Exposing Atheistic Myths

[abaddon]

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.

What is my position?

A theist has done this before - he thought all atheists are "scientistic" so I was addressed like one. Then he didn't even want to hear it when I said he was mistaken. I'm not an idealist but also don't think I have direct access to "objects" that are "out there". It seems to be almost unanimous among people that we experience a divide between "in here" and "out there" but when I attend closely I find it's not my experience. "Interdependence" would be closer to my position than "independence".

So I don't think that anything within anyone's experience exists "independently".

But what the connection to God is supposed to be is still mysterious to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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!

To expand your argument, using your same 'logic'... How can there be a god without humans? If we aren't here to imagine him then he can not exist.

On the reality side, humans have created quite a few gods (in our minds) which all vanished when we stopped imagining they were real.

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.

Remember that time when you posted bald assertions without any evidence, and you looked like a window licking moron?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So, the fetus does exist. Butbthere us no mind IN the fetus, if we abort it before eyes develop. This is your attempt at logic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

This from the idiot who proved that minds are independent of brain becauseour body's cells constantly replace.

 

[Politesse]

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

Because God is colorblind, duh. Keep up with the crazy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Because God is colorblind, duh. Keep up with the crazy.

I guess i'm stuck on 'world goes away when i close my eyes.' Because if tgat were anywhere close to true,
*i'd never stub my toe in the dark
*no one would crash if they fell asleep at the wheel
*the world's pinatas would be immortal

 

[skepticalbip]

This thread has degenerated into pseudo-philosophical pablum.

I find Politesse's contention far more interesting. I could actually learn something from thinking about the "breaking" of scientific laws and whether miracles (and God) become "natural" instead of "supernatural" if they happened.

It is definitely a more interesting contention. I think the answer would depend on how one defines supernatural. Suppose a strange creature, looking for all the world like the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', appeared in Central Park, waved a tentacle and Egypt's great pyramid appeared in the middle of the park upside down and balanced on its apex. Would this be assumed to be a supernatural event or could it be an extra-terrestrial alien visitor displaying highly advanced technology? Whichever it was, it would be well beyond our current understanding. But then 'beyond our understanding' is not the same as supernatural (at least not in my opinion). But then again, certainly some would see this as a god and a new religion would be founded.

Arguing with what the fundies (Lion IRC, Learner and Half-Life) throw at us is nothing but sorting garbage.

Plus Lumpy

 

[Keith&Co.]

But then again, certainly some would see this as a god and a new religion would be founded.

I know an Orthodox Jedi, a pyramid-popping octopus religion is not even worth betting on.

 

[skepticalbip]

But then again, certainly some would see this as a god and a new religion would be founded.

I know an Orthodox Jedi, a pyramid-popping octopus religion is not even worth betting on.

An Orthodox Jedi? Does this mean that there has already been a schism in the religion and there is now also Reform Jedis?

 

[Rhea]

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.

Nope. That means the fetus only exists in my mind. It doesn’t have any existence on its own, since it does not have a mind. It does not exist. Therefore, how could any sin against it even be defined?

 

[Half-Life]

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

Nope. That means the fetus only exists in my mind. It doesn’t have any existence on its own, since it does not have a mind. It does not exist. Therefore, how could any sin against it even be defined?

It exists externally because there is an eternal mind around to perceive it. This is the proof of God.

As has already been stated, nothing's ever been proven to exist independently of minds in an objective materialist sense.

 

[Half-Life]

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.

What is my position?

A theist has done this before - he thought all atheists are "scientistic" so I was addressed like one. Then he didn't even want to hear it when I said he was mistaken. I'm not an idealist but also don't think I have direct access to "objects" that are "out there". It seems to be almost unanimous among people that we experience a divide between "in here" and "out there" but when I attend closely I find it's not my experience. "Interdependence" would be closer to my position than "independence".

So I don't think that anything within anyone's experience exists "independently".

But what the connection to God is supposed to be is still mysterious to me.

And that's why John Locke said "Matter is imperceievable and perceivable at the same time." This is what materialism leads to: nonsense. His only way out was to babble nonsense against the law of non contradiction.

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is, and you guys consider him a genius.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I miss being 6 when I thought a deity was a bit of music. Ditty. Babadebooodebop

 

[Keith&Co.]

But then again, certainly some would see this as a god and a new religion would be founded.

I know an Orthodox Jedi, a pyramid-popping octopus religion is not even worth betting on.

An Orthodox Jedi? Does this mean that there has already been a schism in the religion and there is now also Reform Jedis?

Yes. Answer to question, Did Han Shoot First? Is not yes, nor no.
Is ONLY HAN SHOT!!!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is,

Locke thought Locke's argument was ironclad?
So, argument from respect for a pompous authority?

and you guys consider him a genius

who here has stared that Locke is a genius, Halfie?

 

[Half-Life]

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is,

Locke thought Locke's argument was ironclad?
So, argument from respect for a pompous authority?

and you guys consider him a genius

who here has stared that Locke is a genius, Halfie?

No, that was Locke's way out of Berkeley's argument from minds.

The short word for his theory is immaterialism, the opposite of materialism.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

So I don't think that anything within anyone's experience exists "independently".

But what the connection to God is supposed to be is still mysterious to me.

For rabid theists, any assertion ends with, "Therefore god".

e.g. "These pretzels are making me thirsty... therefore god."

 

[abaddon]

And that's why John Locke said "Matter is imperceievable and perceivable at the same time." This is what materialism leads to: nonsense. His only way out was to babble nonsense against the law of non contradiction.

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is, and you guys consider him a genius.

Philosophy isn't just asserting "this is true and that isn't". Keep working at putting that whole argument together. The bits and pieces you've gathered still don't add up to anything people can make sense of.

And, maybe don't tell people what they think? You keep wanting to do both sides of the argument yourself. That's just you talking to yourself in front of people... it's kinda nutty looking.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And, maybe don't tell people what they think? You keep wanting to do both sides of the argument yourself. That's just you talking to yourself in front of people... .

a sermon with extra characters. Or a puppet show.


Although Trump might come across better if HE had a puppet.
"Topo, who ees ze most preesecutid presidente in todo el mundo?"
"Ees you, Meester Trump."
"Was good fone call?"
"S'alright."

 

[Half-Life]

And that's why John Locke said "Matter is imperceievable and perceivable at the same time." This is what materialism leads to: nonsense. His only way out was to babble nonsense against the law of non contradiction.

Even John Locke saw how ironclad the argument is, and you guys consider him a genius.

Philosophy isn't just asserting "this is true and that isn't". Keep working at putting that whole argument together. The bits and pieces you've gathered still don't add up to anything people can make sense of.

And, maybe don't tell people what they think? You keep wanting to do both sides of the argument yourself. That's just you talking to yourself in front of people... it's kinda nutty looking.

But, Berkeley was an empiricist. He felt that empiricism logically leads to immaterialism because we are truly relying on our senses and making no extra assumptions, which is what empiricism is supposed to mean. Materialism goes too far and asserts things without objective evidence that things can exist independently of minds.

People ASSUME things exist independently of minds. Berkeley didn't make this assumption.