Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why try to disprove people's beliefs?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 19 of 72 (457519)
02-23-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by CK
02-23-2008 7:34 PM


Schism Ahoy!
CK writes:
Thankfully we've got the CofE pretty much beat.
Actually, I think they're doing a bang up job of beating up on themselves. I couldn't hope to achieve so much.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CK, posted 02-23-2008 7:34 PM CK has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 24 of 72 (457579)
02-24-2008 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by iano
02-24-2008 4:56 AM


In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Hi Iano,
You are making a logical error in assuming that a materialist's assumption that reality is real has any equivalence to your presumption that God exists.
Let us assume that we are indeed merely characters in some alien child's computer game (although I can't imagine what an enjoyment an alien child would get from playing out my life. Maybe he really enjoys watching me type). We would have no choice but to assume that what we experience is real, because it seems internally consistent. Assuming reality seems to work and we have no "in-universe" reason to suspect that it is not.
But what happens if we try to consider the reality of the child playing the game? We have no way of perceiving the "out-of-universe" child. We can say nothing about him, her or it. We can only speculate. Were I to say "I believe that the alien child has green eyes." it would be ridiculous in the extreme. I have no way of knowing and indeed, no way of perceiving anything that even seems real about the child.
You are in exactly the same position with regards to gods. Your god is just like the alien child of your example. We can't know with any certainty whether he exists or not. The best that we can say is that we have no evidence. You have only the same "in-universe" reality as everybody else, yet you choose to go beyond the limits of what seems to be real and start speculating upon theoretical "out-of-universe" entities and simply assuming that they exist, without even the appearance of reality to guide you.
A materialist would stick to only what can be perceived. Even if the assumption of reality is in error, it is the only useful assumption to make. "Is reality really real?" is a pointless question to ask. Speculating about whether or not reality is real is a waste of everybody's time.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 4:56 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 1:25 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 30 of 72 (457629)
02-24-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by iano
02-24-2008 1:25 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Iano writes:
You can speak with certainty only about yourself and those who share your reality. God is in-universe for me and many like me. And we have no reason to suspect he is not in universe.
...and no reason to believe that he does. If he is in-universe, and we can "speak with certainty about those who share your reality", why is it not possible to proves that God exists? How do you know that he is even in-universe at all?
When materialists make assumptions that reality is real, they do so on the basis of evidence, because evidence for the reality of existence is widespread beyond ubiquity, and is consistently observed. We assume the "alien child" is not real, because we cannot know about out-of-universe entities.
When you assume that God is real, you are making an entirely different category of assumption, i.e. that you can know that God exists in-universe, on the basis of what might charitably be called extremely weak and inconsistent evidence. If God is in-universe, we should judge the likelihood of his existing by the same means by which we judge the reality of other in-universe entities, such as bears, sofas, neutron stars, etc., that is to say, by means of empirical observation. Your imaginary friend fails that test. Thus, you are committing to one extra unprovable belief as compared to our materialist.
There is as little point in posing "how do you know it's not Shiva /delusion / wishful thinking... instead of God" questions at me as there is me posing "alien playstation" questions to you.
Actually, I would thank you for not portraying me as being as closed minded as you are. If you can provide convincing evidence that God exists, I'm listening.
By what means do you suppose I have the same "in-universe" reality as everyone else?
Parsimony, as well as the uselessness of contemplating any other possibility, as any kind of ultimate answer to such speculation is unknowable. Enough with this already. Solipsism is juvenile and a waste of time.
I don't speculate as to God's existance. I know he does exist as surely as I know this computer screen sits on front of me.
Yes you do and no, you don't. You only think God exists. A lunatic who thinks he is Napoleon may say that he "knows" he is Napoleon. The only differences between his delusion and yours is that yours is more common and less imaginative.
I get asked "how do you know the reality you perceive is real". The simple answer is I don't (in an absolute sense). No more than anyone knows they are not a character in a playstation game - in an absolute sense.
Nice way to contradict yourself Iano.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 1:25 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 7:36 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 36 of 72 (457765)
02-25-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by iano
02-24-2008 7:36 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Hi Iano,
The point being made is that no one involves themselves in wondering whether what they perceive to be real is real or not. Do you wonder about whether people truly exist or not? Or do you just assume your perception of reality is accurate and get on with real life?
You have it almost right, but you are still misunderstanding a basic difference between your beliefs and mine. I don't waste my time wondering if people are real or not, because I see people all the time and they appear to be real. But what about bigfoot? I don't assume that he is real because there is so little evidence. It would be a mistake to assume that bigfoot were real in the same way that I do with other people. The same is true of gods.
I am making one assumption; that people are real, because I have evidence .
You are making this assumption too, but you are also making a second assumption; god exists. Where is your evidence? Without evidence you are making one further assumption than any materialist.
He is in-universe in my reality and not (apparently) in yours.Clearly our perceptions of reality - though shared in many areas perhaps - differ. The reasons why this is so can be explored theologically.
Here you are indulging in another waste-of-time idea, that there are separate realities for separate people. This is a question which is just as juvenile and ridiculous as your alien child example. We must treat reality as being one single reality because we have no other option.Speculating upon multiple realities is a waste of time.
Your perception of reality could be wrong. So could mine. That is why I require evidence to back up material beliefs. You simply assume that your perception is correct, a further level of assumption, as I explained above.
You trust that what you perceive to be the case is the case - that's how. And that is what I do.
Wrong. I require evidence to back up in-universe material beliefs. You don't.
You have no evidence demonstrating the reality you suppose exists is real. "Ubiquity" and "consistancy of observation" have whatever value you place on them but cannot be appealed to as a way of solidifying what is real beyond mere assumption
You clearly have absolutely no understanding of what evidence is. I cannot prove beyond doubt that reality is real, but that is not what is required of something in order for it to qualify as evidence. Evidence is not absolute proof, unanswerable beyond all philosophical doubt. No evidence can stand up to the kind of jerk-off solipsism that you employ, at least not if we insist upon absolute answers.
Are you seriously claiming that there is "no evidence" that reality exists? You are taking the piss sonny.
The consistent appearance of reality is evidence of reality. It is not absolute proof, but as I have explained, there ain't no such critter. That is more than any "mere assumption". Any other argument is childish.
Should? This implies empiricism is more than just a philosophy which cannot be proven.
No, it implies that some people are incapable of applying reason to their beliefs. A pity. And as I have said, the expectation that anything can be proven beyond doubt is an absurdity.
Granny writes:
Iano writes:
Your imaginary friend fails that test. Thus, you are committing to one extra unprovable belief as compared to our materialist.
Perhaps this says something about empiricism?
Oh please! Come out and say what you mean, don't waste my time with non-responses like the above.
I think you need to read the point again. It has nothing to do with suggesting your closed minded. It has only to do with the pointlessness of folk posing objection to Christian belief by way of Kamikaze Kwestions.
There is no point bothering you with logical and reasonable questions, such as Jaderis' question about Shiva? Like I said closed minded.
I seem to recall that it was a Christian monk called Ockham who developed this particular razor. Do you suppose he wielded it other than you?
No. He was from Ockham, it wasn't his name exactly. In fact many arguments employed by modern atheists owe their origin to early Christian thinkers and theologians. We just take their arguments to their logical extension. I do think that William of Ockham misapplied his razor. I see no reason why I should have any reservations about disagreeing with a centuries dead monk. It is possible for reasonable people to agree on one thing and disagree on another (especially when one of them is pushing up daisies).
"How do you know the reality you occupy really is real?" is the question I was asked by way of objection to the Christian faith. It's one I am often asked.
Not by anyone on this thread. You are the one employing solipsism here, no-one else. If you think it a waste of time, stop going on about it. It's boring.
Which all goes to show that knowing something is the case doesn't mean it actually (in absolute sense) is the case. I know God exists. That doesn't mean he does - just that I myself know it to be case.
Either that or you merely think you know it to be the case. If you don't regard your knowledge as absolute, and acknowledge that you might be wrong, why bring it up? You know you're right. I know you're wrong. My neighbour knows that both of us are talking out of our arses. Why bring any of that up? It gets us nowhere. Much like the entirety of your argument on this thread.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 7:36 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 02-25-2008 1:43 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 40 of 72 (457819)
02-25-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
02-25-2008 1:43 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
This sounds circular. You cannot point to the people (you assume are real) as evidence that your assumption they are real is a true one.
Iano, are you really accusing me of circular arguments, when you are the one who brought up the "How can you say anything is real?" argument? No wonder the tone is degenerating.
Jaderis posed a solipsist question.
I think that's pretty rich as well. The Shiva question asked by Jaderis makes no reference to the non-reality of reality, only why you prefer one explanation over another, where equal evidence exists.
You are the only person hee who feels that he has to indulge in solipsism to back up his beliefs and I find that telling.
I do agree with you that we should wrap this sub-debate up. We have both said our piece and if you do not see any sense in my argument, there is no real point in wasting time and bandwidth re-stating it.
AbE; also I think that Chiroptera is right. this is much less interesting than the conversation that was being had with Christian Juggalo.
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by iano, posted 02-25-2008 1:43 PM iano has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 71 of 72 (461148)
03-22-2008 8:31 PM


Whilst I agree with much of what has been said about the difficult position in which American atheists find themselves, I feel that there is another important reason to challenge the beliefs of others, especially within the context of religion.
Anti-atheist prejudice is nowhere near as marked over here in the UK. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that a politician's lack of religious belief would be a serious hindrance to achieving political office. Indeed, the new Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has recently said that he does not believe in God, with no particular ill-effect. Overt expression of religious belief is even seen as somewhat distasteful within politics (as Alastair Campbell said,"We don't do the G-word"). I recognise that this is more problematic in the US and elsewhere in the world, but this isn't the main reason why I choose to challenge religious belief.
I challenge belief in religion simply because I think it's wrong, that is to say false, not true, inaccurate. I also believe that religion is harmful (on balance) and that the actions of certain believers are dangerous, but this merely gives added impetus. I think that falsehood should always be challenged, since falsehood is its own form of iniquity. That I consider religion to be false is reason enough for me to oppose it by peaceful means, and try, through reasoned debate and civil discussion, to dissuade others from believing it. I don't really see what further justification is necessary.
Why should I be forced to justify my right to freedom of expression?

Mutate and Survive

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024