Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Rhea]

Everything exists in the mind of God. Imagine the universe as drawing a circle on on paper. Now draw an even bigger circle around that circle. That is the mind of God.

How do you know?
Do you think you are a god?

 

[Half-Life]

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

Dos the world exist with your eyes closed?

Does the refrigerator light really go out when the door is closed?

If you turn around fast enough can YOU see the back of your head? If not explain why not without using your mind.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

Those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak.

How does one pass through the gate of no gate?

In regards to the bold, that is what one philosopher unironically concluded is the only rational answer to refute this problem in an atheistic universe. The world blinks into and out of existence when we open and close our eyes.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else perceives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green by definition.

 

[Half-Life]

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

Oh, hey! Looks like Half Life just proved how abortion is not a sin. If there is no mind the the early fetus, it’s not even here.
This is handy and will come in useful, I bet.

Nope. You have a mind and your mind observes the fetus.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is a simple test, Keith.

Without using your mind, please describe what "The Earth" looks like if no mind exists.

If you can't do it, then you failed.

If you can do it, you just disproved a 200+ year old philosophical position. You'll be famous!

Oh, hey! Looks like Half Life just proved how abortion is not a sin. If there is no mind the the early fetus, it’s not even here.
This is handy and will come in useful, I bet.

Nope. You have a mind and your mind observes the fetus.

Not if we close our eyes.

 

[Half-Life]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else receives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green.

Did a mind define what a frequency even is in the first place?
Do minds perform these experiments and get results via minds?
Still not objective.

You guys are in a rip current flailing toward the shore before it sweeps you out to sea.

 

[Half-Life]

Nope. You have a mind and your mind observes the fetus.

Not if we close our eyes.

Because we do not live in an atheistic universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else receives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green.

Did a mind define what a frequency even is in the first place?
Do minds perform these experiments and get results via minds?
Still not objective.

You guys are in a rip current flailing toward the shore before it sweeps you out to sea.

This is silly. You have amply demonstrated that you have no idea what the word, objective, means.

 

[Half-Life]

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else receives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green.

Did a mind define what a frequency even is in the first place?
Do minds perform these experiments and get results via minds?
Still not objective.

You guys are in a rip current flailing toward the shore before it sweeps you out to sea.

This is silly. You have amply demonstrated that you have no idea what the word, objective, means.

Objective means "can exist independently of minds."

What fits this criteria? Keep in mind (no pun intended) that using your mind to prove things can exist outside of minds is circular. Have you ever been outside of your own mind?

 

[Rhea]

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else receives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green.

Did a mind define what a frequency even is in the first place?
Do minds perform these experiments and get results via minds?
Still not objective.

You guys are in a rip current flailing toward the shore before it sweeps you out to sea.

LOL, no.

 

[Half-Life]

This is a good example of pseudo-philosophy. Simply demanding that you explicitly define the terms you use will destroy your 'argument'. Green is defined as light at a frequency of 495–570 nm. It does not matter how you or anyone else receives it or even if no one sees it, light at that frequency is green.

Did a mind define what a frequency even is in the first place?
Do minds perform these experiments and get results via minds?
Still not objective.

You guys are in a rip current flailing toward the shore before it sweeps you out to sea.

LOL, no.

Still not one shred of evidence that things can exist independently of minds.

 

[skepticalbip]

First you need to define then demonstrate (prove) that a mind that fits your particular definition exists.

 

[Half-Life]

First you need to define then demonstrate (prove) that a mind that fits your particular definition exists.

Don't have to. It is the materialist atheist who claims things can objectively exist independently of minds.

Yet, none have ever been able to show 1 simple thing that fits this criteria.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you can't define the word, mind, then you have no idea what you are talking about. And if you don't know what you are talking about then no one can convince you that there is something outside it.

 

[Half-Life]

If you can't define the word, mind, then you have no idea what you are talking about. And if you don't know what you are talking about then no one can convince you that there is something outside it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
"The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain."

Atheists claim that things can exist independently of minds. Since no atheist has ever been outside of their own mind, they can not prove anything exists independently of minds. This means they would not be able to prove that the Big Bang exists independently of minds. They claim there was no mind around back then. But, they haven't proven things can exist independently of minds. After all, it is a mind that came up with the Big Bang in the first place.

 

[abaddon]

Atheists claim that things can exist independently of minds. Since no atheist has ever been outside of their own mind, they can not prove anything exists independently of minds. This means they would not be able to prove that the Big Bang exists independently of minds. They claim there was no mind around back then. But, they haven't proven things can exist independently of minds. After all, it is a mind that came up with the Big Bang in the first place.

A theist claims that things cannot exist independently of minds. Since a theist thinks he knows of something outside of his own mind, he should prove it exists independently of his mind. This means he would be able to prove that the Big Bang can only have happened in a mind that was around back then. But, the theist hasn't proven that everything must exist inside minds. After all, if it is a mind that came up with the Big Bang in the first place...

... then he should be able to demonstrate that.

Before others have to defend their worldview(s), you have to give a better challenge first. If what you're arguing is meant to be anything like Berkeley's idealism, it's so badly done that it's almost totally unrecognizable.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you can't define the word, mind, then you have no idea what you are talking about. And if you don't know what you are talking about then no one can convince you that there is something outside it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind
"The mind is the set of cognitive faculties including consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, judgement, language and memory, which is housed in the brain."

Cute... you definition illustrates that something exists outside the mind... the brain which is a mass of matter such as electrons, protons, neutrons which make up atoms which make up cells.

We have found that consciousness ends with the death of the brain. Now if you want to continue with your nonsense it is your job to demonstrate how a mind can exist without the brain.

 

[Half-Life]

Atheists claim that things can exist independently of minds. Since no atheist has ever been outside of their own mind, they can not prove anything exists independently of minds. This means they would not be able to prove that the Big Bang exists independently of minds. They claim there was no mind around back then. But, they haven't proven things can exist independently of minds. After all, it is a mind that came up with the Big Bang in the first place.

A theist claims that things cannot exist independently of minds. Since a theist thinks he knows of something outside of his own mind, he should prove it exists independently of his mind. This means he would be able to prove that the Big Bang can only have happened in a mind that was around back then. But, the theist hasn't proven that everything must exist inside minds. After all, if it is a mind that came up with the Big Bang in the first place...

... then he should be able to demonstrate that.

Before others have to defend their worldview(s), you have to give a better challenge first. If what you're arguing is meant to be anything like Berkeley's idealism, it's so badly done that it's almost totally unrecognizable.

Because my position is the default. Nobody has proven things can exist independently of minds. It's never been done in human history. This is the whole foundation of materialist atheism and it can not be proven.

So, why not abandon your position that can not be proved in favor of the default one?

(1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

(2) We perceive only ideas.

Therefore,

(3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

 

[DBT]

Ah, Solipsism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, if there is no mind to perceive it doesn't look like anything. 'look' implies perception. No thinkee no lookee, savy?

How can the Earth look like anything but the Earth, at least within the visible spectrum of our eyes.

Wow, this philosophy stuff is way cool. Can you earn a living with it?

Oh, you guys really are amateurs.

Consider color. Is the grass actually green? No, but our mind perceives it that way. A colorblind person would conceive grass color differently. Thus, it can not exist in objectivity, something that is both completely green and completely not green via law of non contradiction.

Everything we observe encounters this same problem. Still unrefuted.

How in the fuck does this imply a deity, though?