Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Half-Life]

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.

Materialists ARE atheists. THESE are the people who believe things can exist independently of minds. These people have never been able to show one lick of evidence for this external world independent of minds, yet they insist it is true.

Face it, that's the definition of dogma. And while it's fine to have dogma, don't go around pretending it's scientific. It's certainly not based on empiricism, which immaterialism most certainly is based on empiricism.

It seems you reject the conclusion of Berkeley's empiricism because you don't want God to exist. But, don't be a coward about it. Just admit that is your position and we can discuss it from there.

 

[Half-Life]

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....

it doesn't troll atheists, Keith. Berkeley understood that atheists live by empiricism. So by using only empiricism, he figured he'd prove God and win over the atheists. Since the atheists don't like Berkeley's conclusions, Berkeley now understood it was never about evidence. It was about them not wanting God to exist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

it doesn't troll atheists, Keith. Berkeley understood that atheists live by empiricism.

And this is part of the atheist definition, where?

Lion keeps insisting that atheists presuppose atheism.

So by using only empiricism, he figured he'd prove God and win over the atheists.

yes, nice story.
But the fact remains, you do not HAVE to prove your basic premise.
However, if you expect me to abandon mine, you do need to actually disprove it.
Your argument doesn't do that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since the atheists don't like Berkeley's conclusions, Berkeley now understood it was never about evidence. It was about them not wanting God to exist.

So, if that is true, it means Berkeley concluded that atheists are NOT empiricists.
Why, then, do you keep going on about it, if he said the opposite?

 

[Half-Life]

Since the atheists don't like Berkeley's conclusions, Berkeley now understood it was never about evidence. It was about them not wanting God to exist.

So, if that is true, it means Berkeley concluded that atheists are NOT empiricists.
Why, then, do you keep going on about it, if he said the opposite?

Keith it is a flat out lie that atheists don't claim empiricism is the best way to understand the world. Richard Dawkins uses the word, I heard it on this board dozens of times. Empirically empirically empirically! But when empiricism is used to prove God, it then becomes, "Empiricism!!??!?! We don't use that!!!"

 

[steve_bank]

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvifKWtC_Pkwho claim to refute the argument, you sure don't seem to understand a lick of it.

Berkeley... hmmm.. didn't he play for the NY Knicks? Or was that Barkley. I always confuse philosophy and basketball, they are both games. The difference being philosophy never wins only plays endlssly.

 

[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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvifKWtC_Pkwho claim to refute the argument, you sure don't seem to understand a lick of it.

Berkeley... hmmm.. didn't he play for the NY Knicks? Or was that Barkley. I always confuse philosophy and basketball, they are both games. The difference being philosophy never wins only plays endlssly.

Aother post and no proof of an external world independent of minds.

Maybe you'll find the proof one day. Until then, you guys will keep pretending that laughing is a refutation. It doesn't bother you that John Locke found Berkeley's argument so airtight that he had to invent a mysterious substratum of matter which makes up material objects?

 

[steve_bank]

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?

How does that prove anything about external reality? It proves sensations are felt in the mind, yes. A mind is needed to describe the event. So it is not independent of minds.

Strike 1,256.

You obviously mused the obvious metaphor of useless banging your head against a wall...may too subtle for a philosopher like you.

Arguing unanswerable philosophical conundrums -- banging your head against a wall...gt it?

 

[Half-Life]

How does that prove anything about external reality? It proves sensations are felt in the mind, yes. A mind is needed to describe the event. So it is not independent of minds.

Strike 1,256.

You obviously mused the obvious metaphor of useless banging your head against a wall...may too subtle for a philosopher like you.

Arguing unanswerable philosophical conundrums -- banging your head against a wall...gt it?

Banging your head against a wall proves that you are using a mind to feel the pain and using your mind to describe the wall. How does this prove that these things exist independently of your mind?

You were outside your mind when all this happened?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since the atheists don't like Berkeley's conclusions, Berkeley now understood it was never about evidence. It was about them not wanting God to exist.

So, if that is true, it means Berkeley concluded that atheists are NOT empiricists.
Why, then, do you keep going on about it, if he said the opposite?

Keith it is a flat out lie that atheists don't claim empiricism is the best way to understand the world.

but you JUST SAID that Berkeley determined atheism is not about empiricism.

So why try to use the apparent consequences of empiricism to battle something separate?

Or did you not realize you were making Berkeley's argument one against empiricism?

Richard Dawkins uses the word, I heard it on this board dozens of times. Empirically empirically empirically! But when empiricism is used to prove God, it then becomes, "Empiricism!!??!?! We don't use that!!!"

nevrrr mind this quoting atheists. Your big argument concludes with Berkeley concluding atheism is NOT about evidence.
Which means he is saying it's nit about empiricism.
Literally, this is what you just patted yourself on the back for, proving thst we atheists are completely insulated from an empiricism proof of god.
So what have you been wasting your time with thst for?

 

[Keith&Co.]

How does that prove anything about external reality? It proves sensations are felt in the mind, yes. A mind is needed to describe the event. So it is not independent of minds.

Strike 1,256.

You obviously mused the obvious metaphor of useless banging your head against a wall...may too subtle for a philosopher like you.

Arguing unanswerable philosophical conundrums -- banging your head against a wall...gt it?

Banging your head against a wall proves that you are using a mind to feel the pain and using your mind to describe the wall. How does this prove that these things exist independently of your mind?

You were outside your mind when all this happened?

What if the banging is metaphorical, though? Is the pain still real?

 

[DBT]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

Halfie is stuck on early 1700s "understandings", when people were still being tried for witchcraft and when bleeding was the state of the art medical procedure for almost any ailment or suspected ailment.

 

[Half-Life]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

Empirical evidence for this?

 

[Half-Life]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

Halfie is stuck on early 1700s "understandings", when people were still being tried for witchcraft and when bleeding was the state of the art medical procedure for almost any ailment or suspected ailment.

Didn't a great mind once say, "It doesn't matter what year an idea is thought up. The idea is true regardless of year."
It's definitely a logical fallacy.

Especially if the idea hasn't been refuted in 300 years so far, then I'd say that's a pretty damn good eyebrow raising idea.

 

[DBT]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

Halfie is stuck on early 1700s "understandings", when people were still being tried for witchcraft and when bleeding was the state of the art medical procedure for almost any ailment or suspected ailment.

Didn't a great mind once say, "It doesn't matter what year an idea is thought up. The idea is true regardless of year."
It's definitely a logical fallacy.

Especially if the idea hasn't been refuted in 300 years so far, then I'd say that's a pretty damn good eyebrow raising idea.

There is no evidence for an independent/autonomous user of the mind.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are not using your mind to feel pain. There is no 'user' of the mind. The brain generates mind and self in order to experience the world and respond to it, which includes self awareness and the sensation of pain.

Halfie is stuck on early 1700s "understandings", when people were still being tried for witchcraft and when bleeding was the state of the art medical procedure for almost any ailment or suspected ailment.

Didn't a great mind once say, "It doesn't matter what year an idea is thought up. The idea is true regardless of year."
.

It is true that an idea that is true is true regardless of the year it was reached. It is also true that a dumb-ass idea is dumb-ass regardless of the year it was conceived. There were a hell of a lot more dumb-ass ideas around in 1700.

Especially if the idea hasn't been refuted in 300 years so far, then I'd say that's a pretty damn good eyebrow raising idea.

Now that is a silly metric. Such philosophical musings are not refuted, they also are not substantiated. They were and are philosophical mental masturbation.

 

[Lion IRC]

Didn't a great mind once say, "It doesn't matter what year an idea is thought up. The idea is true regardless of year."
It's definitely a logical fallacy.

Especially if the idea hasn't been refuted in 300 years so far, then I'd say that's a pretty damn good eyebrow raising idea.

There is no evidence for an independent/autonomous user of the mind.

Isn't Bruce Jenner a female mind trapped in a mans body?

 

[skepticalbip]

Isn't Bruce Jenner a female mind trapped in a mans body?

Halfie asserts that there is no body. A body is a material thing and material things are what he has challenged people to prove exists.

So by Halfie's argument the answer to your question is NO. Bruce Jenner would be just a female mind, period.

 

[DBT]

Didn't a great mind once say, "It doesn't matter what year an idea is thought up. The idea is true regardless of year."
It's definitely a logical fallacy.

Especially if the idea hasn't been refuted in 300 years so far, then I'd say that's a pretty damn good eyebrow raising idea.

There is no evidence for an independent/autonomous user of the mind.

Isn't Bruce Jenner a female mind trapped in a mans body?

Where does the female mind come from? How do you think mind is formed?