Then why are you doing so? If you don't want to address points, then don't bring them up.
Then why are you doing so? If you don't want to address points, then don't bring them up.
Your assertion (and that of every other atheist). But there is no more proof that there isn't than that there is. I choose to believe there is.
Seriously? I thought we were talking about this.
Except that in my experience most atheists push the beliefs of others onto those with whom they are communicating in an effort to discredit the person with whom they are communicating without even first learning their beliefs. There are extremes in theism that make no rational sense. There are extremes in many fields of study that make no rational sense. But to judge individuals or entire fields based on the positions of the extremes is infantile, or as I put it above... ridiculous.
As a practical matter? Sure, of course.
But in what sense do I "know" that I'm real? Not in any sense that I could conclusively demonstrate. The belief is a working assumption adopted for reasons of practicality, not some bedrock piece of unimpeachable knowledge.
In the first place it's possible that the illusion is simpler than the alternative. I don't see a clear case for occam coming down on either side.
And in the second place the objection was not to picking what seems like the most reasonable position as a matter of practicality, but to insisting that such a position is somehow objectively self-evident, or knowable in some absolute sense.
Give me a reason not to. The whole point of the solipsist position is that it's self-sealing. By definition, such an illusion would look exactly like "reality."
What are you talking about? I was responding to a long line of communication that I am telling you I don't want to repeat. If you want to know what was said, read the threads.
Wow, that's a pretty quick foot-shot, even around here...
Notice that this is post 385, and the third or fourth thread on the subject in the last couple weeks. It was not a statement made quickly.
You are piling up quite the tower of beliefs, each overtly dependent on a claimed total absence of evidence for itself and all the others, the destination apparently a "deity" that has no dealings of any kind with us and never has had any. Seems a dubious project.soulcado said:
In point of fact, there is considerable evidence that introspection can be investigated by "physical science", and no evidence I know of that it can't be.
So? Try hanging out with different people. That doesn't make well-founded negative evaluations of theism - in and of itself, but as it exists in the world, ordinary and extreme together - ridiculous.soulcado said:
If another medium for change is introduced then there would be two implications:
* Our universe is not a static object from an outside perspective.
* God is not independent of reality, but rather dependent on it (that medium of change for example).
Excellent. Then truth is defined
.Ok, a little gear switching... I'll run with that:
Atheism:
A-Belief that any deities exist -OR-
Gap Belief or Immutable Belief that all human claimed deities don't exist and A-Belief that a deity could exist -OR-
Gap Belief or Immutable Belief that any deities exist.
Agnosticism:
Gap Belief or Immutable Belief that the truth value of certain claims is unknown -OR-
Gap Belief or Immutable Belief that The truth value of certain claims cannot be known.
I disagree with that age-old assertion. An illusion is a deception... an intentional act to make reality appear different than it really is; however, we can use reality not only to alter perception. We can completely alter the mechanics of the perceiver. For example, using reality I can turn off your consciousness, I can enable/disable/alter your emotions, I can make you forget things permanently, I can make you smarter, I can make you dumber (and I can do all of this to myself as well). If you want to take this into account with that "age-old" assertion then not only could reality be an illusion, but the mechanics of your ability to even experience things in the first place could also be an illusion (i.e. from your perspective you would be an illusion). Because you know you're not, any operation you perform that alters the mechanics of your perception is real; therefore, those operations are real; therefore, the the environment those operations are performed in is real; etc. etc. etc.
Most atheists I know of value truth very highly. When a theist comes along and says the Earth and all it's inhabitants were created "as-is" 6000 years go, we are... how shall I say... "very unappreciative" of the lie peddling.
You can't examine that which is not present. That puts it beyond introspection.
Memes are not a sterotype. Memes are a fact of human existence. ALL major religions employ memes. You as an individual may not, but your religion does. There are no exceptions amongst the major religions.
Quite a good link too.
I disagree that either could be the case, but more importantly I disagree that there will ever be any way to know. I know why people believe in God from a purely evolutionary standpoint. I know the contradictions and inaccuracies that demonstrate the Gods of all major religions as being incorrect. I am aware of how various models of reality show our universe to be a blip of change within an ever-changing structure. This makes for two interesting points.
* Science shows god to be a human psychological phenomenon.
* Science shows zero indication that reality requires "creation"; thus, a god is not necessary.
If it seems dubious to you, perhaps that is because you are coming at it from the wrong direction. Think about it from the perspective of the deity. Why would he NOT create a universe in which its laws, its very nature, were expressions of His Will? Why would he need to establish a set of rules only to break them?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. I choose not to associate with idiots because they aren't worth my time. The theists you describe fall under the category of idiots. Those with whom I associate don't have the narrow perspectives on religion that you seem to.
I'm not following your logic at all - how would another medium for change, external to our physical reality, suddenly make our reality non-static from the external perspective? When you watch a movie, just because it has its own timeline in the movie, separate from your own timeline, doesn't suddenly make the DVD itself somehow amorphous.
I don't have time at the moment to get through the rest of your post... I will reply when I have more time.
I was referring to the distance between the first and fourth sentences in the quoted material. Can you see how they contradict one another?
I think Solus's sole point is that since there is no evidence for the negative (regardless of the fact that you can't demonstrate a negative), he choses to believe whatever he'd like to believe.
Since belief does not require evidence, he can play the lack of evidence against both sides. i.e. "There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore I can chose to believe in God", and "There's no evidence that God does exist, but belief doesn't need any evidence, therefore I can chose to believe in God".
It's an unassailable position.
Since belief does not require evidence, he can play the lack of evidence against both sides. i.e. "There's no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore I can chose to believe in God", and "There's no evidence that God does exist, but belief doesn't need any evidence, therefore I can chose to believe in God".
It's an unassailable position.
I also believe God exists external to reality.
Unless you subscribe to a religion like Christianity which does define the attributes of God. But yes, if you only believe in some nebulous idea of God that exists outside of our reality, then it's hard to disprove that.
Good questions, and ones that atheists frequently ask of believers in standard theist accounts of the nature(s) of god(s): that they are amenable to prayer, intervene supernaturally in human affairs, etc.
Which is to say that such a line of thinking is great for Deists and all, but presents exactly the same criticism of mainline theist belief as it generally exists. Such a viewpoint actually squares very neatly with most atheist views of various common aspects of common theist beliefs: that "holy books" are human artifices absent any particular divine inspiration, that prayer is a human ritual lacking any supernatural consequences, etc. It's basically atheism with an asterisk.
Which, again, is fine so far as it goes, but there's a reason it's a marginal position: once you've exiled God from the natural world, there's little reason to keep him around at all. And, from the other end, there's little appeal for theists in a "religion" that lacks any particular means for knowing and interacting with god.
And it's also indistinguishable from the atheist position in all of the practical senses, by construction.
One choses to believe despite a lack of evidence.
One choses not to believe because of a lack of evidence.
I feel the latter is the more rational course.
As do I, but by the time one has defined the object of belief down to, basically, a name by which to refer to nature and her mystery, the difference scarcely merits consideration.
The actual meat in the theist/atheist conflict has to do with objects of belief with much stronger properties than that.
quadraphonics,
Yes as a practical matter. Maybe it's best to say, I am real as far as I know.
I would say that anything beyond this is unnecessary especially without evidence to create the doubt.
It's possible. Yes.
Yes, which is why I think for practical matters it is unnecessary. I guess I bring it up because at some point in every argument it can be said.
How do we know this is not all just an illusion ?
Pretty much makes many of our discussions a mute point. So I would rather stick with what appears to be our reality, that we exist, in any discussion.
The solipsist position. Ok. Well I disagree with it. As you state, essentially it is the same as reality. Since there is no evidence to take us in that direction, why go there ?
That is what I was asking. What reason do we have to consider it all an illusion ? What evidence leads us down that path ?
Until then, I will stick with reality is reality.
Yes as a practical matter. Maybe it's best to say, I am real as far as I know.
I would say that anything beyond this is unnecessary especially without evidence to create the doubt.
It's possible. Yes.
Yes, which is why I think for practical matters it is unnecessary. I guess I bring it up because at some point in every argument it can be said.
How do we know this is not all just an illusion ?
Pretty much makes many of our discussions a mute point. So I would rather stick with what appears to be our reality, that we exist, in any discussion.
The solipsist position. Ok. Well I disagree with it. As you state, essentially it is the same as reality. Since there is no evidence to take us in that direction, why go there ?
That is what I was asking. What reason do we have to consider it all an illusion ? What evidence leads us down that path ?
Until then, I will stick with reality is reality.
I would put it as "Might as well assume that I'm real, because there's little to do or say otherwise."
The exact same evidence that what we experience is "reality:" absolutely none at all. The entire point is that there is no concrete, fundamental "evidence" of anything, in the absolute sense being employed here. You have to accept a bunch of propositions on faith, before you can even meaningfully talk of "evidence" and questions that could be settled thereby.