People who insist that they have been abducted by extra terrestrials say much the same. Anyone who comes to this site and insists that they have been abducted by ETs is going to receive much the same treatment as you have been. Purveyors of rubbish are going to be treated derisively. Partly in hopes of snapping them out of it, and also to be sure that casual visitors don't get the impression that this site takes such nonsense seriously.
you do realize that your opinion is based upon your perception which is based upon your experience, and that each of us have our own, right? so i wonder, what makes you think that your opinions, perceptions, and experiences are in fact more important, or more true, or valid, than anyone else's? why is that?
"What science cannot tell us, we cannot know." - Bertrand Russell Dream experiences, drug induced hallucinations, outright insanity; many humans who experience these states come to believe that some truth has been revealed to them. But "Other Ways Of Knowing" have been repeatedly discredited, and have virtually no credibility. It's been said that "Reality is that which doesn't go away when you ignore it." But alien abductions and religious experiences all pretty much fade right out when ignored. The burden of proof is on the claimant. The notion of objective reality has come under increasing attack by those whose pet ideas are rendered unlikely to impossible by it. But it has withstood their worst, and will continue to do so.
no, i didn't really know what to make of what i read in a book, and concluded that i could never believe in god based upon what was written in some book. at the time i actually read a book that gave a good synopsis of all the world's major religions, and i concluded that for the most part, they were all similar in the behavioral outcome they sought to produce. i was not about to follow it or them or him because it was written about in some book. it's just ridiculous to think that anyone would (in my opinion). the personal experience that i'm referring to is an interaction between he and i, and this interaction may have involved the use of a book or books at times, but has also involved a variety of other things, from music, movies, experiences or conversations with many people, and conversations i've had with, or impressions i've gotten from, him.
the burden of proof is on the experience. you have to have it to know of it. that is why we all know of different things, which is fine with me, and seems logical to me. do you think that everyone should have the same experience?
You've made it no secret that Jesus is your savior. That is the cult of Christianity. Had you been born in Iraq, you'd be espousing the virtues of Muhammad instead of Jesus. Cults are primarily geographic. Or, were your parents Muslims, perhaps? I segregate myself from the mass hysteria of myth mongering and cult indoctrination. From the position of the indoctrinated cult member, one has no concept, nor could even begin to conceive a world without gods... or more precisely, a world without their particular version of a god passed on by their parents.
Objective reality is the same, despite our subjective experience of it. The speed of light is the same no matter what you believe about it. Belief in the ability to levitate doesn't change the outcome when a person steps off of a cliff. No matter how sincerely a person believes they are Napoleon, they are not in fact Napoleon. A sincere belief in astrology doesn't change it from the category of nonsense.
i agree with you, and so my question is then, how can you assume that your own subjective view, is any closer to the objective truth, than anyone else's?
To move things from the mental category of possibly true (or completely false) to verified true, I require some sort of objective evidence. No religious claimant or alien abductee claimant has thus far been able to provide any. Many people allow their subjective desire to believe in certain things to cloud their judgment. I prefer the hard truth over the easy lie.
so do i, but i don't assume anything to be false because of a lack of evidence. i also don't rely on someone else's experience to form my own beliefs, and i'm not sure why you might want to do that, or why you think someone might be responsible for providing you with this evidence. the person who has formed the belief has their evidence as a result of an experience. you should acquire your own evidence to form your own beliefs. just because you don't share a belief doesn't make that belief false, it just makes it unknown to you due to a lack of experience. it seems that you're making unfounded assumptions as to the motives behind another's beliefs. are you sure that's not your subjective desires coming to light? after all, you have no evidence to support the claim.
Then you have very poor standards for evidence. Does the Loch Ness monster exist? The Chupacabra? Are humans regularly abducted by extra terrestrials? Is Scientology true? Islam? Does Thor exist? Was there really a wizard named Merlin? Is perpetual motion possible? A philosophers stone? Is there a bigfooted monster tromping around here in the forests of the pacific northwest? The number of nonsensical beliefs that humans cling to is almost endless. Having standards for evidence is the only way to sort the wheat from the chaff. Or, you could be utterly credulous, and believe in all of these things. Completely free of the tyranny of objective evidence, and the burden of proof. And completely free of any credibility on this forum.
so what you are saying, is that you believe, that unless you have knowledge of something, that it does not exist? in my opinion, that is ridiculous. what i am saying, is that unless i experience something, i do not have knowledge of it. but i am not so arrogant as to think, that because i don't have knowledge of something, that it does not exist. and what i am suggesting to you is that the experience IS the evidence, and you either have it, or you don't, and not every experience is meant for you. we are all individuals and our lives unique from one another. no one is better, or more important, or more real, or valid.
Here is a bit of science (hypothesis) to back you up Lori. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As of this time of writing ... (these excerpts from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_realism)
