Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Keith&Co.]

And they still claim they are atheists!

Yes. I still don't find your use of someone else's philosophy a compelling reason to accept a divine being who has infinite love, yet sends people to infinite torture.
Or any other candidates for a skybeast. So, yes, the atheist label still applies.

Sorry if that's beyond your logical understanding, girlie. But it is the brute honest fact.

 

[Half-Life]

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!

So you are still claiming that your consciousness is the only thing that exists? That is an interesting way of denying that there is a god... that is unless you are claiming that you are god and you haven't yet created the universe.

No. All of our minds exist, but in order to solve the problem of things existing independently of minds, which no one has ever been able to provide a lick of evidence for, there must be an eternal observer.

 

[Half-Life]

And they still claim they are atheists!

Yes. I still don't find your use of someone else's philosophy a compelling reason to accept a divine being who has infinite love, yet sends people to infinite torture.
Or any other candidates for a skybeast. So, yes, the atheist label still applies.

Sorry if that's beyond your logical understanding, girlie. But it is the brute honest fact.

Empiricism leads us to notice that there is no evidence that things can exist independently of minds. Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact of things existing independently of minds, materialism is more faith based than immaterialism.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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!

So you are still claiming that your consciousness is the only thing that exists? That is an interesting way of denying that there is a god... that is unless you are claiming that you are god and you haven't yet created the universe.

No. All of our minds exist, but in order to solve the problem of things existing independently of minds, which no one has ever been able to provide a lick of evidence for, there must be an eternal observer.

....which no one has provided a lick of evidence for, still.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And they still claim they are atheists!

Yes. I still don't find your use of someone else's philosophy a compelling reason to accept a divine being who has infinite love, yet sends people to infinite torture.
Or any other candidates for a skybeast. So, yes, the atheist label still applies.

Sorry if that's beyond your logical understanding, girlie. But it is the brute honest fact.

Empiricism leads us to notice that there is no evidence that things can exist independently of minds.

...but also no reason to accept the opposite.

Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact

cite that atheism banks on this?

 

[abaddon]

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.

 

[skepticalbip]

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!

So you are still claiming that your consciousness is the only thing that exists? That is an interesting way of denying that there is a god... that is unless you are claiming that you are god and you haven't yet created the universe.

No. All of our minds exist, but in order to solve the problem of things existing independently of minds, which no one has ever been able to provide a lick of evidence for, there must be an eternal observer.

You need to learn more about solipsism. The claim is that you can only know your mind's existence... you can not know that there are other minds any more than you can know that there is material things.

Perhaps you would like to try to produce evidence that there are minds other than your own.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact of things existing independently of minds, materialism is more faith based than immaterialism.

even if this was completely true, as i understand these things, it is not a problem. I do not have to reject my basic premise unless, and until, you can show evidence that it is a false premise.
Offering an alternate premise does not accomplish this.

 

[Half-Life]

No. All of our minds exist, but in order to solve the problem of things existing independently of minds, which no one has ever been able to provide a lick of evidence for, there must be an eternal observer.

....which no one has provided a lick of evidence for, still.

If there is absolutely no evidence that things can exist independently of minds, then there must be an eternal observer in order to escape this problem.

How else do you escape this problem, Keith?

 

[Half-Life]

Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact of things existing independently of minds, materialism is more faith based than immaterialism.

even if this was completely true, as i understand these things, it is not a problem. I do not have to reject my basic premise unless, and until, you can show evidence that it is a false premise.
Offering an alternate premise does not accomplish this.

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."

 

[steve_bank]

Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact of things existing independently of minds, materialism is more faith based than immaterialism.

even if this was completely true, as i understand these things, it is not a problem. I do not have to reject my basic premise unless, and until, you can show evidence that it is a false premise.
Offering an alternate premise does not accomplish this.

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?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

No. All of our minds exist, but in order to solve the problem of things existing independently of minds, which no one has ever been able to provide a lick of evidence for, there must be an eternal observer.

....which no one has provided a lick of evidence for, still.

If there is absolutely no evidence that things can exist independently of minds, then there must be an eternal observer in order to escape this problem.

How else do you escape this problem, Keith?

i ask you to prove your conclusion.

If there us no evidrnce FOR something, that lack IS NOT evidence against it.
Nor is it positive evidence for the converse.
How do you constantly ignore this, dearie?

 

[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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since materialism and atheism bank on this fact of things existing independently of minds, materialism is more faith based than immaterialism.

even if this was completely true, as i understand these things, it is not a problem. I do not have to reject my basic premise unless, and until, you can show evidence that it is a false premise.
Offering an alternate premise does not accomplish this.

Let's start with a basic question, Keith.

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?

You guys couldn't grasp the Berkeley video I showed you.

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?

 

[abaddon]

Or alternatively, "Reality exists outside the mind."

exactly how would it change things if they do not?

Good question. I've lived this long in my own mind so... what's the problem again??

 

[Keith&Co.]

Or alternatively, "Reality exists outside the mind."

exactly how would it change things if they do not?

Good question. I've lived this long in my own mind so... what's the problem again??

The problem is if we're all just constructs in Halfie's mind, why is she so fucking bad at making others see her point?

 

[blastula]

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!

"This dead, failed philosophy proves God."

 

[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?

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.

 

[Half-Life]

Let's start with a basic question, Keith.

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?

You guys couldn't grasp the Berkeley video I showed you.

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?