reply to post by badmedia
The evidence is when you are able to give someone else the same experience. Likewise, things are proven wrong when another person experiences
something that goes against the previous.
I do not subscribe to the belief that evidence is composed solely upon shared agreed upon personal experiences. Here is why:
Let's take a modest group of just four individuals; Two of them have subjective personal experiences that validate the existence of a deity for those
two and the other two have subjective personal experiences that invalidate the existence of a deity.
If the two who have the subjective experience for a deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that, yes, a deity exists.
If the two who have the subjective experience for no deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that no deity exists.
Yet put all four together and no amount of previous comparisons will ever lead to a conclusive truth or fundamental aspect of reality. The experience
of the entire group becomes contradictory and invalid as both can't logically be correct.
At which point *should* a subjectively experienced aspect become accepted as inherently true? When it agrees with your statements, mine or shared
amongst all six billion inhabitants of this planet or all life on this planet or all objects in existence?
If the wind never blew you would have no clue it existed. Because it's never been experienced by anyone. If 1 day a person experiences wind,
but then it stopped, nobody else could experience it. If that man said wind exists. You would say "prove it". By how could he ever prove to you it
existed if you were unable to experience yourself?
You would have to put your trust into something you considered an authority to believe it existed. And the most it could ever be to you is a belief.
Until you actually experienced the wind for yourself, it would only ever be a belief to you - if you think it exists or not, you could only ever have
a belief about it.
That is such an infantile analogy, it 'blows' ... I doubt you would see the obvious point I'm making here.
And that is what you ask me to do now. You are asking me to either show you how to experience it yourself, or you are asking for a source you
would consider to be an authority that you can "Believe".
As with the given example above, there is a distinct viable reason to *not* trust personal experiences, including your or mine as accurate measures of
reality. You demand that I just blatantly believe your personal experience through blind belief. That isn't acquiring truth, that's acquiring
faith.
Only you deny that experiencing something means anything, due to your bullheaded responses when I tried to show you how to go about having such
an experience, combined with tons of insults and the cop out of "prove it" while not willing to take a single step outside to "feel the
wind".
Now your either blatantly lying or my memory is very faulty today. Can you please quote one instance of where you gave me a viable mechanism for
experiencing the statements you claim as absolute facts in regards to a disembodied mind that exists of it's own accord without being inherently a
byproduct of the brain?
So ya know, I really don't care what you think I have or have not done for you. As I said before, I might as well try to prove the color blue
to a blind man.
This is a cop-out tactic *not surprising*. You have deemed it perfectly acceptable to place any claim you wish and call others blind if they don't
accept your claims at face value. Your a pompous buffoon pretending to have the truth, a prophet if futility. I have no respect for such people as
they are the worst of all people. Please stop pretending you have stumbled upon some profound truth of reality, you sound unintelligent when you do so
and fail to prove this profound truth you state as an absolute fact.
Just goes to show how one mustn't stay wedded to ones impressions. But I do
digress. 
