of the details of it... there is no large, coherent context for it, and so it doesn't even figure into the equation. Same with any other religion other than the one I was indoctrinated into... Christianity. I just wish I could figure out how to 'unlearn' a context that didn't have the right to be there in the first place, but it has fingers in every pie (that's almost the definition of a context) so there's no central place to attack it that would entirely remove it. How do you get rid of a web of ideas? Unfortunately I'm not sure you can

How long has it been since you began doubting in ways that you found inconsistent with remaining a believer? Because I once felt this way but the more I read and the more I became involved in the lives of those who left their ideas in print, the less emotionally and even intellectually bound did I feel to my former baggage. I'm to the point now that I have no belief and no inclination to believe in Christianity left in me, and furthermore I don't feel any worse off for it either -- just the opposite in fact. And if I were to be wrong about its being false, I don't see that it would make much of a difference; I would simply belong to the majority lot of human beings whom have existed.

---

Yes.  All experiences, and nothing provably more than that.  Absolutely.  All that goes with a discovery-- hearing people talk about it, writing numbers on a paper, looking things up on the internet, 100% of it-- it's all experience.  Inferences beyond that may be judged on their pragmatic value, but it must be understand that theories of material are really theories of experience.

While I do not necessarily disagree, does not the "pragmatic" assumption of objectivity allow that impersonal descriptions of the world may be given, and adjudged to be objectively true or false, regardless of any single individual's experience? Would you consider these to be "theories of experience," though said individual experience need not be included in the description? Or does this miss the point?

What's this "we" stuff, figment-of-my-experience?

Nay, what's this "my" stuff, figment-of-connected-experiences!