Question about tikis and belief

[CranBeree]

Re: Question about Tiki's and belief....

Funny thing is, I think you two agree on this point for completely opposite reasons.

would you elaborate on that?

[Bard]

Re: Question about tikis and belief

If you're suggesting that disbelief in the spirit world amounts to a belief then I respectfully disagree.

I guess it depends on how much you stick to Occam's Razor.

That wasn't what I was commenting on actually though, the thing I meant was a belief is that a person having experiences described as "spiritual" is delusional (or metaphorical). If you really want to get down to it, your brain's just a computer with some inputs and outputs... it's theoretically possible to completely falsify those inputs and make you believe you're experiencing things you're not experiencing (ala The Matrix); your brain could do it by itself (delusions) or it could be inputs that are not particularly well understood (say, peculiar magnetic fields having weird effects on the synapses). Either way, IMO, marking someone down for delusions for those experiences takes belief, both in the idea that we completely understand the world and that your perception of it is complete and true, and that the person in question's is wrong.

Not even saying that the lack of proof implies the opposite or something.. 'cause I'm not all that religious myself.

Who knows, maybe it's aliens?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Question about Tiki's and belief....

would you elaborate on that?

Shuah. (This is a perception I've gotten from reading postings by each of you, so there is plenty of room for inaccuracy...)

CranBeree, I get the feeling that you would accept a statement of faith (like existence of a supreme being) as exactly that - meaning that you comfortably accept this as fact, based on the evidence you feel exists, and you do not require additional "scientific" proof or explanation to do so.

I believe that Sinjin was commenting that the concept of a supreme being was something that, as an article of faith, can not even be subjected to "scientific" experimentation - thus there is no scientific way to either prove or disprove the concept, unlike that of the "big bang," something else that many accept as fact, based on the evidence that they feel exists.

Does that make sense as to what I saw as different approaches to a similar conclusion?

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Question about tikis and belief

sooner or later we'll all find out if any of the dogmas are right. There will be proof one way or the other.

What if one's belief is that there is nothing to "find out" beyond the life we presently experience? In that case, we will never learn any proof. If that belief turns out to be correct, there will be no consciousness around to perceive it to be so.