Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Keith&Co.]

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

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

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

So, which is the argument Locke thought was ironclad? His or Berkeley's?

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

ah, but you're on the side of those who shout 'just a theory' and consider it a refutation.

Stiiiiiiiill waiting for you to support your claim that we think Locke is a genius.

 

[skepticalbip]

People ASSUME things exist independently of minds.

Not at all. People REASON things exist independently of minds...

You are ASSERTING minds floating around in nothingness.

ETA:
And even at that you are contradicting yourself. By your assertions, you can not know that there are other minds than your own.

 

[Half-Life]

People ASSUME things exist independently of minds.

Not at all. People REASON things exist independently of minds...

You are ASSERTING minds floating around in nothingness.

How does one reason that things exist independently of minds?

 

[Half-Life]

So, which is the argument Locke thought was ironclad? His or Berkeley's?

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

ah, but you're on the side of those who shout 'just a theory' and consider it a refutation.

Stiiiiiiiill waiting for you to support your claim that we think Locke is a genius.

Berkeley's.

Locke is usually praised among atheists.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Locke is usually praised among atheists.

But that was not your claim, now, was it?

Who was it got so upset the other day about backpedaling on a claim? Who, who, who?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, which is the argument Locke thought was ironclad? His or Berkeley's?

Berkeley's.

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

 

[Half-Life]

So, which is the argument Locke thought was ironclad? His or Berkeley's?

Berkeley's.

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

 

[skepticalbip]

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted? I would like to read it in context if it exists. Google can't seem to find anything close to what you had in quotes, even though I corrected the spelling.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

Did you ever wonder why The Merchant of Venice has a character named after a sports car?

 

[blastula]

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."

Your bolding, and by which you proved god would need a brain to be the one true great observer.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

So, let me see if i follow you.
You, Half-Life, feel that no one has proven that matter can exist except as perceived by a mind.

Therefore, and without evidence, you deel the opposite, that matter must be perceived by a mind in order to exist.

And for some reason, again without evidence, or any argument offered, you accept that some matter exists independent of YOUR mind, and that matter can ONLY be explained to exist by positing an omniscient being whose mind perceives everything.

So....who perceives the omnimind so that it can exist?
And exactly how do you make these logical leaps to your conclusions?

 

[skepticalbip]

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."

Your bolding, and by which you proved god would need a brain to be the one true great observer.

But then consistency and logic is not traits belonging to theistic apologists.

Such traits, if he had them, would have Halfie recognize that he has declared himself GOD. Since he is currently deep into solipsism, the only thing he can know to exist is his own consciousness, and no other. This means that he only knows that he exists and that he has created the universe (within his own mind) that he senses.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

In ancient times I participated in a nationwide academic competition for high-school students. To avoid potential for bias on the part of the judges, all students who qualified for the final round were issued code-names. Coincidentally, the code-name I was issued was "John Locke".

So was John Locke a genius? Well, I did win.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted?

Optimism is a good thing. Until it's dashed against the rocks like the babies in Psalm 137:9...

 

[Half-Life]

But, you posted Locke's 'way out' of an argument he thought was ironclad?

You remind me of Otto in Fish Called Wanda.

Yes, his way of describing matter was nonsensical!!

A nonsensical refutation is not a refutation.

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted? I would like to read it in context if it exists. Google can't seem to find anything close to what you had in quotes, even though I corrected the spelling.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs1MeDUgEOA[/YOUTUBE]

Please watch this video and you will understand. Hope it doesn't shatter your worldview.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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.

And now we see the idealism of George Berkeley paraded into this inane discussion.

A thought experiment. One hundred people go one bu one to a desk where and object is in an open box. They write down what they see in the box and deposit that slip into a box. Then the observations are tallied. One hundred people see a red coffee cup in the box. How can that be? If things exist only when observed, how can everybody see a red coffee cup. Idealism problem of persistent objects.
Berkeley's answer was God observed all. So the red coffee cup was persistent and never disappeared. Now we consider an evil man, John, who is torturing innocent Jane. If God decided to no longer observe John's instruments of torture, or even John, they would disappear. This then seems to make the allegedly perfectly good God and accomplice to all horrible actions and crimes of evil men and women. How does this God observes everything work?

We also get into the problem of if God is inside or outside of time. If God is outside of time and sees all at once, all that is exists and Gods sees it all. And created it all at once and so is responsible for it all, including John and his instruments of torture and the hapless Jane.

This is just the beginning of the problems of God for theology and idealism.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted? I would like to read it in context if it exists. Google can't seem to find anything close to what you had in quotes, even though I corrected the spelling.

Please watch this video and you will understand. Hope it doesn't shatter your worldview.

A cartoon taken from Berkeley? WTF?

Don't you have the source for the Locke quote you claimed was Locke's position? Surely if Locke stated this in one of his papers then it should be available, even though Google doesn't think so.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted? I would like to read it in context if it exists. Google can't seem to find anything close to what you had in quotes, even though I corrected the spelling.

Please watch this video and you will understand. Hope it doesn't shatter your worldview.

A cartoon taken from Berkeley? WTF?

Don't you have the source for the Locke quote you claimed was Locke's position? Surely if Locke stated this in one of his papers then it should be available, even though Google doesn't think so.

Did you look to see if Locke made a comment on the Youtube? That's a favorite source for Halfie....

 

[Half-Life]

Do you have a link for that quote of Locke's you posted? I would like to read it in context if it exists. Google can't seem to find anything close to what you had in quotes, even though I corrected the spelling.

Please watch this video and you will understand. Hope it doesn't shatter your worldview.

A cartoon taken from Berkeley? WTF?

Don't you have the source for the Locke quote you claimed was Locke's position? Surely if Locke stated this in one of his papers then it should be available, even though Google doesn't think so.

The quote is explained in the video!!!

 

[Half-Life]

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.

And now we see the idealism of George Berkeley paraded into this inane discussion.

A thought experiment. One hundred people go one bu one to a desk where and object is in an open box. They write down what they see in the box and deposit that slip into a box. Then the observations are tallied. One hundred people see a red coffee cup in the box. How can that be? If things exist only when observed, how can everybody see a red coffee cup. Idealism problem of persistent objects.
Berkeley's answer was God observed all. So the red coffee cup was persistent and never disappeared. Now we consider an evil man, John, who is torturing innocent Jane. If God decided to no longer observe John's instruments of torture, or even John, they would disappear. This then seems to make the allegedly perfectly good God and accomplice to all horrible actions and crimes of evil men and women. How does this God observes everything work?

We also get into the problem of if God is inside or outside of time. If God is outside of time and sees all at once, all that is exists and Gods sees it all. And created it all at once and so is responsible for it all, including John and his instruments of torture and the hapless Jane.

This is just the beginning of the problems of God for theology and idealism.

Nothing in there is a refutation. It just seems you don't understand Berkeley's argument. I would recommend watching the video (maybe twice), then take about a 10 minute reflection, then post your thoughts.