--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Which can't be proved or disproved either. > > > > Let's not shift the burden of proof here. It isn't up to > > me to disprove it. The person making the claim makes their > > case and we can decide if we find their reasons compelling. > > Curtis, do you realize how much of the "TM > mindset" underlies what you are saying above?
I think it was a lack of adhering to this basic principle of science that led me into trouble with the movement mindset! > > Both you and Stu are going on and on about > the "burden of proof." Not to you in my case. That might be relevant > to New Jim, who is making some silly claims > about "proof" of reincarnation, but you are > extending it to anyone who happens to quietly > believe in reincarnation and doesn't really > give a rat's ass what you believe. That was written for Judy in a theoretical discussion. It has nothing to with your beliefs. What brought me into the conversation was New Jim, not your discussing your beliefs. I thought my last post to you made it clear that I appreciate that you have already considered all sides of this question. I am more interested in the spin off questions about how we can approach such claims. I get that none of that applies to you which is why I didn't join the discussion with Stu. > > We don't owe you "proof." We don't owe you > jack shit. I am clear on that. > > With all due respect, I refer you back to an > earlier post in which I discussed the differ- > ence that we seem to have in determining the > "threshold" at which point we get in someone's > face about their beliefs. I think that you > may be barking up the wrong threshold. We are discussing beliefs on an open forum which gives us the freedom not to get in each others face. My response to Jim was the kind of thing I wouldn't bother with in person. But here it is fun to go back and forth right? I caught that you were not interested in the topic from the angle I was, so I haven't challenged your beliefs, have I? > > Some of us aren't trying to proselytize. The > fact that you feel somehow challenged or > threatened by us believing something that > you don't does NOT confer upon us some kind > of "burden of proof." YOU'RE the ones getting > all bent out of shape because someone believes > differently than you do, and demanding "proof." I don't believe that my points constitute me getting bent out of shape. But you are welcome to this belief and I would never challenge it! > > With all respect, do that with the next person > who tries to sell you a car. Or who tries to > sell you membership in the Church of the Flying > Spaghetti Monster. But some of us haven't tried > to sell you jack shit, and so we "owe" you jack > shit when you react as if we had. Again, I think you are misapplying a principle of science to the personal level. On a personal level of course you don't owe anyone anything. But in trying to work through theories in using reason, anyone does. There may be some misapplication of these principles in a personal discussion. But Judy and I were having a discussion of principles on a theoretical level. Applying those principles to your belief was not my intention or I would have put your name on the post. > > Parts of this discussion are reminding me of > interactions with Michael, who tended to take > my lack of belief in God as some kind of "affront" > to his strong belief in God. I kept trying to > tell him that I wasn't trying to sell him any- > thing, either, but he kept insisting that I was. > > I believe what I believe, and I allow you to do > the same. "Proof" just doesn't enter into the > equation unless someone gets their buttons pushed > and demands it. And then IMO, if the other person > has anything going for them, they just laugh at > the person demanding "proof" and move on. I haven't felt my buttons being pushed except my Jim and a few others who have implied that they have special knowledge with certainty and implying that people who don't share their beliefs lack "whatever." I haven't felt that from your posts. The question of what constitutes proof of something matters a lot to me. The specific topic doesn't matter as much as the principles. I have understood from our discussions that you are more a an epistemological relativist than I am, and these questions are not as interesting to you which is why we talk about other shit. I'm living in a country whose economy may have been destroyed largely from a president whose concept of what constituted proof of imminent threat was impaired. The rest of our society, press included could have caught this problem, but collectively we didn't. We didn't run a burden of proof test on him. So it is natural with my background in philosophy to put my finger on the epistemological issues as the root cause of this problem. Reincarnation was just a convenient topic to think about these issues for me. I never meant to make it about your choices of belief personally.
