Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
27 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR (3 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,000 Year: 22,036/19,786 Month: 599/1,834 Week: 99/500 Day: 57/42 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why try to disprove people's beliefs?
iano
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 31 of 72 (457671)
02-24-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
02-24-2008 3:22 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.

Granny Magda writes:

...and no reason to believe that he does.

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?

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?

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.

How do I know if he is in-universe? How do you know other people and (the world they supposedly inhabit) are in-universe? You trust that what you perceive to be the case is the case - that's how. And that is what I do.

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.

Lets not jump the gun too much. Lets talk about you. 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 assume the alien child is not real for right reasons.

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.

We have seen that your assumption is not evidenced based - its an assumption only. Same as me.

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.

Should? This implies empiricism is more than just a philosophy which cannot be proven.

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?

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.

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.

By what means do you suppose I have the same "in-universe" reality as everyone else?

Parsimony,

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?

Enough with this already. Solipsism is juvenile and a waste of time.

I agree. "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.

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.

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.

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.

How so? I'm not God so I don't claim my knowledge is absolute. I know what I know s'all.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 02-24-2008 3:22 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Granny Magda, posted 02-25-2008 12:10 PM iano has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 32 of 72 (457681)
02-24-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Blue Jay
02-23-2008 9:31 PM


bluejay writes:

But, materialists have to subject their perceptions to testing.

I should have be more precise. I was referring to the materialists core assumption that his perception of people/planet as real - is accurate. If the materialist can assume his perception as accurate and strike out from there, then so can I.

That I happen to perceive God as existing in reality and the materialists does not - is neither here nor there.

I am asked "how do you know your reality is real?" by people who do precisely the same as I do in arriving at an answer. I assume my perception of reality is an accurate reflection of reality.

Theists do not. A person is allowed to hold whatever beliefs he/she/it wishes, and doesn't have to subject them to anyone's perception of reality. Not even their own.

This is partily true. But it hasn't anything to do with the point under discussion - which had to do with a specific objection raised to the Christian faith.

I'm not sure that theists don't subject their beliefs to their own perception of reality. I know I do. I'm not sure what use subjecting them to the perception of just anyone would serve. Would you subject your proposed photo competition entry to a blind person for consideration?

Materialists have to abandon their beliefs when their worldview (materialism) works against them. Supernaturalists can just ignore whatever evidence they want.

That someone can doesn't mean that someone will. The supernaturalist might not see the point in ignoring evidence. It's more fun to attempt to accomodate it into your model after all.

Materialists can't drive objections to stalemate: we have to work it to its conclusion. In fact, that's part of the reason why we have debates. We're not trying to "disprove beliefs" (as this forum asks) but are trying to find the truth by debating each other's observations.

The materialist might have goals other than mine.

Driving objections to stalemate won't lead directly to truth. It is interesting to speculate however, on the position of a person whose objections to God have all been shifted into neutral.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Blue Jay, posted 02-23-2008 9:31 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2008 9:58 PM iano has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 33 of 72 (457696)
02-24-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by iano
02-24-2008 8:43 PM


I should have be more precise. I was referring to the materialists core assumption that his perception of people/planet as real - is accurate.

The reality of people, and indeed the planet is not an assumption. There is evidence for it. It is a testable proposition, which I have in no way assumed a priori. (Who could?) I am once more interested to know whether you consider me a "materialist".

I am asked "how do you know your reality is real?" by people who do precisely the same as I do in arriving at an answer.

Unless your answer involves referring people to evidence, then you are not, in fact, giving the same answer.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 8:43 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 02-25-2008 5:20 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 34 of 72 (457744)
02-25-2008 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Dr Adequate
02-24-2008 9:58 PM


The reality of people, and indeed the planet is not an assumption. There is evidence for it. It is a testable proposition, which I have in no way assumed a priori.

Ok, what test can you apply? Note that I am particularily interested in the unassumed-yet-real moorings to which any test tools you propose to use might be anchored.

I am once more interested to know whether you consider me a "materialist".

I don't know if you are. I would suspect you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-24-2008 9:58 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by bluegenes, posted 02-25-2008 6:10 AM iano has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 816 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 35 of 72 (457746)
02-25-2008 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by iano
02-25-2008 5:20 AM


iano writes:

Ok, what test can you apply? Note that I am particularily interested in the unassumed-yet-real moorings to which any test tools you propose to use might be anchored.

Right. The test is easy. You, iano, can participate. You can go through life for a week acting as though the kind of observation and evidence based assumptions about the material universe that you claim we are making are just as arbitrary as your supernatural beliefs.

For example, during this week, you no longer need to look to left or right when crossing a busy road, and if you find yourself on the edge of a cliff more than once, or in similar situations, you should at least once take the arbitrary option of walking straight ahead.

I'm sure that those you are debating with on this thread will, in return, volunteer to go through life for that week on the assumption that your God and everything else supernatural does not exist.

See you in a week's time if you've survived, and if you agree that there is strong evidence that your computer is a computer and your keyboard is a keyboard (something you seem to already accept).

Take care, or rather, don't.;)

There's a difference between "assuming" that there is an observable reality, and assuming optional extras, like the existence of fairies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by iano, posted 02-25-2008 5:20 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 responded

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

  
iano
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 37 of 72 (457777)
02-25-2008 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Granny Magda
02-25-2008 12:10 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Granny M writes:

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.

You don't waste time wondering whether people are real or not because you assume your perception of reality accurately reflects reality. Period.

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.

In your perception of reality perhaps. But not in mine. My perception of reality includes both people and God and like you, I simply assume my perception of reality accurately reflects reality.

If the reality does indeed include God there is no need that you detect him.

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.

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.

Expand things out now to find that your base assumption has no evidence to support it. Nor does mine. They are merely assumptions.

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.

Whose speculating? It is clear that your perception of reality and mine differ. You seem to suppose that yours is the king of the heap for some reason.

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.

I've dealt with the circularity of your thinking here in the above point. You don't support the assumption being real by utilising the evidence assumed real.

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.

I know enough about evidence to know that it is subject to the veracity of starting assumption for all that it might tell us subsequently.

My focus is not on the subsequential-to-the-assumption issue. My focus is on the assumption itself. One we both make

I point out the wastefulness of folk posing solipsist questions at me by posing solipsist questions in return - only to have you prove my point by getting addled about my posing solipsist questions at you. Jaderis posed a solipsist question.

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.

I have applied reason alright. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander". Let there be no special pleading Granny. Let there be no side-stepping our the starting-assumption we share in your haste to disappear up the evidence-supports-the-assumption-aquaduct.

There is no point bothering you with logical and reasonable questions, such as Jaderis' question about Shiva? Like I said closed minded.

I'd call it an unwillingness to allow you to pull your argument up by its "evidential" bootstraps - but your entitled to your view. Lets leave it here huh? The tone is starting to decay..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Granny Magda, posted 02-25-2008 12:10 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Organicmachination, posted 02-25-2008 1:56 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Granny Magda, posted 02-25-2008 5:44 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Organicmachination
Member (Idle past 4049 days)
Posts: 105
From: Pullman, WA, USA
Joined: 12-30-2007


Message 38 of 72 (457779)
02-25-2008 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by iano
02-25-2008 1:43 PM


Re: In-Universe vs Out--of-Universe
Hey,

There is absolutely no concrete evidence that you're not delusional. Until you can completely prove that you are, in fact, not delusional to the rest of the world, you will not be taken seriously.

You think we are wrong to believe that our reality is real? It affects us, and we affect it, so even though it might not be real, it doesn't matter. Even if it isn't real, which is completely a last ditch effort by every creationist to prove the existence of God, it still affects us to a degree that we must deal with it as it is.


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

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6833
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 39 of 72 (457780)
02-25-2008 2:11 PM


Did ChristianJuggalo leave? Did he take the topic with him?
Yeah, well, all this dippy hippy New Age postmodern "Is reality real? Is experience...ooh, look at the pretty butterflies!" philosophizing is all very interesting and all, but the OP started off pretty interesting, namely the question "why do people want to change other people's beliefs". I wonder whether ChistianJuggalo would be interested in bringing back on topic?


If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2381
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


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 yet responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1764 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 41 of 72 (458593)
03-01-2008 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by iano
02-24-2008 2:08 PM


What test would you apply? Note: assuming some implement real so that you can utilise it in a test for the reality of something else ends in an assumption of reality.

I could test anything I wanted to in any way I wanted to, but would not consider my tests valid unless verified by another person or (better yet) many different persons. If they got a different result, I would then investigate why their results were different from mine and depending on the investigation, I would either accept or reject my own findings.

Of course, I could just be hallucinating such tests being conducted and/or that the implement being used is the same as the one I used and/or God could just be fucking with me, but are these imaginings really useful? If I went around ranting about everyone else's "implements" not working properly and that only mine were accurate I would expect those around me to lock me up in a place where I could rant about it all day long to my heart's content. I could even start raving about how "my reality is more real than theirs" and probably feel very sure and feel secure in my own delusion, but "my reality" would not be forced on anyone (except my unfortunate therapist and all those trapped in their own delusions whom I would be forced upon in an institution).

Or I would just be properly mocked by the scientific community and other rational people and allowed to have my own radio program or congregation/cult to rant away to. But I would hope that those who know me would lock me away.

We all go through this throughout all of the stages of our lives, but the basics of physical reality are established in infancy and early childhood (we get words to describe what we see and we test it out and get either confirmation or refutation and we can repeat these tests as necessary throughout our lives, but who really wants to stick a fork in an electrical socket over and over again?). It is only later that we tend to start navel-gazing and come up with "is reality real" types of questions, which can be amusing (especially while consuming copious amounts of illicit substances and/or feeling the "natural high" of encountering others who have similar questions and pretending that you and your little group have "found" all of the answers) but ultimately leads to no solid evidence. Just a bunch of people who have congratulated themselves on their own profundity and refuse to let the evidence take their high away.

Your running ahead of yourself here. "Everyone" and "everything" are perceived by you to exist. You trust that this perception is real but cannot test that it is real in anyway. For all you know it you are a brain in a jar.

Sure. I could drive myself crazy by imagining that no one else is real or that I am not real, but where would that leave me? In the same place that I am right now. Imagining things to be true is good for the imagination and provides me with fodder for my own writing, but it still leaves me in the physical reality which can be verified and tested. If the things I can imagine are true or I can make them true, then I would not be sitting at my computer responding to you.

There is no point in supposing this to be the case of course. No more that there is for me to suppose my own perception of reality is anything but real.

Sure, but if your perception of reality is constantly refuted with evidence (not your God, of course, as that hasn't happened, I assume) would you not then question your perception of reality?

Say you took the Ishitara test for color-blindness and then went around insisting that there really were no numbers in the circles of dots.

Sure, in your "reality" there are no numbers in the circles of dots because you can't see them, but the numbers are there for the majority of people and the reality of the colors can be established through scientific means (measuring the wavelengths of colors).

You could then go on to rant against the "implements" used to measure the color's wavelength, but would you really expect those around you not to lock you away (unless, of course, you started a church)?

View it as you will - it doesn't alter the case. I am as confined to trusting what I perceive to be the case as you are and am telling it like it is for me. God is as real as real can be.

And I really have no problem with that, except when people who have a similar perception as you decide that I have to live my life based on their perception.

The point was to neutralise your objection - not to add more weight to the case for God vs Leprechaun

Did it work?


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by iano, posted 02-24-2008 2:08 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by iano, posted 03-01-2008 6:51 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 72 (458603)
03-01-2008 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Jaderis
03-01-2008 1:58 AM


iano writes:

What test would you apply? Note: assuming some implement real so that you can utilise it in a test for the reality of something else ends in an assumption of reality.

None thus. This due to the potential for...

..I could just be hallucinating such tests being conducted and/or that the implement being used is the same as the one I used and/or God could just be fucking with me, but are these imaginings really useful?

It would appear that you (assuming you exist :)) and I decide they are not. We (automatically) run with what we perceive to be the case and failing a way to test our core perception, we assume it accurate.

Put another way: objective reality is a destination we assume we are at. Any testing we do subsequently can only tell us about the lay of the land at that destination.

Remember where we came from...

Jaderis previously writes:

However, no, we are not in the same boat. My perceptions of reality are testable. Yours are not.

Inserting the previous point here. What you refer to as "testable" is the lay of the land at the destination you assume exists - not the accuracy of the assumptions that places you at the destination in the first place.

In similar fashion, I cannot test that my perception of Gods existance is accurate - I just perceive him to exist. At that destination (assumed objectively real) I can carry out 'testing' by way of the relationship that exists between us.

Sure, but if your perception of reality is constantly refuted with evidence (not your God, of course, as that hasn't happened, I assume) would you not then question your perception of reality?

You might see now that what you are referring to is a testing of the lay of the land at this destination called "objective reality". Those are the perceptions you are dealing with. In similar (if not same) fashion I can find out things about God that I didn't know before. I can also find I thought x about God but now think y based on evidence uncovered. That is a different matter to the perception of Gods existance in the first place.

View it as you will - it doesn't alter the case. I am as confined to trusting what I perceive to be the case as you are and am telling it like it is for me. God is as real as real can be.

And I really have no problem with that, except when people who have a similar perception as you decide that I have to live my life based on their perception.

Living as we do in societies, all are entitled to have a say in the way that society is shaped. And it can be that my perceptions and yours collide in the shaping of it. But I don't suppose you'd have a problem with that in principle.

The point was to neutralise your objection - not to add more weight to the case for God vs Leprechaun

Did it work?

You tell me. Hopefully you will agree that we can but trust our perception that the destination we find ourselves at is an objective one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Jaderis, posted 03-01-2008 1:58 AM Jaderis has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6833
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.0


Message 43 of 72 (460788)
03-18-2008 9:50 PM


A reply to ChristianJuggalo's new PNT.
ChristianJuggalo is having a tough time getting a new PNT approved:

If atheists don't believe in what the Bible says, why don't they just leave it alone and worry about themselves?

Since Adminnemooseus pointed him here, I'll answer the query here. Maybe he or Percy can even add a note that this response exists.

-

To begin, I don't know what you're talking about atheists not leaving anyone alone. The whole history of Europe is about European Christians very violently not leaving anyone else alone. They were very violent against the pagans, whom they wouldn't leave alone, they wouldn't leave the Muslims alone, and they wouldn't even leave other Christians alone. The Founding Fathers of the U.S. found the totalitarian intrusiveness of the European Christians so abhorrent that they deliberately made the government of the U.S. (and of most of the states) explicitly secular.

And that still isn't enough for contemporary Christians. It's Christians (at least a virulently vocal sect of Christians) that wants to inject religious fable into science classrooms, and who wants to display religious iconography in government courthouses, and who wants the secular state to enforce religious moral tenets.

Good grief! Atheists would like to leave other people alone, but it's the fanatical religious lunatics who won't just "worrying about themselves."

Secondly, atheists do leave the Bible alone. They only time atheists mention the Bible is as a response to when the American Taliban starts off with, "Well, the Bible says that...." And the points that the atheists bring up were actually brought up by Christians! It was Christian geologists who first discovered that the first two chapters of Genesis could not possibly be an accurate description of the history of the world. It was Jewish Zionist archaeologists who first realized that the Exodus was not an actual historical event. And it was Protestant Christians, in analyzing the Bible to remove "pagan" Catholic doctrine, who realized that the Pentateuch was written by at least 4 different people, who realized that there were historical problems with the description of the nativity, who realized that the Christian doctrine developed over a long period of time after the death of Jesus, not as the Gospels related.

I'm not sure where you get your facts. Atheists, except for a very few who appreciate classical literature, don't really care at all about the Bible, and really don't care what Christians do. The only reason they do concern themselves with such things is out of basic survival, because it's the Christians who won't leave other people alone.

Edited by Chiroptera, : typos -- lots of 'em


Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by dwise1, posted 03-19-2008 3:19 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3867
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 44 of 72 (460804)
03-19-2008 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chiroptera
03-18-2008 9:50 PM


Re: A reply to ChristianJuggalo's new PNT.
To summarize, most atheists who speak out to dispute the Bible and other parts of Christian doctrine do so just out of self-defense.

Christians keep trying to foist this "we're being so persecuted" propaganda, but how many Christians in American society have been personally threatened to their face with severe physical violence just for being a Christian? I don't mean those who make a royal PITA of themselves with their abrasive proselytizing. I mean those who behave themselves and simply let it casually drop that they're Christians. How many?

I have been so threatened. By Christians. Without provocation. Just for somebody having let drop that I'm an atheist.

You're [ChristianJuggalo] being persecuted? You're being attacked? Just because you're not given carte blanche to use the government to impose your sectarian religion on everybody else? Just because a number of stores recognize that they are serving a customer base that is not exclusively Christian so they say "Seasons Greetings" instead of uttering a purely and exclusively Christian platitude?

Try being an atheist for a while and learn what persecution can be. Even in America.

Though, hey, at least we rate above Muslims. But I forget whether we rate above Mormons.

Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Edited by dwise1, : Grammatical faux pas. I'm so ashamed.


{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)

Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)

Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)

Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 03-18-2008 9:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
ChristianJuggalo 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4191 days)
Posts: 56
From: United States
Joined: 02-21-2008


Message 45 of 72 (460814)
03-19-2008 9:39 AM


Current times people.
I'm not talking about the past. I'm talking about right now. I'm tired of certain atheists such as Richard Dawkins talking shit about the Bible and trying to disprove it. Don't get me wrong, I know there are Christians that try to force there beliefs on people (which is wrong) But, sometimes when I argue with an atheist online, they start making fun of the Bible and using sarcasm. Why? If you're so secure with your beliefs, then you have no reason to get pissed or start trashing to the other person.

I also hate the fact that atheists are trying to force evolution down childrens throats. They want them to believe evolution and not believe in God. If a kid wants to believe in God, then he has the right doesn't he? The same goes for Christians, some are trying to get creation taught in schools, I don't think that's right either. All they need to do, is cast out evolution and creation in schools and not worry about the shit anymore.

Also, I have seen people get laughed at or made fun of in my school for questioning evolution. Why laugh? Are that stuck up?

Also, I have never said that I have been persecuted or attacked you moron. Also, I don't care to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone. Also, I don't care if a store says season greetings, happy holidays. I could give a fuck less. Quit assuming shit.

Oh yeah, you have it so bad being an atheist don't you? HA! Yeah right. You aren't the one that is constantly being made fun of (current times not past)in the media, schools, television. So don't start bitching and crying.

One more thing. Don't judge us as a whole because of some. I don't judge atheists as a whole. Hell, I don't judge anyone I leave that to God (who I believe is real, I'm trying to force anything on you cry baby) I have friends that are atheist. So don't be such a prick.


"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved"- John 3:17

If God didn't create the universe, then how did it just get here?


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2008 9:53 AM ChristianJuggalo has responded
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 03-19-2008 10:06 AM ChristianJuggalo has responded
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 03-19-2008 12:18 PM ChristianJuggalo has responded
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2008 7:54 PM ChristianJuggalo has not yet responded
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2008 7:55 PM ChristianJuggalo has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019