@DBP- very comical but definately illustrates my point about the senses.
@Captain Scarlet- I still believe you think I'm being dismissive of your experiences.. I would never presume to dismiss it. I think it is causing you to put up defences that aren't necssary and not listen to what's being said. If yoou have an experience you are more than welcome in my book to just ify your persoal beliefs on it all you want, even here in this court of public opinion. I'm ridiculed for my experiences and the subsequent belief stemming from them, but this is an atheist forum and expected (or even welcomed
). I wouldn't come in your house and use my personal opinion to explain my belief and then deny your experiences. What I'm apparently failing to get accross is that to experience something means some new information has to arise and to be ingested by an agent. That's analogous to a lighted room, we walk in and say wow it's bright in here, because there is a measurable value for light. To experience nothing would be analogous to walking into a room and saying, it's pitch black in here. While it's a common phrase it is wholy inaccurate because darkness is the absense of light, as nothing is the absense of any thing. It's not measrable and would be better said "man it's sure not very bright in here". If that was it, it woudn't be such an issue for me, but then you take it a step further and say this absense of experience is in fact an experience and justifiable for a proof. If we can't see eye to eye on this I'll just have to agree to disagree, but I won't rehash this point anymore unless new info is brought into it. This has nothing to do with your apeal to false authority or emotive use of characters. This has no bearing on the objectivity of anything, nor the credibility of any experience, just the actual event of an experience.
@Captain Scarlet- I still believe you think I'm being dismissive of your experiences.. I would never presume to dismiss it. I think it is causing you to put up defences that aren't necssary and not listen to what's being said. If yoou have an experience you are more than welcome in my book to just ify your persoal beliefs on it all you want, even here in this court of public opinion. I'm ridiculed for my experiences and the subsequent belief stemming from them, but this is an atheist forum and expected (or even welcomed
). I wouldn't come in your house and use my personal opinion to explain my belief and then deny your experiences. What I'm apparently failing to get accross is that to experience something means some new information has to arise and to be ingested by an agent. That's analogous to a lighted room, we walk in and say wow it's bright in here, because there is a measurable value for light. To experience nothing would be analogous to walking into a room and saying, it's pitch black in here. While it's a common phrase it is wholy inaccurate because darkness is the absense of light, as nothing is the absense of any thing. It's not measrable and would be better said "man it's sure not very bright in here". If that was it, it woudn't be such an issue for me, but then you take it a step further and say this absense of experience is in fact an experience and justifiable for a proof. If we can't see eye to eye on this I'll just have to agree to disagree, but I won't rehash this point anymore unless new info is brought into it. This has nothing to do with your apeal to false authority or emotive use of characters. This has no bearing on the objectivity of anything, nor the credibility of any experience, just the actual event of an experience.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
