Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Cheerful Charlie]

Everyone goes for the low-hanging fruit instead of trying to refute immaterialism. So far, no one has been able to do it. And they still claim they are atheists!

Can't make this stuff up!

Yep.
Atheist holy grail. Matter which has its own free-will volition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality

View attachment 24856

Photons move. Photons cannot not move. When an atom emits energy, it emits that in form of a photon. Where does the movement of a photon come from? God? Angels? Fairies?

 

[Half-Life]

Halflife whataya say we astral project and meet on the moon and discuss the mind body question. Mind independent of brain and body.

Your mind body position is more Buddhist and Hindu. Mind is absolute reality, all is mind and so on. Tripped through that stuff in the 70s.

Ommmmmm. I can't quite get into a full Lotus position anymore.

You missed Berkeley's argument that distance/length is also known only through the mind, just like color and feeling pain. Going to the moon does not prove anything any more than being on Earth proves anything. Everything is only known through minds. We have never been outside of our minds.

For people who claim to refute the argument, you sure don't seem to understand a lick of it.

 

[Half-Life]

Let's start with a basic question, Keith. You guys couldn't grasp the Berkeley video I showed you. You also couldn't grasp the webpage which explains his views, so let's start with a question:

What leads you (empiricially) to conclude that things can exist independently of minds? Or alternatively, "Reality exists outside the mind."

About on a par with the old problem 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?'

There is no way to experimental demonstrate your question. As such it is philosophy not science.

You want to test reality. You bend over and run your head into a concrete wall as fast as you can. Does your pain prove that both you and the wall exists?

It is philosophy but a philosophy so pointless that even philosophers stopped considering it quite a while ago. In case you didn't notice, Halfie had to go back to the 1700s to find a philosopher that thought it was worth offering as a serious idea. It is the ultimate in belly-button gazing because anyone arguing it is claiming that they are arguing with themselves.

And he will be proven wrong as soon as you demonstrate how we can get outside of our own minds and examine the "external reality that exists independently of our minds."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i think 'why should i reject my basic premise?' Is a pretty basic one tggat you are ignoring.
How much philosophy did you take for your marketing degree? plenty of people in this thread know more about it thab you.
Ever find tggat quote you bullshitted?

You also couldn't grasp the webpage which explains his views, so let's start with a question:

tge quote you lied with?

What leads you (empiricially) to conclude that things can exist independently of minds?

is 'conclude' the best word for a basic premise?

Or alternatively, "Reality exists outside the mind."

exactly how would it change things if they do n ot?

I will ask again, Keith.

What has lead you to believe that things exist independently of minds?

Stubbed toes.

 

[skepticalbip]

It is philosophy but a philosophy so pointless that even philosophers stopped considering it quite a while ago. In case you didn't notice, Halfie had to go back to the 1700s to find a philosopher that thought it was worth offering as a serious idea. It is the ultimate in belly-button gazing because anyone arguing it is claiming that they are arguing with themselves.

And he will be proven wrong as soon as you demonstrate how we can get outside of our own minds and examine the "external reality that exists independently of our minds."

Most thinking people have moved on from anthropocentrism quite a while ago. Reality doesn't depend on humans to exist, but it must exist for humans to sense it. But then there are still a few egomaniacs who believe that they are the center of and reason for the universe. Even fewer who believe that the universe will vanish if they shut their eyes... but proper medication may help them.

 

[skepticalbip]

I will ask again, Keith.

What has lead you to believe that things exist independently of minds?

Stubbed toes.

I found that wearing steel toed house slippers significantly cut down on that. They are hard to find but worth it if you can find a pair.

 

[Half-Life]

Stubbed toes.

Man, you guys REALLY don't understand Berkeley's point. Pain is only in the mind. All sensations are in the mind.

 

[abaddon]

Stubbed toes.

Man, you guys REALLY don't understand Berkeley's point. Pain is only in the mind. All sensations are in the mind.

Yeah but whatever stimulated the painful sensations need not be in the mind.

Your argument means they're not just feeling pain in the mind, they're also stubbing their toes by kicking ideas in the mind of God.

 

[abaddon]

It is philosophy but a philosophy so pointless that even philosophers stopped considering it quite a while ago. In case you didn't notice, Halfie had to go back to the 1700s to find a philosopher that thought it was worth offering as a serious idea. It is the ultimate in belly-button gazing because anyone arguing it is claiming that they are arguing with themselves.

And he will be proven wrong as soon as you demonstrate how we can get outside of our own minds and examine the "external reality that exists independently of our minds."

My first-person experience may be limited to my mind but such strict empiricism isn't necessary. I can extrapolate from my experiences to a world.

Now, the external world... does it have to be observed by God to exist? You keep saying "Berkeley! Berkeley!" but haven't explained his ideas and what's so very fucking convincing about them.

The talk is about "ideas" and "objects" and about how objects don't fit into minds so only ideas are there. Then there's the stuff about how only immaterial ideas exist outside our private minds too (else they can't get into our minds at all). And since they're ideas outside the human's mind they must be in the mind of God. What's not addressed is energy. If Berkeley were alive today and trying to refute materialism, he'd have to say how energy isn't registered by sense organs and translated into "ideas" (ie, objects of perception) in our minds, thus explaining why it's not necessary that objects be ideas (the stuff of minds) because sensory perception can translate objects to "the stuff of minds".

 

[Half-Life]

It is philosophy but a philosophy so pointless that even philosophers stopped considering it quite a while ago. In case you didn't notice, Halfie had to go back to the 1700s to find a philosopher that thought it was worth offering as a serious idea. It is the ultimate in belly-button gazing because anyone arguing it is claiming that they are arguing with themselves.

And he will be proven wrong as soon as you demonstrate how we can get outside of our own minds and examine the "external reality that exists independently of our minds."

My first-person experience may be limited to my mind but such strict empiricism isn't necessary. I can extrapolate from my experiences to a world.

Now, the external world... does it have to be observed by God to exist? You keep saying "Berkeley! Berkeley!" but haven't explained his ideas and what's so very fucking convincing about them.

The talk is about "ideas" and "objects" and about how objects don't fit into minds so only ideas are there. Then there's the stuff about how only immaterial ideas exist outside our private minds too (else they can't get into our minds at all). And since they're ideas outside the human's mind they must be in the mind of God. What's not addressed is energy. If Berkeley were alive today and trying to refute materialism, he'd have to say how energy isn't registered by sense organs and translated into "ideas" (ie, objects of perception) in our minds, thus explaining why it's not necessary that objects be ideas (the stuff of minds) because sensory perception can translate objects to "the stuff of minds".

What do you mean energy isn't registered by sense organs? Energy is still something that you are using a mind to explain. Everything is only known through minds. So yes, the external world exists, but it exists because God is always perceiving it.

The materialist must explain how they know the external world exists independently of minds. Immaterialists don't have that problem because we don't assume things can exist independently of minds.

Immaterialism is the default, materialism requires that extra step of evidence, which Berkeley argued was not needed. I suppose you could say using Occam's razor, the default should be immaterialism.

 

[skepticalbip]

And he will be proven wrong as soon as you demonstrate how we can get outside of our own minds and examine the "external reality that exists independently of our minds."

Now, the external world... does it have to be observed by God to exist? You keep saying "Berkeley! Berkeley!" but haven't explained his ideas and what's so very fucking convincing about them.

I've seen no evidence that Halfie has any idea what Berkeley argued. From the claims being made, it seems that the Jack Chick type youtube cartoon that was linked is the extent of Halfie's "understanding".

George Berkeley's A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge is pretty much just a rip-off and extension of Platonic Idealism.

 

[bilby]

Everyone goes for the low-hanging fruit instead of trying to refute immaterialism. So far, no one has been able to do it. And they still claim they are atheists!

Can't make this stuff up!

Yep.
Atheist holy grail. Matter which has its own free-will volition.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality

View attachment 24856

Theist myth: Matter's just stupid lumps, like clay. It needs intentionality for it to do anything, to form anything.

Clays are very complex fine-structured colloids of mostly silicates and water. Clays are absolutely not simple, nor do they behave in highly simplistic or predictable ways. As anyone who has built a home in a reactive clay area can tell you.

 

[Lion IRC]

Photons move. Photons cannot not move.

 

[DBT]

The inherent properties of matter/energy enable a complex universe to evolve.

 

[Keith&Co.]

i think 'why should i reject my basic premise?' Is a pretty basic one tggat you are ignoring.
How much philosophy did you take for your marketing degree? plenty of people in this thread know more about it thab you.
Ever find tggat quote you bullshitted?

You also couldn't grasp the webpage which explains his views, so let's start with a question:

tge quote you lied with?

What leads you (empiricially) to conclude that things can exist independently of minds?

is 'conclude' the best word for a basic premise?

Or alternatively, "Reality exists outside the mind."

exactly how would it change things if they do n ot?

I will ask again, Keith.

What has lead you to believe that things exist independently of minds?

So, same question as before, but at least you are not terming it as a 'conclusion.' I will have to take that shift as a tacit admission of error.

Couple more of these, you might abandon this futility.

 

[Rhea]

I will ask again, Keith.

What has lead you to believe that things exist independently of minds?

Consilience. It's really that simple.

This has so far been a bunch of silly navel-gazing. Some of these philosophers, who operated in times without understand how many branches of science could be brought to bear on their navel gazing. And Half-Life has not matured in thought since then.

But here it is in a nutshell: If all you've got is your mind and my mind and there is no physical world between them, then you will not see the agreement in experience, measurement, action, reaction, etc. Take an example as easy as the game of GeoCaching. A person puts an object in a spot, and 100 other people completely unrelated - find it. Indeed in one case we came across one in the woods without even looking and later were able to find the people who, "in their minds" had put it "there".

That's a simple example, but there are more and significantly more complex examples.

Your thought exercise requires that very stiff boundaries are set in order for it to work. You can't look too far, you can't look too hard, or your philosophical mind experiment falls apart. Deluding yourself by excluding evidence is cute, when you're doing a little navel gazing, but is utterly worthless in understanding the world.

It's a clever linguistic trick if you're trying desperately to convince yourself that a god exists, but you are nevertheless deluding yourself by scribing your box so tightly that it guarantees your desired outcome in your head - while the rest of the universe goes on without you.

Stubbed toes.

Man, you guys REALLY don't understand Berkeley's point. Pain is only in the mind. All sensations are in the mind.

Oh we understand his point. We conclude that he is deluded and wrong.
You REALLY don't understand that we are refuting his point, not misunderstanding it.

My first-person experience may be limited to my mind but such strict empiricism isn't necessary. I can extrapolate from my experiences to a world.

Now, the external world... does it have to be observed by God to exist? You keep saying "Berkeley! Berkeley!" but haven't explained his ideas and what's so very fucking convincing about them.

The talk is about "ideas" and "objects" and about how objects don't fit into minds so only ideas are there. Then there's the stuff about how only immaterial ideas exist outside our private minds too (else they can't get into our minds at all). And since they're ideas outside the human's mind they must be in the mind of God. What's not addressed is energy. If Berkeley were alive today and trying to refute materialism, he'd have to say how energy isn't registered by sense organs and translated into "ideas" (ie, objects of perception) in our minds, thus explaining why it's not necessary that objects be ideas (the stuff of minds) because sensory perception can translate objects to "the stuff of minds".

What do you mean energy isn't registered by sense organs? Energy is still something that you are using a mind to explain. Everything is only known through minds. So yes, the external world exists, but it exists because God is always perceiving it.

Claim asserted without evidence.
As abbadon tells you, you have not explained why this Berkeley's ideas are plausible. You have merely asserted them. It's not even clear that you understand them. Nay, it's pretty clear that you do not understand them.
Which - in the end - is consistent with all of your claims about gods and bibles and the like. Empty assertions and proclamations without logic or evidence.

The materialist must explain how they know the external world exists independently of minds. Immaterialists don't have that problem because we don't assume things can exist independently of minds.

LOL listen to yourself. "We don't need logic because we assume we don't need it, therefore logic is wrong."

Immaterialism is the default,

Assertion without evidence. Silly assertion with not even a shred of logic.
"The default is to believe in magic."
Duuuude.

materialism requires that extra step of evidence, which Berkeley argued was not needed. I suppose you could say using Occam's razor, the default should be immaterialism.

Assuming you understand Berkeley correctly (not currently supported) you're saying you like his argument because he claims it's easier to make shit up than to prove it?


THAT'S your argument?

 

[Keith&Co.]

you're saying you like his argument because he claims it's easier to make shit up than to prove it?


THAT'S your argument?

This...surprises you?
Halfie just makes shit up ALL THE TIME. No wonder he would be drawn to external validation of this method... even if thst validation is something he made up.

 

[Half-Life]

Consilience. It's really that simple.

This has so far been a bunch of silly navel-gazing. Some of these philosophers, who operated in times without understand how many branches of science could be brought to bear on their navel gazing. And Half-Life has not matured in thought since then.

But here it is in a nutshell: If all you've got is your mind and my mind and there is no physical world between them, then you will not see the agreement in experience, measurement, action, reaction, etc. Take an example as easy as the game of GeoCaching. A person puts an object in a spot, and 100 other people completely unrelated - find it. Indeed in one case we came across one in the woods without even looking and later were able to find the people who, "in their minds" had put it "there".

That's a simple example, but there are more and significantly more complex examples.

Your thought exercise requires that very stiff boundaries are set in order for it to work. You can't look too far, you can't look too hard, or your philosophical mind experiment falls apart. Deluding yourself by excluding evidence is cute, when you're doing a little navel gazing, but is utterly worthless in understanding the world.

It's a clever linguistic trick if you're trying desperately to convince yourself that a god exists, but you are nevertheless deluding yourself by scribing your box so tightly that it guarantees your desired outcome in your head - while the rest of the universe goes on without you.

Man, you guys REALLY don't understand Berkeley's point. Pain is only in the mind. All sensations are in the mind.

Oh we understand his point. We conclude that he is deluded and wrong.
You REALLY don't understand that we are refuting his point, not misunderstanding it.

My first-person experience may be limited to my mind but such strict empiricism isn't necessary. I can extrapolate from my experiences to a world.

Now, the external world... does it have to be observed by God to exist? You keep saying "Berkeley! Berkeley!" but haven't explained his ideas and what's so very fucking convincing about them.

The talk is about "ideas" and "objects" and about how objects don't fit into minds so only ideas are there. Then there's the stuff about how only immaterial ideas exist outside our private minds too (else they can't get into our minds at all). And since they're ideas outside the human's mind they must be in the mind of God. What's not addressed is energy. If Berkeley were alive today and trying to refute materialism, he'd have to say how energy isn't registered by sense organs and translated into "ideas" (ie, objects of perception) in our minds, thus explaining why it's not necessary that objects be ideas (the stuff of minds) because sensory perception can translate objects to "the stuff of minds".

What do you mean energy isn't registered by sense organs? Energy is still something that you are using a mind to explain. Everything is only known through minds. So yes, the external world exists, but it exists because God is always perceiving it.

Claim asserted without evidence.
As abbadon tells you, you have not explained why this Berkeley's ideas are plausible. You have merely asserted them. It's not even clear that you understand them. Nay, it's pretty clear that you do not understand them.
Which - in the end - is consistent with all of your claims about gods and bibles and the like. Empty assertions and proclamations without logic or evidence.

The materialist must explain how they know the external world exists independently of minds. Immaterialists don't have that problem because we don't assume things can exist independently of minds.

LOL listen to yourself. "We don't need logic because we assume we don't need it, therefore logic is wrong."

Immaterialism is the default,

Assertion without evidence. Silly assertion with not even a shred of logic.
"The default is to believe in magic."
Duuuude.

materialism requires that extra step of evidence, which Berkeley argued was not needed. I suppose you could say using Occam's razor, the default should be immaterialism.

Assuming you understand Berkeley correctly (not currently supported) you're saying you like his argument because he claims it's easier to make shit up than to prove it?


THAT'S your argument?

Once again, it goes over your head. You are scoffing at Berkley using empiricism to prove God, yet you guys claim to be empiricists.

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4r.htm

Material Substance is Inconceivable


"Locke's reference to an "unknown substratum" in which the features of material substances inhere is a pointless assumption, according to Berkeley. Since it is the very nature of sensible objects to be perceived, on his view, it would be absurd to suppose that their reality depends in any way upon an imperceptible core. This gives rise to a perfectly general argument against even the possibility of material substance."

Putting aside all of the forgoing lines of argument, Berkeley declared, the whole issue can be allowed to rest on a single question: is it possible to conceive of a sensible object existing independently of any perceiver? The challenge seems easy enough at first. All I have to do is think of something so remote—a tree in the middle of the forest, perhaps—that no one presently has it in mind. But if I conceive of this thing, then it is present in my mind as I think of it, so it is not truly independent of all perception.

"According to Berkeley (and such later idealists as Fichte and Bradley) this argument shows irrefutably that the very concept of material substance as a sensible object existing independently of any perception is incoherent. No wonder the representationalist philosophy leads to skepticism: it introduces as a necessary element in our knowledge of the natural world a concept that is literally inconceivable!"


"The existence of what I see does not depend exclusively on my seeing it. Berkeley's central claim is that sensible objects cannot exist without being perceived, but he did not suppose that I am the only perceiver. So long as some sentient being, some thinking substance or spirit, has in mind the sensible qualities or objects at issue, they do truly exist. Thus, even when I close my eyes, the tree I now see will continue to exist, provided that someone else is seeing it."

"This difference, Berkeley held, precisely marks the distinction between real and imaginary things. What I merely imagine exists in my mind alone and continues to exist only so long as I think of it. But what is real exists in many minds, so it can continue to exist whether I perceive it or not. (That's why, unsure of the reality of what I seem to see, I may ask someone else, "Did you see that?") The existence of sensible objects requires that they be perceived, but it is not dependent exclusively on my perception of them."

"In fact, the persistence and regularity of the sensible objects that constitute the natural world is independent of all human perception, according to Berkeley. Even when none of us is perceiving this tree, god is. The mind of god serves as a permanent repository of the sensible objects that we perceive at some times and not at others. (Although Berkeley took great pains to deny it, this view of the divine role in perception is very similar to Malebranche's notion of "seeing all things in god.")

 

[Keith&Co.]

Once again, it goes over your head. You are scoffing at Berkley using empiricism to prove God,

still confused about how proof works, i see....

yet you guys claim to be empiricists.

and that's pretty much all you have, isn't it? You think this argument trolls atheists. So you're going to keep pretending it's a good argument, whether or not you understand it, or understand the arguments against it.

But, still, there is no evidence justifying the leap to the conclusion. More of a 'what if?' story that you like the ending of....

 

[abaddon]

Half-Life,

Now relate any of that to the thread's topic.

Do not claim atheism needs the assumption of a material world. It's already been explained that atheism isn't materialism. It doesn't matter if all the universe is made of matter, ideas, spirits, cheese, bad smells, or what the fuck ever. Either a theist produces a god or I stay an atheist.