Using your definition, all people who hear voices are in fact, experiencing something that actually exists. Society calls them crazy. Where’s the difference?
Perhaps there isn’t one. If popular belief were considered a basis to establish fact we’d all be Christians in the US. I’m glad we’re not. They are experiencing something that actually exists. The trick is determining what it is.
If someone believes he hears the voice of God {Gandhi did btw, and not too many considered him crazy}} that individual must decide what that means to them. Was it really God or just some trick of the mind? To I explore it, act on it, or ignore it?
If that person shares the experience with others they in turn must decide if it is valuable to them.
You are free to decide someone is a loon for declaring they heard the voice of God. That doesn’t make either person right or wrong. It’s just a subjective judgement we have to make as people.
Do you now recognize valid and evidence as being subjective in part?
Perhaps there isn’t one. They are experiencing something that actually exists. The trick is determining what it is. If popular belief were considered a basis to establish fact we’d all be Christians in the US. I’m glad we’re not.
If someone believes he hears the voice of God {Gandhi did btw, and not too many considered him crazy}} that individual must decide what that means to them. Was it really God or just some trick of the mind? To I explore it, act on it, or ignore it?
If that person shares the experience with others they in turn must decide if it is valuable to them.
You are free to decide someone is a loon for declaring they heard the voice of God. That doesn’t make either person right or wrong. It’s just a subjective judgement we have to make as people.
Do you now recognize valid and evidence as being subjective in part?
Sorry about the double post. I decided to rephrase and thought I had stopped the first one.
Mods, please remove the first of the duplicate posts.
I agree. This child might well come up with the golden rule by himself, since I think ethical behavior is wired into us. He would no doubt wonder where he came from. His answers would depend on his environment. I could imagine a child on a desert island thinking a seagull brought him. What he wouldn’t do is to come up with the same picture of god as anyone else. If there was a god who spoke to him, he would.
Sorry. By development I meant the development of a child’s view of the world. The first default only applies to a child who has not gotten input about these matters, which is interesting but not as useful as the second default.
I don’t classify hallucinations as “something.” I believe there is something askew in the brain of someone who hears voices…whether those are the “bad” demon voices or the “good” goddy ones.
And subjective experience that is based in fact counts. Subjective “evidence” cannot be validated if it is not based in reality.
I don’t classify hallucinations as “something.” I believe there is something askew in the brain of someone who hears voices…whether those are the “bad” demon voices or the “good” goddy ones.
And subjective experience that is based in fact counts. Subjective “evidence” cannot be validated if it is not based in reality.
The point being is that there’s no way you to know that the voice someone hears is an hallucination.
Nice try but no. We all have subjective experiences and evaluate them. That** is** reality. Not all our experiences and judgement calls are about objective reality but they are indeed real, valid, and evidence that we all use.
We know hallucinations exist; we don’t know that about gods and devils. Therefore, it’s simply more sensible to assume that it’s a hallucination.
If you are suddenly hit by something you can’t see, and have a bloody wound, what are you going to think :
1 : “I’ve been shot with a gun !”
2 : “I’ve been hit with a telekinetic force bolt !”
We know guns exist; we know no such thing about telekinesis; therefore #1 is the sensible assumption.
Once again* you use an objective example that doesn’t apply.
Since you’re back in the thread how about answering the question I asked you at the end of post #148
That’s right. The point being that for some reason, a double standard is applied when people say it was a religious experience. Crazy if it’s the devil. Touched by god if it’s not all scary and mean. Ridiculous.
Nice try but no. We all have subjective experiences and evaluate them. That** is** reality. Not all our experiences and judgement calls are about objective reality but they are indeed real, valid, and evidence that we all use.
[/QUOTE]
Nope. It isn’t evidence if it’s subjective. The words cannot be used together in any meaningful way when referring to hocus and/or pocus. Just because you want it to be evidence doesn’t mean it is evidence. It’s a nice thought, but that’s all it is.
Which is only your opinion and you’ve offered nothing else. That’s no more worthwhile than the person who claims to have heard the voice of God.
Again, all you’ve offered is a dictionary definition which doesn’t support your exclusive interpretation. When arguments challenged your conclusion you offered nothing else.
You’re making up definitions that fit your own particular belief system and denying what doesn’t support it. Does that sound familiar?
Just to clarify my own position. I think subjective experiences are valid for me to decide what I believe and that is all. I know I can’t declare my subjective experiences to be evidence for anyone else.
Gandhi never tried to convince anyone to believe that he had heard the voice of God. He only declared that was his interpretation of a certain experience and would remain so.
Look…the definition is right there. If god only exists in your mind (and it DOES only exist there…there is no proof that it exists anywhere else) it isn’t evidence. I’m not making it up…you’re the one who is trying to justify believing in something based on…nothing. You can claim anything you want, and believe anything you want. I’m glad you’re not looking for affirmation of that belief from anyone else, because based on how human beings determine what is real and what isn’t, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Valid to you doesn’t count because your standards offer no evidence.
The definitions you offered do **not ** support your exclusive conclusions as Tom pointed out.
Subjective experience is not nothing. Everyone, including you, bases their beliefs on their subjective experience in part, and what they can share with others objectively.
You are just regurgitating your own beliefs without offering anything to support it other than your own assertion. That’s exactly what you claim is ridiculous about believers.
Since you either can’t grasp or don’t grasp the point I’m making and the conversation is now going in useless circles let’s drop it.
We’re talking about definitions; not beliefs. I’m using the definition of subjective as it is used by the majority of the world (though evidently not by you OR Tomndebb). Whether or not god exists is up for debate. The fact that something that is subjective cannot be validated is not. If the fact that no one can see it but you is enough for you, or if this kind of thing doesn’t make you question your mental faculties, fine. But if you’re the only one who can see it, surely you can understand why most people would consider the experience to be more than likely a hallucination drummed up by your enthusiasm.
Now you’re speaking for the majority of the world?? What an honor. Oh wait. The majority of the world believes in God and you think they’re ridiculous.
I can certainly understand skepticism and even encourage it. That is not the same as being summarily dismissed as rubbish. IMO what you are saying is that since belief in God seems foolish for you it must also be foolish for everyone else.
It’s not.
The subjective cannot be validated by others or for others but that doesn’t mean it is* not * valid in any way. It is valid for the person having the experience. It is a valid reason to form a belief until more objective and subjective evidence comes along.
I recognize that much of organized religion is built on a tradition that denies the available objective evidence. I’m speaking of something more personal and subtle.
Even the most die-hard believers don’t usually claim to have received communications direct from god. Most are content with hoping they’re right (and yes…I do think they’re ridiculous, but it’s a different level of ridiculous).