Indeed kat, we have been here before. It is awkward for me, with all my training in how to interpret and use the terms in precise ways, to answer and converse with folks who use the language and concepts in a looser, more 'personal' way.

Thus, Azizi, saying that her beliefs are "right for me" is on the one hand making a meaningful statement about the subjectivity of experience, and on the other hand violating a basic law of logic that says that two incompatible beliefs cannot both be true.

The question comes down to when and whether we should be able to use subjective interpretations and 'personal' definitions of concepts to justify our beliefs. This 'should' is not some legal term, as there is no way to take someone to court for believing or NOT believing some metaphysical principle.....except...*wry smile* when someone with a vested interest in a particular form of metaphysics gets control of the courts and writing the laws. Seems to me I remember a few examples of that throughout history.

   Which is worse..."Y" demanding that "X", at least publicly, bow to "Ys" notion of metaphysical 'truth', or "X" objecting to ANY notion of vague, unexplained metaphysical/paranormal idea? Is is insulting to explain that I consider certain ideas to be no more than wishful thinking fueled by superstition and well-designed stories and undocumented 'reports'?

It seems to me that it is irrelevant whether belief "Z" is seemingly benign or obviously dangerous and threatening....they are either correct or incorrect....either Islamic suicide bombers do go to Paridise for killing a few people on a bus, or they do not! EITHER we do come back in some way, after death, or we do not....and the implications are not irrelevant either way.

   There are a couple of principles I constantly refer to in these issues....

1)The burden of proof is on the assertor.
   Even a casual, offhand statement.."I believe that..." is an assertion, and carries an implication (even if not argued openly) that, if you thought about it properly, you would believe it too.
All *I* assert is that 'belief' should be based on better evidence than what is usually offered.

2)People cannot fairly do like Humpty-Dumpty did to Alice, and make a "word mean anything I choose, no more & no less."
When using language that has very specific technical meaning, like 'truth' and 'valid' and 'proof' and 'know', it is important not to use it in the casual way of informal discourse and suggest that it somehow satisfies and answers the 'formal' criteria and justifies something that it does not.

I know, it seems like I am at it again...*grin*..happily babbling on in my pedantic way and suggesting that my long-winded, tedious disclaimers dis-prove your cherished notions about ....well, about all that 'stuff' that various people believe.

   Nope...I cannot DIS-prove anything...that is not how it works in these discussions...maybe we DO "come back"...maybe 'spirit' is the essential, enervating force of the Universe...maybe the position of the stars DO determine our lives...maybe the lines in our palms DO explain our personalities...maybe black cats ARE bad luck...maybe the lines in the Chilean desert WERE made by aliens...maybe 'karma' does follow us thru lives and cost us points if we're bad...maybe there IS a pot of gold if you can find the end of a rainbow...maybe God DID tell Moses some things about what to do...maybe Athena DID spring full-grown from the forehead of Zeus.........maybe, damn it, it IS "turtles all the way down!" ALL of those things have been, and most ARE believed by somone!

What a list of arcane things that various humans believe! And everyone who believes in one batch seriously rejects others! Amos believes this and rejects that...katlaughing accepts this and ridicules that...*daylia* is sure of this and disputes that...Little Hawk....well, Little Hawk says it's all everything and it's all fine, except for G. Bush!....Georgiansilver and WYSIWYG and tarheel and Jerry R. and many others 'agree' on one thing, but interpret the details so VERY differently!

In some ways, I understand the historical precedents, pressures, influences and psychological tendencies that bring about different patterns of belief in this hectic life...but in other ways I can barely comprehend how anyone who looks at the whole array of contradictory and incompatible... and sometimes downright ludicrous ideas that we are presented with can pick ANY of them!

I see wonderful, marvelous, fascinating aspects of life, nature, people, ideas and possibilities to explore and wonder at....and boy, HOW I wish I could 'come back' and have more runs at understanding more of it! But, I am resigned, if not content, to just absorb what I can, in the most open, honest way I can manage while I am here. I just don't want anyone to tell me for a moment that being 'open' requires me to be 'gullible'. I will listen, but I have learned how to sort 'maybe' from 'probably', and I will call 'em like I sees 'em.


(those masochists who have read this far may now shake your heads and wonder how he gets the energy at his advanced age) ;>)