QUOTE (Vore @ Oct 4 2004, 08:10 PM)
Passingover....you are quite correct...I am most critical of things I would most like to believe in...because I do not allow myself to beLIEve things without being deeply skeptical first. I am open minded to the possibility of truth but very deeply wary of accepting beliefs simply because they 'feel right'.
Being skeptical to mean means largely looking at the other side of possibilities and explanatons besides those of the given belief and then exploring them as fully as [reasonably] possible. Just feeling right isn't really the sum total of evidence for accepting a belief that many people have, at least for themselves. Honestly I doubt there are many people who have came to accept things just because it feels right in and of its own with nothing else behind it.
QUOTE
Reincarnation is a good example...I used to insist to myself that it must be true because I can recall lives that are not my own at the drop of a (top)hat but then I took on the great strain to the imagination that is history and noticed that what I had previously done with unamed men and women from past eras was exactly what historians are doing everyday....fleshing out the diseased with character and emotion. We are all historians in this way because we all ground ourselves in national/cultural/global identities that are routed in the past.
I am very iffy with reincarnation. I accept the idea, but I find it hard to distinguish from other things that I have sometimes and so I am not in any rush to attribute things to that. With many things I don't beleive I will be able to determine (as in distinguish between) the truth of that until the end of my life here or perhaps close to it. I can easily see how there could be much truth in it, and I do consider it a possibility very worthy of exploration. For example, I've seen a certain person in many different form and times in different ways. It is strange, and much of it was before I believed in this sort of thing. But seeing them alone in this way is not the only thing that makes it out of the ordinary. It is more how everything ties together that does it, to me.
QUOTE
I am most highly skeptical of my own beLIEfs, I gave the example of my desires leading to things occuring as an example of something that I observe all the time and think of as 'truth' but at the same time goes against everything I can rationaly think of as true because of lack of proof.
To me, the usefullness of the "proof insistence" and the skepticism is more of a grounding effect. It helps to keep what can become very dynamic quickly, more stable. The problem with rational thought seems to be more with the people who use it that lack creativity. They will dismiss something with one explanation for example, not seeing another explanation that exists which they did not think of or experience. And worse, they will hold that something is true based on an experiment, with the one explanation, yet overlook the hundreds of other things they had no ability to think of - many of which are right under their own noses and are accepted by science already.
QUOTE
I can state many times that I have succeeded in conjouring rainstorms or subjecting people to my will...but my account alone is not trustworthy because I know it is likely that I would forget the failures and remember the positives....If a man hits three hole in ones on a golf course at the same time it is thought a miracle and he feels powerful and all hear about this and think it of some great significance...what we don't hear about are the tens of thousands of good golfers who never get a hole in one...not so interesting.
Yes, as I have said before here, when you are more skeptical (the heavy skeptical type) I almost think that you have to go through an interactive process in order to ever beleive. That is, someone actively has to be doing things which will cause you to see things. I used to be like that myself and always had interests in the "paranormal" even back then. But I really didn't beleive truly in them at that time other than having the little "feeling". You might be surprised to learn that for a lot of people who do believe in these things *strongly* it ended up being an interactive process for them too.
QUOTE
If people want to use religious doctrine as proof...please write all passages in their original language with a signed statement from their originators that 'this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth' ....hmmm that's a funny image...God swearing on the Bible in court....quite a paradox if you think about it.
I know you are joking here, but it does show something besides the underlying issue of translations, origin of the bible, etc. Often people do things like this with "paranormal" things. The "If you want to show proof of this, do this". Then they go on to detail things that are kind of ridiculous and show that they really do not know much about what they are talking about. And really how could they conventionally if they have no experience? How can they claim authority? The problem then often if you truly wish to go on with the onslaught is getting them to truly listen to you, let alone to work together. Imagine what would happen for instance if someone really did do what you asked and brought it to you. What would you do? Would you accept it or just say "no way".