Law of Noncontradiction among the various faiths?

[RandallS]

Not that I necessarily need the answer to the black-and-white question... Just how do people internally react when a black-and-white comes up, as far as the whole mutually-exclusive thing.  Nobody may have evidence necessarily, but each believes one of the answers in question is correct.

I don't see most religious claims as about facts, so I generally don't have a problem. Example: Group A says their God is the one true god and that X proves it.  Group B says that no, their God is the one true God and that Y proves it. Generally X and Y don't really prove either position except to those who wish to believe. Therefore the claims of the two groups are about beliefs not facts so there is no real contradiction in facts to worry about.

[anonymus]

Yesh, though the thought of spirits simultaneously existing and not existing or neither makes my brain hurt.... I think I need some rum.  

Why is the rum gone?

Welcome to the quantum world screwing with your brain since the beginning of time.
Now with that said lets get a bottle of Kraken and 12 pack of coke and party because tomorrow we die or not or maybe we live and die, I can't really say because I'm having a hard time observing tomorrow.
:

[Crohm]

Yesh, though the thought of spirits simultaneously existing and not existing or neither makes my brain hurt.... I think I need some rum.

Why is the rum gone?

 
I think it is much simpler than this.  Different vibrations of sound waves produce different pitches, to gloss over scientific facets to be clear.

Why can not the spirit do the same?  Our essence hums at a certain rhythm.  it is about finding parity with forces in nature that make you feel at home.  A voodun priest would feel rather uncomfortable in a pentecostal meeting.  Not out of race or social tension, it is just not what makes them feel at home.

In this, we can make definite statements.  "Mary does not work well with tarot, so she uses celtic divinatory tools.  Tom does not resonate with a ouija board so he uses runes."  These are factual statements.  They regard spiritual matters, but it is what is true for them as individuals.  It does not disregard the validity of either as I believe a similar point was made.

If we think of deities as cosmic forces, which resonsate in their own frequency.. those humans born with an albeit mortal but still a frequency of their own.. when they find parity, or to say it another way that point where the two frequencies are in harmony and you can not tell them apart only one sound, they feel like they have 'come home' and it just feels right.  This is also a factual statement.

Life.. is about finding what works for you and what makes you comfortable in your own skin.  After that.. hopefully it is not illegal or immoral.  as, dressing up in the skins of your enemies may put you in touch with a certain deity and the like.. but the modern day would not permit this for long before you were carted off.

I can respect an honest thief or one who enjoys fighting an innocent, even though I regard both as dishonorable, over a man who burns internally with turmoil and does little cuts to his soul but tries to come across as at peace.

[Allec]

What I'm talking about is this.... when two schools of thought/faith make mutually exclusive claims (i.e. "x works" and "x doesn't work" under the same conditions at the same time), what do we do mentally when this occurs?

 
A lot of people have made excellent replies already, but I just want to quickly throw in how I handle this personally. For me, the physical senses change how a person perceives the world around them. Take for instance a piece of chocolate cake. I take a bite, sense the taste with my mouth, and agree that it's frickin' delicious. I give a piece of a cake to my boyfriend, he tastes it and shudders at how disgusting chocolate tastes. I give a piece to a friend and she then needs to be rushed to the hospital, because she was allergic to the ingredients.

If cake = x, then x is delicious, x is disgusting, and x is deadly. All at once, but to separate people experiencing separate incidents.

This method of understanding conflicting viewpoints typically works when dealing with senses and emotions, and the experiences those two inputs have on a person.

It helps me to consider each person a world unto itself, and while sometimes I can overlap my world with someone else's (me and so-and-so both find X to be delicious), there will be people in their own world with their own rules.

I don't think we get anywhere if the conversation is "Spirits don't exist!" "Uh-huh! Do too!" "Do not!" However, if the conversation has George saying, "My experience leads me to believe in the existence of spirits," and Harry says, "I've seen no evidence to support that belief," then they've both made accurate statements, which aren't mutually exclusive. Harry doesn't have to interpret George's experiences the way George does; he only has to recognize that it's George's life to interpret as he chooses.

^ This is also how I would see a conversation dependent on sensory input.

Sort of. Like, if you write on the dating service that you like video games and opera, you're not likely to get paired up with someone completely incompatible.

I WOULD DATE THAT PERSON ARE YOU KIDDING ME? /flips tables