Your "right" to explore your thoughts has nothing to do with this discussion (this is a Red Herring fallacy). It is your interpretation that is in question. I have noted at least two logical fallacies you have attempted to use to bolster your belief in a God, spirit, afterlife, etc (here and elsewhere - including your debate with Anfauglir). Those are the Argument from Ignorance/Incredulity fallacy and Begging the Question fallacy (among others). Looking at nature/life and saying, "It's evidence of God!" is not evidence of God (anymore than it is evidence of invisible magic pink flying unicorns, blarks, aliens, Krishna, Zeus, or Pegasus). By your attempted definition of evidence every-thing is evidence of what you are trying to call "God" (including horrific atrocities) which makes your definition unusable for separating fact from fiction. You need specific evidence that cannot be multi-interpreted - not vague generalities. This is why we have the scientific method - to weed out bad interpretations and faulty thinking. Now, earlier you said this:
I do not concede that my arguments are irrational. They are certainly irrational to you I get that. I gave you the short list of "disinterested" study and that's all I'm willing to give. You're talking about picking through the last 25 years of my life and that's too much!!!
Let's talk about feeling. So if I feel pain is that not proof something is there, broken or infected? If I feel happiness is it real or a delusion? I feel my spirit in the same way I feel a pin prick. It is not an emotion it is a physical feeling. There is no way for you to dispute what I feel. You can not believe it and that's ok. My brain says it's rational to believe I am connected to a higher spirit. It is my right as a human to explore my own thoughts and perceive things the way the brain I've been given analyzes and processes them.
I have said here a few times I will change my mind if proven irrational.It's time to change your mind then and modify your belief (if you are honest enough to do so). Diagnosing a feeling, and then calling it "spirit" doesn't make it so (anymore than Christians claiming they feel Jesus/the Holy Spirit is a correct interpretation). Furthermore, (as you already admitted above) feelings like pain or happiness are physical properties - and those properties derive from a physical brain, and there is no good reason to think they are anything more than that. If you think they are (and you think your interpretation is the correct one) then the burden of proof is on you to 1) define the term "spirit", "God", etc in a meaningful way (i.e. - a way that has explanatory power) and 2) demonstrate it's existence (without using logically fallacious arguments). See Occam's Razor as well. Btw, have you ever had a "feeling" about something (anything) only to later realize your feeling was mistaken, misinterpreted, or based upon a false assumption? Feelings (aka emotions) are notoriously unreliable for determining reality from fiction - which is why they need to be put it check by demonstrable evidence and sound reasoning.
Yes I care if it's true but not as much as you.
The amount that I care whether or not my beliefs are true is enough to avoid logical fallacies (fallacious arguments) and confirmation bias. So, you don't care about those things then? If you do, then stop using logically fallacious arguments as you have done in the past. Instead, modify your belief to fit the evidence - not the other way around as you have been doing. More importantly, admit when you don't know things (aka - admit your ignorance) when you don't have sound reasons.
I think I should also point out you have two tiny phrases out of tens of thousands of words and say I'm irrational. You have not put my complete belief out there that you even understand what I'm saying. Until I know you understand my beliefs I do not except your opinion that it's irrational seriously.
This is yet another
logical fallacy (called The Fallacy of Division
). Strike 4. I do not need to know your "whole belief" (i.e. - all your beliefs or reasons) in order to point out the logical fallacies you keep trying to use in your arguments (the constituent parts of your beliefs) - as two fallacious arguments do not make a sound argument. Furthermore, I have NOT just taken "two tiny phrases". I have read many of your statements regarding your beliefs on WWGHAF and I have pointed out the specific logical fallacies that you continually try to use. For truths sake, take a Logic 100 course at your local community college or watch some YouTube videos on logic, b/c thus far your arguments for God, a "spirit", and the afterlife are irrational.
The second phrase in your opinion has been retracted. I already admitted it was weak so quit throwing it out there. I know I could be wrong I hope I'm right I don't see anything irrational about that. I would define irrational as thinking I knew some truth that is impossible to know. You are the irrational one.
You clearly do not know what "rational" means - as your definition doesn't come anywhere near it's actual terms. So this statement just demonstrates your ignorance on the subject. Furthermore, your saying I'm irrational doesn't make it so. You need to demonstrate it. Rationality has to do with the validity and soundness of arguments (proper reasoning in accordance with logic) and any child can learn what rationality is by taking any basic junior college course on logic or watching a few basic logic videos on YouTube (which clearly you have done neither). So this notion that you want to discuss reason, when clearly you don't even know what proper reasoning looks like, is quite ignorant of you to say. ra·tio·nal adjective
: based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings