Welcome to Gaia! ::

I generally get labeled agnostic due to the fact that I don't accept just one way of thinking about god. All religions have at least one point where their god has spoken to someone to guide or influence their actions. To say any of those religions are wrong would basically be calling someone a liar based on no real evidence.



I have a friend who is an appathetic agnostic, he doesn't know AND he doesn't care biggrin

The whole concept of 'burden of proof' however (and the more limited definition of proof that empiricism uses) is a relatively recent devleopment in human history. Why should others have to conform to this relatively new way of seeing things? Why should we use things such as 'burden of proof' and why is the only evidence of merit that which can be quantified scientifically?

I'm not asking for answers to these questions here, Axeman. I'm more posing them as things for y'all to think about in response. whee

There are places for formal debate and the use of the traditional rules of logic and empiricism. There are also places where these things don't make as much sense to use. Experiences which are in some way ineffable aren't served well by logic nor empiricism. The arts is a great example of that. You just can't analyze art, aesthetic experience in a scientific way and expect to capture what art really is and what it does. Sure, you can measure physiological responses to looking at a painting and construct some logical argument explaining why art does what it does but there is something in art which just cannot be expressed in word or measured by instruments. It is only experienced. It is only felt.

To religious individuals, feelings of the divine operate in much the same way. Something about it is ineffable, and it is something experienced rather than something tested or proven with logic. If you haven't had these expereinces or dismiss the ones you do have as cooincidence, it's only natural that a person would conclude that this stuff is a bunch of hooey. Much like a person who doesn't feel anything when looking at a work of art will probably either call it bad art or ask 'what's the point' or 'this is a waste of my time.' Not everybody really likes art, not everybody really likes religion. People are different; far as I'm concerned that's that.

It's when someone demeans someone else for liking a particular work of art or a religion that I get a bit shifty. whee

Tradition is indeed a powerful thing, Kraggus. We all like the sort of continuity and connection that comes from tradition; not all of us though feel the need to be attached with any particular religious tradition. There has been a growing movement of self-identified 'spiritual but not religious' individuals in America, indicating a move towards self-styled religion rather than following a tradition. Tradition of course exists in things other than religion. It happens in science too. A well-liked theory takes a bit more time to break down than a hypothesis proposed only a few years ago.

I think I had this as my signature once a little while ago. Anything repeated often enough (be it truth or lie) becomes over time, to its speaker and listener, a truth. Yay human nature!