Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.

mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

Your life is a love story!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
LOL. Can an illogical

LOL. Can an illogical position, held on to for irrational reasons be defeated through logic and rationality? There should be a warning label for people that want to debate Christians. "Beware all who enter here, for there be faith".


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: LOL. Can

wavefreak wrote:
LOL. Can an illogical position, held on to for irrational reasons be defeated through logic and rationality? There should be a warning label for people that want to debate Christians. "Beware all who enter here, for there be faith".

Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
This debate be rated

This debate be rated "Arrrrrrh."


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak.

This conversation that you are now having is based upon the "faith-based" assumption that I, as well as everything else, are independent entities, i.e., that all of reality is merely a figment of your imagination, there is only you (solopsism).

I would love to hear some evidence to support that position which does not merely beg the question.


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
To Wavefreak

Wavefreak,

Are you saying faith is irrational?

Props on being a surfer, that shit is tight. 

Your life is a love story!


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Rhad the Gizmo

Rhad the Gizmo, 

Is this position based on the work of Bishop Berkley? 

Your life is a love story!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: wavefreak

Tilberian wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
LOL. Can an illogical position, held on to for irrational reasons be defeated through logic and rationality? There should be a warning label for people that want to debate Christians. "Beware all who enter here, for there be faith".

Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak.

You misunderstand. The faith is that of the Christian. The warning is to the atheist. Faith is immune to logic. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
mindcore

mindcore wrote:

Wavefreak,

Are you saying faith is irrational?

Props on being a surfer, that shit is tight.

Mostly. Faith is the final refuge of those who run out of rational arguments against it. 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Well.. it's not really

Well.. it's not really based upon any work.  Just something that happened to come up in one of the many discussion I've had around here..

 If you care to read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Ah.. and incase I mispelled the word the first time around, *solipsism, not solopsism... or whatever. 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak.

This conversation that you are now having is based upon the "faith-based" assumption that I, as well as everything else, are independent entities, i.e., that all of reality is merely a figment of your imagination, there is only you (solopsism).

I would love to hear some evidence to support that position which does not merely beg the question.

So what do atheists that believe reality might be a figment of their imagination have faith in?


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
So what do atheists that believe reality might be a figment of their imagination have faith in?

"Might be" or "is a"? If "might be," i.e., that both presumptions are equal, therefore, neither "belief" can be had because both "might be".. well then, they don't have faith in anything.

Nevertheless, I would venture to say that no one really takes this stance. While they might say solipsism "might" be, they imply through their conduct that they actually "believe" or "accept" the contrary position. If their conduct does not imply that, then I would venture to say that that person is a sociopathic narcisist of the highest order.

If you meant "is a," i.e. that reality actually is a figment of your imagination, then this position would still require as much "faith" as the contrary position.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Faith does not require an

Faith does not require an belief that "x is true" and "nothing else can be true."  At least, not IMO.  I personally consider the possibility that there "might not be" a God.  I would still consider myself, however, to have "faith" that there is one.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Nevertheless, I would venture to say that no one really takes this stance. While they might say solipsism "might" be, they imply through their conduct that they actually "believe" or "accept" the contrary position. If their conduct does not imply that, then I would venture to say that that person is a sociopathic narcisist of the highest order.

It appears that you're saying someone who thinks that reality might be a figment of his imagination would act in a way that would indicate it. It's not clear, however, how you are reaching that conclusion.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It appears that

Quote:
It appears that you're saying someone who thinks that reality might be a figment of his imagination would act in a way that would indicate it. It's not clear, however, how you are reaching that conclusion.

Whether they would act in a way that "other people" would be able to see it being "indicated" is a definite question; and yes, you are correct, there is no necessary conclusion that they would "indicate" in any matter, either around "others" or in "their own" time.

Still.. if someone actually did adhere to solipsistic way of thinking then the answer to these questions:

"Would you kill someone if they were getting on your nerves? if you knew you wouldn't be "caught"?"

lesser extent..

"Would you steal if the opportunity arose, say, 10 bucks on the table that you knew was "some strangers," if you knew you wouldn't be "caught"?"

Yet, even if there is no physical manifestation that a person is not "sociopathic narcisist," does, IMO, not undercut that he/she is actually one if he actually believes that he is the only one in the universe. 

I don't understand how one can feel guilt if no one else is real--or how one can consider anyone else but himself, if he believes he is the only one. 


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Whether they would act in a way that "other people" would be able to see it being "indicated" is a definite question; and yes, you are correct, there is no necessary conclusion that they would "indicate" in any matter, either around "others" or in "their own" time.

Still.. if someone actually did adhere to solipsistic way of thinking then the answer to these questions:

"Would you kill someone if they were getting on your nerves? if you knew you wouldn't be "caught"?"

lesser extent..

"Would you steal if the opportunity arose, say, 10 bucks on the table that you knew was "some strangers," if you knew you wouldn't be "caught"?"

Yet, even if there is no physical manifestation that a person is not "sociopathic narcisist," does, IMO, not undercut that he/she is actually one if he actually believes that he is the only one in the universe.

I don't understand how one can feel guilt if no one else is real--or how one can consider anyone else but himself, if he believes he is the only one.

This is the wrong test. You are talking about the actions of someone who believes himself to be the only person in existence. I am talking about someone who doesn't deny that he might be the only person in existence.


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Faith

wavefreak wrote:
mindcore wrote:

Wavefreak,

Are you saying faith is irrational?

Props on being a surfer, that shit is tight.

Mostly. Faith is the final refuge of those who run out of rational arguments against it. 



What I'm having a hard time understanding is your definition of faith.

You say that faith is the final refuge for those who run out of rational arguments against it.

I don't understand what that means. Does that mean that faith is what happens when all the rational arguments fail?

If the rational arguments fail, then that means faith has to be more rational.

Is that what you are saying or are you saying faith has nothing to do with rationality, and is therefore irrational (devoid of rationality).

Your life is a love story!


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Well..

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Well.. it's not really based upon any work.  Just something that happened to come up in one of the many discussion I've had around here..

 If you care to read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Ah.. and incase I mispelled the word the first time around, *solipsism, not solopsism... or whatever. 

Solipsism is the subjective experience whether it's true or not, so the distinction is moot. We can react one way or another to information presented to us, but we're ultimately stuck with what we're capable of knowing (which could be an internal model of a world that exists, or one that doesn't).


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
FAith

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Well.. it's not really based upon any work.  Just something that happened to come up in one of the many discussion I've had around here..

 If you care to read about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Ah.. and incase I mispelled the word the first time around, *solipsism, not solopsism... or whatever. 

 

Thanks for the link Rhad, I checked it out.

Yeah thats what Berkley thought too, you would like him.

And so do the postmodernists, I don't think you would like them. They think being gay is awesome, which directly contradicts the writings of Paul. Of course I'm assuming that you are a Christian, you might not be.

And to make a joke about Solipsism, you might not be at all.

Hee-hee.

Okay, there are two approaches I can take with this argument. I am friends with a lot of postmodernists and have been here before.

 Indeed, at the end of the day the only thing we can be sure of is our own mind. I will submit that to you.

But I completely disagree with the statement that everything else that we assume to exist beyond our mind is a matter of faith.

It certainly does not match up with the Christian definition of faith as "the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen."

Could you clarify for me your definition of faith?

Your life is a love story!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
mindcore wrote: wavefreak

mindcore wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
mindcore wrote:

Wavefreak,

Are you saying faith is irrational?

Props on being a surfer, that shit is tight.

Mostly. Faith is the final refuge of those who run out of rational arguments against it.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is your definition of faith. You say that faith is the final refuge for those who run out of rational arguments against it. I don't understand what that means. Does that mean that faith is what happens when all the rational arguments fail? If the rational arguments fail, then that means faith has to be more rational. Is that what you are saying or are you saying faith has nothing to do with rationality, and is therefore irrational (devoid of rationality).

 

Faith is such a slippery term. Todangst wrote a thoughtful essay on contingent vs non-contingent faith. Maybe somebody has the link handy. Faith seems to have a spectrum of meaning to me. From faith that the sun will come up tomorrow (contingent faith) to faith that hell exists to punish sinners (non-contingent). Todangst separates faith into these two categories but I can't help but think there's some gray areas in between the two. Was Jesus a real person? There are some well presented arguments that he was not, but the nature of the arguments are such that an absolute judgemt on that fact is impossible. And there are just enough weaknesses in those arguments that believing that Jesus was a real person is not wholly delusional. So is that contingent faith or not?  I have problems when people's faith is clearly absurd. Some people will believe anything. My brother was (is?) an over the top jesus freak. He once told me that astonomers had discovered some cubic structure moving at a rapid rate towards the earth. He said it was The City of God and it was the portent of the Second Coming. He also thought I was demon posessed. Whatever.


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
So my Surfer Friend, for

So my Surfer Friend,

for you faith=belief?

Am I understanding you?

If thats correct I can move forward with an argument. 

Your life is a love story!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
mindcore wrote: So my

mindcore wrote:

So my Surfer Friend,

for you faith=belief?

Am I understanding you?

If thats correct I can move forward with an argument.

Not quite that cut and dried, but close enough. Maybe as you go along I'll be able to clarify my thoughts. 

You a surfer too? 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: This is the wrong

Quote:
This is the wrong test. You are talking about the actions of someone who believes himself to be the only person in existence. I am talking about someone who doesn't deny that he might be the only person in existence.

Like I said.. we are talking about "faith."  A person who acts upon the presumption that he is not the only person in existence acts upon "faith" that this presumption is true.  Whether or not he "doesn't deny that he might be the only person in existence."

This is why I said, I would consider myself to "have faith in God" even though I don't deny that he might not exist.

Quote:
Solipsism is the subjective experience whether it's true or not, so the distinction is moot. We can react one way or another to information presented to us, but we're ultimately stuck with what we're capable of knowing (which could be an internal model of a world that exists, or one that doesn't).

There are two distinct ways of viewing the world:

subjective experience as part of an objective reality or subjective experience as part of a subjective reality (meaning, there is no "objective" reality; or, if you want to get semantical, that "objective" and "subjective" are one in the same).

I don't believe it is moot. I think one presumption has large consequences on how one subjectively views the world and how he/she conducts him or herself.

If I'm misunderstanding you, please correct.


PeterS
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mindcore wrote: The

mindcore wrote:

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

First, this is my first post on this forum so be gentle. Second, Jesus as savior? Well ask the question of what would be the outcome if Man actually followed the tenets of Christ. Would not the end result be world peace and therefore the salvation of Man? How much stronger case for Christ as savior do you need?


DeathMunkyGod
atheist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Axiomatic

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
This conversation that you are now having is based upon the "faith-based" assumption that I, as well as everything else, are independent entities, i.e., that all of reality is merely a figment of your imagination, there is only you (solopsism).

The existence of an external reality is taken and accepted as axiomatic because of the fact  that it is true for all intents and purposes.  What happens if it turns out to be a false axiom?  One could choose to assume that it is a false axiom and then do what?  Whatever he or she wants?  The individual, unless he or she can excersize a level of control over events that has to this point in his opr her life evaded them, will then have ot face whatever consequences the other made up people in his fantasy decide he deserves.  Thus the individual assuming that reality is an illusion still has to answer for his or her actions, and experience the consequences unless that person somehow excersizes god-like control over reality.  That would make the only existing individual god.  Or else the individual can assume that reality does not exist but still be forced to behave as though it is, what point or purpose does that serve?  On the other hand we can choose to assume external reality exists for all intents and purposes and move on with our livesm taking what we experience about an external reality as axiomatic we can come to other understandings about the universe that are the only ones that have any hope of being meaningful.  If an external reality is in fact real then we are correct in the assumption and our proceeding from that as an axiom we can ask other questions about reality and our observations that can lead us to an understanding of this external reality.  If, however, the external reality does not exist and it is only one individual's illusion, then that individual essentially defines his illusory reality and there is nothing meaningful that can be discovered about it except for its specific nature.

In conclusion that axiom of an external reality that we all share is accepted as true because the alternative leads to a meaningless dead end that may be true, but if it is it tells us nothing and changes nothing, and to top it all off, we could never actually prove it.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The existence of an

Quote:

The existence of an external reality is taken and accepted as axiomatic because of the fact  that it is true for all intents and purposes.  What happens if it turns out to be a false axiom?  One could choose to assume that it is a false axiom and then do what?  Whatever he or she wants?  The individual, unless he or she can excersize a level of control over events that has to this point in his opr her life evaded them, will then have ot face whatever consequences the other made up people in his fantasy decide he deserves.  Thus the individual assuming that reality is an illusion still has to answer for his or her actions, and experience the consequences unless that person somehow excersizes god-like control over reality.  That would make the only existing individual god.  Or else the individual can assume that reality does not exist but still be forced to behave as though it is, what point or purpose does that serve?  On the other hand we can choose to assume external reality exists for all intents and purposes and move on with our livesm taking what we experience about an external reality as axiomatic we can come to other understandings about the universe that are the only ones that have any hope of being meaningful.  If an external reality is in fact real then we are correct in the assumption and our proceeding from that as an axiom we can ask other questions about reality and our observations that can lead us to an understanding of this external reality.  If, however, the external reality does not exist and it is only one individual's illusion, then that individual essentially defines his illusory reality and there is nothing meaningful that can be discovered about it except for its specific nature.

In conclusion that axiom of an external reality that we all share is accepted as true because the alternative leads to a meaningless dead end that may be true, but if it is it tells us nothing and changes nothing, and to top it all off, we could never actually prove it.

This, in essence, mimics the argument that many theist give. It is basically a modification on pascal's wager.

If X true, then gain everything.  If X not true, then lose nothing. 

The truth of the matter is, that a "solipsistic" mindset, even one in which all of this "subjective reality" is not immediately controllable by the individual, still presents certain circumstances in which one could forward his own position (in this world) by doing something most might consider "wrong," and yet, chooses not to do it even though there is 0% chance of getting caught.

 That is what was meant by my hypothetical.  Yet, instead of "forwarding ones own position" (if measured by a solipsistic standpoint), they choose not to, because they have accepted the alternative viewpoint... merely, because, they assume that it is "true for all intents and purposes."  Yet, this assumption, is itself, based upon the assumption itself, that external reality exist.

Axioms are self-evidence truths.  There is nothing self-evident about one possible explanation over another when both are supported by the same evidence, neither has contradicting evidence, ergo, both are equally possible. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak.

This conversation that you are now having is based upon the "faith-based" assumption that I, as well as everything else, are independent entities, i.e., that all of reality is merely a figment of your imagination, there is only you (solopsism).

I would love to hear some evidence to support that position which does not merely beg the question.

No, this conversation does not require that assumption. For all I know, neither of us exist and none of this is happening. I don't take a position one way or the other since, IMO, this is impossible to know.

Try again. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
PeterS wrote: mindcore

PeterS wrote:
mindcore wrote:

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

First, this is my first post on this forum so be gentle. Second, Jesus as savior? Well ask the question of what would be the outcome if Man actually followed the tenets of Christ. Would not the end result be world peace and therefore the salvation of Man? How much stronger case for Christ as savior do you need?

But man hasn't done that. So Jesus hasn't really saved anything, has he?

I don't think Jesus really occupies a special position in this regard, either. If everyone followed the tenets and teachings of John Lennon, we would likewise have peace on earth. Or Buddha. Or the Maharashi. Or me!

It is written: let all people not fight with one another for any reason.

There. Am I the Saviour now, too?

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Solipsism is the subjective experience whether it's true or not, so the distinction is moot. We can react one way or another to information presented to us, but we're ultimately stuck with what we're capable of knowing (which could be an internal model of a world that exists, or one that doesn't).

There are two distinct ways of viewing the world:

subjective experience as part of an objective reality or subjective experience as part of a subjective reality (meaning, there is no "objective" reality; or, if you want to get semantical, that "objective" and "subjective" are one in the same).

I don't believe it is moot. I think one presumption has large consequences on how one subjectively views the world and how he/she conducts him or herself.

Fish called it when he said you're combining two different questions. There is a true solipsism which there may be no way of testing. In that case subjectivity and objectivity would each be indistinct from the other. A variation, the Matrix scenario, I'd read somewhere could be tested by the building of a hypercomputer. In this case, there would still be an objective reality outside, while a virtual solipsism reigned within. The latter question of behavior suggests an awareness of the concept; but nothing in either two scenarios suggests the subject is burdened with this information, nor are those scenarios necessary for a person to behave as if they're the only independent agent on earth.


Slayne
Slayne's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I personally consider the possibility that there "might not be" a God.

 

So why even bother being a theist if you are clearly if you still show agnosticism, making you an agnostic theist AKA "weak theist". if you are agnostic in your theism then why even bother defending the Christian arguement? because obviously if you are that weak, then there is no reason you dont just follow your personal belief system rather than a doctrinated faith. I mean it seems this particular post was aimed more towards the Gnostic Theists, particularly Christians but I could be wrong.

 No offense but by your stand point of argument seem like you hold on to the self defeating term God maybe to form a view of escapism.

If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Slayne wrote: RhadTheGizmo

Slayne wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I personally consider the possibility that there "might not be" a God.

 

So why even bother being a theist if you are clearly if you still show agnosticism,

It's called self honesty. Some people recognize that there are some things for which absolute certainty isn't possible.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: Like I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Like I said.. we are talking about "faith." A person who acts upon the presumption that he is not the only person in existence acts upon "faith" that this presumption is true. Whether or not he "doesn't deny that he might be the only person in existence."

This is why I said, I would consider myself to "have faith in God" even though I don't deny that he might not exist.

Er... no. The fact that you have doubt in your god doesn't mean that an atheist has faith. It simply doesn't follow. A person who acts as if there are consequences to actions doesn't necessarily have faith that there will be consequences to those actions. It's quite possible for you to realize that your actions may have consequences and act in a way that you believe will have the best result. This does not in any way require faith. (that is, you can act with the knowledge that there may be no consequences, and this action might look identical to acts by a person who does have faith in the consequences)

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
don't believe it is moot. I think one presumption has large consequences on how one subjectively views the world and how he/she conducts him or herself.

A person's presumptions probably do have an effect on that person's actions. This doesn't mean that everyone has such presumptions. I experience things. It doesn't require faith to know that I experience things (it is essentially the definition of knowing), regardless of if those things are actually related to any type of reality, objective, subjetive or non-existent.

I accept your claim that you have faith, but your argument asserting that other people also necessarily have faith just doens't make sense.


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Definition of faith

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Faith does not require an belief that "x is true" and "nothing else can be true."  At least, not IMO.  I personally consider the possibility that there "might not be" a God.  I would still consider myself, however, to have "faith" that there is one.

I'm still not getting a good eorking definition of faith from you.

 

No disrespect, but you seem to be pussyfooting around, what is faith?

 

Your life is a love story!


PeterS
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: PeterS

Tilberian wrote:
PeterS wrote:
mindcore wrote:

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

First, this is my first post on this forum so be gentle. Second, Jesus as savior? Well ask the question of what would be the outcome if Man actually followed the tenets of Christ. Would not the end result be world peace and therefore the salvation of Man? How much stronger case for Christ as savior do you need?

But man hasn't done that. So Jesus hasn't really saved anything, has he?

I don't think Jesus really occupies a special position in this regard, either. If everyone followed the tenets and teachings of John Lennon, we would likewise have peace on earth. Or Buddha. Or the Maharashi. Or me!

It is written: let all people not fight with one another for any reason.

There. Am I the Saviour now, too?

 

The question itself asks for a rational response to an irrational position. What is salvation? Would an eternity in heaven with Christian conservatives be salvation? Don't think so. So I answered the question with the only rational response that was relevant...Mans presence on earth not promise of Heaven.

And again I submit that if one follows the tenets of Christ there would be peace on earth and therefore salvation for all Mankind. And since I am concerned with the end result if you would like to throw in Lennon and yourself into the mix that is perfectly fine with me...


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: mindcore

wavefreak wrote:
mindcore wrote:

So my Surfer Friend,

for you faith=belief?

Am I understanding you?

If thats correct I can move forward with an argument.

 

So you think that belief is the refuge that you go to when rational explanations run out?

 

I'm not following.

Not quite that cut and dried, but close enough. Maybe as you go along I'll be able to clarify my thoughts. 

You a surfer too? 

 

No but I think surfers have their work cut out for them. Its interesting.

Your life is a love story!


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

double post

Your life is a love story!


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
PeterS wrote: Tilberian

PeterS wrote:
Tilberian wrote:
PeterS wrote:
mindcore wrote:

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

First, this is my first post on this forum so be gentle. Second, Jesus as savior? Well ask the question of what would be the outcome if Man actually followed the tenets of Christ. Would not the end result be world peace and therefore the salvation of Man? How much stronger case for Christ as savior do you need?

But man hasn't done that. So Jesus hasn't really saved anything, has he?

I don't think Jesus really occupies a special position in this regard, either. If everyone followed the tenets and teachings of John Lennon, we would likewise have peace on earth. Or Buddha. Or the Maharashi. Or me!

It is written: let all people not fight with one another for any reason.

There. Am I the Saviour now, too?

 

The question itself asks for a rational response to an irrational position. What is salvation? Would an eternity in heaven with Christian conservatives be salvation? Don't think so. So I answered the question with the only rational response that was relevant...Mans presence on earth not promise of Heaven.

And again I submit that if one follows the tenets of Christ there would be peace on earth and therefore salvation for all Mankind. And since I am concerned with the end result if you would like to throw in Lennon and yourself into the mix that is perfectly fine with me...

It seems like you are trying to say that christianity is not as lame as the fundies make it seem. Is that what you are saying?

Your life is a love story!


Slayne
Slayne's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
mindcore wrote: It seems

mindcore wrote:
It seems like you are trying to say that christianity is not as lame as the fundies make it seem. Is that what you are saying?

 Its funny MindCoreI cant make heads or tails of what hes saying seems too me Rhad is bending words to suit his needs as he already admitted he has weak arguements when your seeming to be looking too knockdown a few Ultra-Jeebus-lovers... well thats atleast your OP. 

It seems Rhad doesnt Have the convictions you are looking for.

That being said we are just doing Ballet of words with Rhad. honestly I have met very few Gnostic Christians in my time that will back up their arguements in the sense where they know they are right in there mind. I have only met 1 true believer and he is diagnosed Schizophrenic and for that purpose  I dont deny him because it would ruin a friendship. I hope he gets help soon. but atleast Rhad was honest about his agnosticism.

 

NOTE To Rhad:  I commend you on your honesty with yourself... however I myself would more rather know what your strong stance is... I guess my question is is it fear that compells you to hold on to the theist standpoint? 

If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
This is a response to

This is a response to everyone so far:

Quote:
No, this conversation does not require that assumption. For all I know, neither of us exist and none of this is happening. I don't take a position one way or the other since, IMO, this is impossible to know.

Try again.

Was the "try again" really necessary?  I mean.. didn't seem so.  I will just take it as you joking as opposed to being pious/condescending/pretentious.

As I mentioned earlier.. as I tried to posit with my hypothetical.. many people claim that "they don't take a position one way or the other" but, in practice, they do.  There are many "ethical dilemmas" upon which it is, IMO, impossible to not imply (through conduct) that you do accept one as opposed to the other.  This does not mean that the same person cannot still say "it is impossible to know" and "the other might still be possible.." but as I stated for myself, God may not exist, it does not mean that I don't have "faith" (and by that I mean either "implied through conduct" or "explicitly stated&quotEye-wink that he does.

Quote:
Fish called it when he said you're combining two different questions. There is a true solipsism which there may be no way of testing.

I'm using "solipsism" because that is what i believed what the accurate word to describe my assumption being made.  So don't get to caught up with what "solipsism" actually is and pay more attention to what I'm saying.  That there are two basic assumptions one can make about reality, both equally likely, both which would, in many case, affect conduct.

Quote:
In that case subjectivity and objectivity would each be indistinct from the other. A variation, the Matrix scenario, I'd read somewhere could be tested by the building of a hypercomputer. In this case, there would still be an objective reality outside, while a virtual solipsism reigned within.

I suppose this is one form of what I'm saying.

Quote:
The latter question of behavior suggests an awareness of the concept; but nothing in either two scenarios suggests the subject is burdened with this information, nor are those scenarios necessary for a person to behave as if they're the only independent agent on earth.

If you want me to understand this you're going to have to explain further.

Quote:
So why even bother being a theist if you are clearly if you still show agnosticism, making you an agnostic theist AKA "weak theist".

Please.. there is nothing of my theism that requires me to be without doubt.  "Weak theist"... this is really strange to me.  I'm sorry.. but this is just my personal feelings on the matter.  I found the whole argument of "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" equally as strange.  I know, however, that some individuals here on this forum adhere to these labels.  I don't consider myself a weak theist.. merely a theist.

But if other people wish to label me so.. I guess I can't really do anything about it.. I just don't understand it from my perspective.

Quote:
if you are agnostic in your theism then why even bother defending the Christian arguement?

Why do I defend atheist ideas at times?  Because it helps bring insight.. increases knowledge in understanding.. I can defend a position without believing it as strong as that person does.. or even believing it at all.

Quote:
because obviously if you are that weak, then there is no reason you dont just follow your personal belief system rather than a doctrinated faith.

Whose to say my belief system isn't my "personal belief system," I certainly believe it is.  It just happens to overlap with much of the "doctrinated faith" of Christianity.

Quote:
I mean it seems this particular post was aimed more towards the Gnostic Theists, particularly Christians but I could be wrong.

Possibly.  I was never meaning to engage with the original poster.. my first comment was just in response to someone else (If we don't count the "arrgh" comment).. and then, my following responses were to questions her counterpoints.

Quote:
No offense but by your stand point of argument seem like you hold on to the self defeating term God maybe to form a view of escapism.

I don't even know how to respond to this comment...

Quote:
Er... no. The fact that you have doubt in your god doesn't mean that an atheist has faith.

According to the definition that is implied in my post, I would say so.  Of course this is only my opinion.  My definition is thus applied, to have it stated more specifically:

If actions are taken that are consistent with one assumption, because of the awareness of that assumption, and those same actions are not-consistent with another, alternative, assumption, even though both assumptions are equal in all respects, then that person acts with the "faith" that the first assumption is true.

"Faith"--a belief not based upon proof.  What could more aptly describe why a person takes acts consistent with a non "proof based" assumption if not faith?

Quote:
A person who acts as if there are consequences to actions doesn't necessarily have faith that there will be consequences to those actions.

Missing the point of the hypotheticals I posited.  In these hypotheticals there will be no consequences unless one assumes that there are other people in the world, which would thus lead to "internal consequences"--such as, "it would make me feel bad to steal this even though I know I won't be caught."

Why would it make you feel bad unless you are assuming the person is an actual independent entity?

Quote:
A person's presumptions probably do have an effect on that person's actions. This doesn't mean that everyone has such presumptions. I experience things. It doesn't require faith to know that I experience things (it is essentially the definition of knowing), regardless of if those things are actually related to any type of reality, objective, subjetive or non-existent.

See above.  It's entirely possible that you would not feel bad "stealing something" even though you knew, 100%, that you would be caught.  But if you do, I am positing that this "feeling of badness" is based upon the internal assumption, "faith," since it is an assumption not based upon proof, that these are actual independent people.

Quote:
I'm still not getting a good eorking definition of faith from you.

 

No disrespect, but you seem to be pussyfooting around, what is faith?

Faith is faith.  It is a belief not based on proof.

Quote:
Its funny MindCoreI cant make heads or tails of what hes saying seems too me Rhad is bending words to suit his needs as he already admitted he has weak arguements when your seeming to be looking too knockdown a few Ultra-Jeebus-lovers... well thats atleast your OP.


I don't think I'm bending words at all.  Faith is a belief without proof.  The argument is that if one "believes," i.e. assumes, implicitly or explicitly, that one premise is correct over another even though neither can be supported with "proof," i.e. necessarily leading to one conclusion (note: this is the definition most used around here, not mine), then this would be faith.

Two premises: People are independent entities or they are not.  Proof does not necessarily lead to one or the other.  Does not tend to lead to one or the other.  Therefore, if a person accepts one of these as true, either explicitly or implicitly, then they have "faith" that it is true--regardless of whether they admit that the other "might be true."

To clarify more the "implicitly admit" argument.  If a person says "I don't believe in God" but still acts in ways that are *only* consistent with a belief in God, e.g. prayer, then that person implicitly assumes the premise.

Quote:
NOTE To Rhad:  I commend you on your honesty with yourself... however I myself would more rather know what your strong stance is... I guess my question is is it fear that compells you to hold on to the theist standpoint?

Fear in what?  I have nothing to fear from my God.  I don't believe anyone else does either.  Consider for a second that I don't believe in hell.  In my belief system, God is merely the final arbiter of giving people what they truly want.


Slayne
Slayne's picture
Posts: 91
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
fair enough man so in other

fair enough man so in other words you cherry pick from thdoctinated religions, and form your own version of god... It sounds cool that your God is a nice guy, but still doing the cherry-picking is horrible. I guess some confusion was left when you posted repeatedly here as The OP referred to strong Chistians.

Granted the labels are a little annoying in these forums, as generally I do not like labels, nor do I believe Theist or Atheist even exist as it implies Gods exist which they dont. Playing the fence is making the argument a little contribed in my veiws. but even the OP really said it all "Strong Christians".

If God didn't want atheists than we wouldn't exist..


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
To Rhad and Wavefreak

Okay Rhad,

Maybe I'm still two pages ago on this argument but you did say that faith is belief without proof.

Thankfully you and I can both agree on that, and we both agree with christian scripture that says, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen." Which according to theologans basically means faith is belief without proof.

If you don't mind I'm going to adress Wavefreak on this comment in the end.

Rhad, it seems that you are using sollipsism as a basic premise to say that everything requires faith. Typing on my keyboard right now requires faith, because as sollipism states, we cannont ultimately be sure of anything, except our own minds.

Indeed.

First lets talk about being sure of our own minds, I feel sure of my own mind because of perceptory phenomena.

People with certain neurlogical damage loose this ability regularly in what are called absence seizures. Or people who go into a coma, and wake up. Some people report a certain kind of awareness in a coma, but plenty don't. The mind literally disappears and reapears.

This suggests that these people can be sure about a little more existing then their minds, they can be sure about their physical bodies, and henceforth the physicial world.

Of course with sollipism you could argue that all these neurological patients maybe are all just figments of my imagination, as well as all the neurology books that I read.

In fact with sollipism I may be a figment of your imagination.

In fact with the argument from sollipsism I still don't follow how you can be sure you exist.

Is there any reason NOT to believe that your expiriences are all created by me, in my incomprehensible power. That my imagination is so powerful that my mind is making yours and can change it at will. --> If you are worth your weight, you would point out that I wouldn't be discussing with you if I could, but that would be evidence. 

There is no more reason to believe that then there is to believe that your expiriences are all that there is.

But I will submit that just because you think, doesn't mean you exist.

You may be an artifiical reality program in some mad genious's game which is nothing but ones and zeros, in which case your mind is not your own, you percieve your own existance, but the programmer of the virtual reality game could reprogram you into a child molester, or a ballerina, all without any say from you.

If you mean that the mind has a will of its own, then the skepticism provided from sollipism does not allow you to believe your mind exists. 

I will submit, that sollipism is something that has to be dealt with philosophically, but I will also argue that it is weak on the idea that your mind is all you can be sure of, you cannot be sure of anything.

But... does that mean the atheist has faith when he sits on a chair that the chair exists, no the atheist requires evidence that the chair exists.

He sees the chair with his eyes: evidence.

He feels the chair with his hand: evidence.

And I will submit that a wise atheist never falls back on faith in his day to day life.

 

Wavefreak,

If faith equals belief, then you cannot take faith out of rationality. You cannot describe faith as something that exists out of rationality, because there are plenty of rational beliefs.

Please try again.

 

 

Your life is a love story!


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Was the "try again"



Was the "try again" really necessary? I mean.. didn't seem so. I will just take it as you joking as opposed to being pious/condescending/pretentious.


Quote:

How can you say he is condescending, all you have is the evidence of his behavior. Or are you just having faith that he's condescending?

 

 

 


I'm using "solipsism" because that is what i believed what the accurate word to describe my assumption being made. So don't get to caught up with what "solipsism" actually is and pay more attention to what I'm saying. That there are two basic assumptions one can make about reality, both equally likely, both which would, in many case, affect conduct.

Quote:
In that case subjectivity and objectivity would each be indistinct from the other. A variation, the Matrix scenario, I'd read somewhere could be tested by the building of a hypercomputer. In this case, there would still be an objective reality outside, while a virtual solipsism reigned within.

Virtual reality all ready exists, and its only arguably sollipsitic if you are a real person in the matrix. That is if you think to have a mind you have to have will. If you are a program, which I argue, that you have no reason to believe you are not according to your own arguments, since the only thing you can be sure of is your mind. 


.


Whose to say my belief system isn't my "personal belief system," I certainly believe it is. It just happens to overlap with much of the "doctrinated faith" of Christianity.

Quote:
I mean it seems this particular post was aimed more towards the Gnostic Theists, particularly Christians but I could be wrong.

Possibly. I was never meaning to engage with the original poster.. my first comment was just in response to someone else (If we don't count the "arrgh" comment).. and then, my following responses were to questions her counterpoints.

Quote:
No offense but by your stand point of argument seem like you hold on to the self defeating term God maybe to form a view of escapism.

 

Sorry, but did you just choose God at random, since all you can be sure of is your own mind, why not Ammen-Ra, or Thor (personally I think Thor is much cooler) or why not believe as many gnostics do that the creator is cruel and that Jesus is not the same as God but is in fact a great hero that came to conquer the evil Creator. How did you choose to believe in God, since the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind ?

Quote:
Er... no. The fact that you have doubt in your god doesn't mean that an atheist has faith.

According to the definition that is implied in my post, I would say so. Of course this is only my opinion. My definition is thus applied, to have it stated more specifically:

If actions are taken that are consistent with one assumption, because of the awareness of that assumption, and those same actions are not-consistent with another, alternative, assumption, even though both assumptions are equal in all respects, then that person acts with the "faith" that the first assumption is true.

"Faith"--a belief not based upon proof. What could more aptly describe why a person takes acts consistent with a non "proof based" assumption if not faith?

Quote:
A person who acts as if there are consequences to actions doesn't necessarily have faith that there will be consequences to those actions.

Missing the point of the hypotheticals I posited. In these hypotheticals there will be no consequences unless one assumes that there are other people in the world, which would thus lead to "internal consequences"--such as, "it would make me feel bad to steal this even though I know I won't be caught."

Why would it make you feel bad unless you are assuming the person is an actual independent entity?

Quote:
A person's presumptions probably do have an effect on that person's actions. This doesn't mean that everyone has such presumptions. I experience things. It doesn't require faith to know that I experience things (it is essentially the definition of knowing), regardless of if those things are actually related to any type of reality, objective, subjetive or non-existent.

See above. It's entirely possible that you would not feel bad "stealing something" even though you knew, 100%, that you would be caught. But if you do, I am positing that this "feeling of badness" is based upon the internal assumption, "faith," since it is an assumption not based upon proof, that these are actual independent people.

Quote:
No disrespect, but you seem to be pussyfooting around, what is faith?

Faith is faith. It is a belief not based on proof.

Quote:
Its funny MindCoreI cant make heads or tails of what hes saying seems too me Rhad is bending words to suit his needs as he already admitted he has weak arguements when your seeming to be looking too knockdown a few Ultra-Jeebus-lovers... well thats atleast your OP.


I don't think I'm bending words at all. Faith is a belief without proof. The argument is that if one "believes," i.e. assumes, implicitly or explicitly, that one premise is correct over another even though neither can be supported with "proof," i.e. necessarily leading to one conclusion (note: this is the definition most used around here, not mine), then this would be faith.

Two premises: People are independent entities or they are not. Proof does not necessarily lead to one or the other. Does not tend to lead to one or the other. Therefore, if a person accepts one of these as true, either explicitly or implicitly, then they have "faith" that it is true--regardless of whether they admit that the other "might be true."

Quote:

 

Dude, I'm really hoping that you believe people are independent entities.

But I disagree that if people are independent entities than all of their perceptions are matters of faith.

But I'm hoping we can expand on this, that is if your faith that I was arrogant by telling wavefreak that he needs to try again, does not prevent your faith in the keyboard in front of you . 

Your life is a love story!


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
mindcore wrote: Was the

mindcore wrote:


Was the "try again" really necessary? I mean.. didn't seem so. I will just take it as you joking as opposed to being pious/condescending/pretentious.


Quote:

How can you say he is condescending, all you have is the evidence of his behavior. Or are you just having faith that he's condescending?

 

 

 


I'm using "solipsism" because that is what i believed what the accurate word to describe my assumption being made. So don't get to caught up with what "solipsism" actually is and pay more attention to what I'm saying. That there are two basic assumptions one can make about reality, both equally likely, both which would, in many case, affect conduct.

Quote:
In that case subjectivity and objectivity would each be indistinct from the other. A variation, the Matrix scenario, I'd read somewhere could be tested by the building of a hypercomputer. In this case, there would still be an objective reality outside, while a virtual solipsism reigned within.

Virtual reality all ready exists, and its only arguably sollipsitic if you are a real person in the matrix. That is if you think to have a mind you have to have will. If you are a program, which I argue, that you have no reason to believe you are not according to your own arguments, since the only thing you can be sure of is your mind.


.


Whose to say my belief system isn't my "personal belief system," I certainly believe it is. It just happens to overlap with much of the "doctrinated faith" of Christianity.

Quote:
I mean it seems this particular post was aimed more towards the Gnostic Theists, particularly Christians but I could be wrong.

Possibly. I was never meaning to engage with the original poster.. my first comment was just in response to someone else (If we don't count the "arrgh" comment).. and then, my following responses were to questions her counterpoints.

Quote:
No offense but by your stand point of argument seem like you hold on to the self defeating term God maybe to form a view of escapism.

 

Sorry, but did you just choose God at random, since all you can be sure of is your own mind, why not Ammen-Ra, or Thor (personally I think Thor is much cooler) or why not believe as many gnostics do that the creator is cruel and that Jesus is not the same as God but is in fact a great hero that came to conquer the evil Creator. How did you choose to believe in God, since the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind ?

Quote:
Er... no. The fact that you have doubt in your god doesn't mean that an atheist has faith.

According to the definition that is implied in my post, I would say so. Of course this is only my opinion. My definition is thus applied, to have it stated more specifically:

If actions are taken that are consistent with one assumption, because of the awareness of that assumption, and those same actions are not-consistent with another, alternative, assumption, even though both assumptions are equal in all respects, then that person acts with the "faith" that the first assumption is true.

"Faith"--a belief not based upon proof. What could more aptly describe why a person takes acts consistent with a non "proof based" assumption if not faith?

Quote:
A person who acts as if there are consequences to actions doesn't necessarily have faith that there will be consequences to those actions.

Missing the point of the hypotheticals I posited. In these hypotheticals there will be no consequences unless one assumes that there are other people in the world, which would thus lead to "internal consequences"--such as, "it would make me feel bad to steal this even though I know I won't be caught."

Why would it make you feel bad unless you are assuming the person is an actual independent entity?

Quote:
A person's presumptions probably do have an effect on that person's actions. This doesn't mean that everyone has such presumptions. I experience things. It doesn't require faith to know that I experience things (it is essentially the definition of knowing), regardless of if those things are actually related to any type of reality, objective, subjetive or non-existent.

See above. It's entirely possible that you would not feel bad "stealing something" even though you knew, 100%, that you would be caught. But if you do, I am positing that this "feeling of badness" is based upon the internal assumption, "faith," since it is an assumption not based upon proof, that these are actual independent people.

Quote:
No disrespect, but you seem to be pussyfooting around, what is faith?

Faith is faith. It is a belief not based on proof.

Quote:
Its funny MindCoreI cant make heads or tails of what hes saying seems too me Rhad is bending words to suit his needs as he already admitted he has weak arguements when your seeming to be looking too knockdown a few Ultra-Jeebus-lovers... well thats atleast your OP.


I don't think I'm bending words at all. Faith is a belief without proof. The argument is that if one "believes," i.e. assumes, implicitly or explicitly, that one premise is correct over another even though neither can be supported with "proof," i.e. necessarily leading to one conclusion (note: this is the definition most used around here, not mine), then this would be faith.

Two premises: People are independent entities or they are not. Proof does not necessarily lead to one or the other. Does not tend to lead to one or the other. Therefore, if a person accepts one of these as true, either explicitly or implicitly, then they have "faith" that it is true--regardless of whether they admit that the other "might be true."

Quote:

 

Dude, I'm really hoping that you believe people are independent entities.

But I disagree that if people are independent entities than all of their perceptions are matters of faith.

But I'm hoping we can expand on this, that is if your faith that I was arrogant by telling wavefreak that he needs to try again, does not prevent your faith in the keyboard in front of you .

 

Dude I totally screwed up the quote thing on my last comment,

I hope you can forgive me.

I must have not had enough faith in the computer in front of me. 

Your life is a love story!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
fair enough man so in other words you cherry pick from thdoctinated religions, and form your own version of god... It sounds cool that your God is a nice guy, but still doing the cherry-picking is horrible. I guess some confusion was left when you posted repeatedly here as The OP referred to strong Chistians.

Sigh. There is another thread going on regarding the concept of "cherry picking." Once again.. I think this is only a rhetorical device.. used to belittle the opponent when in a conversation. Sort of like when a kid calls another kid a poo poo head.

I don't think I cherry pick at all.. I am a Christian. My beliefs are consistent with the bible and I don't "overlook" or "ignore" any particular verse.

My belief system does not require me to "cherry pick"--however, I do intepret it in such a way that may lead to distinguishing belief between me and others. However, all these interpretations are based upon one "biblically fundamental premise" (also assumed, but supported through a certain biblical interpretation) regarding the nature of God. That premise does not change, therefore, I would not consider myself "cherry picking" anything.

Quote:
Granted the labels are a little annoying in these forums, as generally I do not like labels, nor do I believe Theist or Atheist even exist as it implies Gods exist which they dont. Playing the fence is making the argument a little contribed in my veiws. but even the OP really said it all "Strong Christians".

I don't remember him saying "strong christians"-- I remember him saying christians with a "strong argument." That's completely different though..

Quote:
Maybe I'm still two pages ago on this argument but you did say that faith is belief without proof.

EVERY single time I define "faith" as "a belief not based on proof" the response conflates it to with another definition, "a belief without proof." Those are substantially different things. My definition would include your definition, but it is not required by it. Another, equally applicable circumstance that would fall under my definition would be a person who has a belief, has "proof," yet his belief is not based on that proof.

Quote:
In fact with sollipism I may be a figment of your imagination.

Yup.

Quote:
Is there any reason NOT to believe that your expiriences are all created by me, in my incomprehensible power. That my imagination is so powerful that my mind is making yours and can change it at will. --> If you are worth your weight, you would point out that I wouldn't be discussing with you if I could, but that would be evidence.

You misunderstand. "solipsism"--the way I am speaking of.. does not mean that you create independent entities that each have their own experiences. You "imagination" doesn't have to do that. In solipsism, from your perspective, I wouldn't have any experiences of my own. All you would need to do is "imagine" someone who did. Furthermore, solipsism doesn't require that you are able to "change me at will" either.

Quote:
I will submit, that sollipism is something that has to be dealt with philosophically, but I will also argue that it is weak on the idea that your mind is all you can be sure of, you cannot be sure of anything.

But... does that mean the atheist has faith when he sits on a chair that the chair exists, no the atheist requires evidence that the chair exists.

He sees the chair with his eyes: evidence.

He feels the chair with his hand: evidence.

And I will submit that a wise atheist never falls back on faith in his day to day life.

And I will submit, using not my definition of evidence but the one commonly used around here, that when "evidence" does not tend to lead to either of two conclusions, then it is not "evidence" for either of those conclusions. In solipsism, your eyes, your feelings, would equally be applicable--equally be "evidence" using your application.

Quote:
How can you say he is condescending, all you have is the evidence of his behavior. Or are you just having faith that he's condescending?

Heh. No, I had "faith" that he was being just a nice guy who was trying to be a little bit funny. The "condescending" was something I left open because I didn't know for sure.

Quote:
Virtual reality all ready exists, and its only arguably sollipsitic if you are a real person in the matrix. That is if you think to have a mind you have to have will. If you are a program, which I argue, that you have no reason to believe you are not according to your own arguments, since the only thing you can be sure of is your mind.

To undercut this argument before it gets to out of hand. "Solipsism" and the "matrix model" are different assumptions to make, with distinct presumptions that would be necessary. Matrix assumption is /= to non-solipsism because it would require an "extra premise" which there would be absolutely no evidence for, that there was some "computer program" creating the whole scenario. By using occams razor I would discount the matrix belief... however, in choosing between non-solipsism and solipsism-- there is no "extra premise," only single ones on either side.

Quote:
Sorry, but did you just choose God at random, since all you can be sure of is your own mind, why not Ammen-Ra, or Thor (personally I think Thor is much cooler) or why not believe as many gnostics do that the creator is cruel and that Jesus is not the same as God but is in fact a great hero that came to conquer the evil Creator. How did you choose to believe in God, since the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind ?

Thor seems to be much more inconsistent with the world as I see it today then the "God" I profess to believe in.

And while the only thing I can be sure of is my own mind, I choose to believe there are other people in this world, independent entities, with their own rights, that I will respect because it is the right thing to do.

Quote:
A person's presumptions probably do have an effect on that person's actions. This doesn't mean that everyone has such presumptions. I experience things. It doesn't require faith to know that I experience things (it is essentially the definition of knowing), regardless of if those things are actually related to any type of reality, objective, subjetive or non-existent.

Going to have to explain this more for me to understand it.

Quote:
Dude, I'm really hoping that you believe people are independent entities.

But I disagree that if people are independent entities than all of their perceptions are matters of faith.

But I'm hoping we can expand on this, that is if your faith that I was arrogant by telling wavefreak that he needs to try again, does not prevent your faith in the keyboard in front of you .

I do believe that other people are independent entities. "Believe" being the operative word. If this is "belief" is not based upon proof.. then it is faith, by definition I presented earlier.

Even if we want to conflate proof and evidence-- evidence would still have to "tend to prove the belief as opposed to another"-- I don't think it does, since solipsism would be supported just as much.

That being said, I would not so use faith to say that "every other perception is based upon faith as well"-- that would get confusing. Although technically correct if my original argument is valid. I merely trying to level the playing field. All people use faith in some way.. its not really that important. What is important is what those people have faith in.

Quote:
Dude I totally screwed up the quote thing on my last comment,

I hope you can forgive me.

I must have not had enough faith in the computer in front of me.

Haha. You are forgiven.


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Okay Rhad, Clearly I'm not

Okay Rhad,

Clearly I'm not understanding you then.

My understanding is that Sollipsism is the idea that all you can be sure of is your own mind.

Immortalized in Descartes famous statement, "Cogito ergo sum." Or more commonly known as "I think, therefore I am."

So what I thought you were saying is that because the only thing you can be sure of is your own mind, the whole of the physical world and its physical evidence is a matter of faith.

That ultimately what we define as evidence in science is not really evidence because it could just as easily be that the whole physical world is an illusion.

 Could you help me out here, what am I missing?

Your life is a love story!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
"I think, therefore I am"

"I think, therefore I am" would appear to be the central premise of solipsism.

 The question is then, whether, "you are because I think you are" or "you are."

 As for your point with the science.. in part, yes. Unless you accept that things to exist as independent entities, then all of science is meaningless (in the most fundamental sense).  You, I think, don't accept this premise, therefore science has meaning and purpose.

Even so, why I said "in part" is because even if all of reality is a figment of your imagination, "science" still seems to work within your imagination.  So, it doesn't require "faith" to know that it works.  It merely works with regard the the "illusionary reality."

I'm sorry if I'm being unclear.  Just say "explain a different way" in response.. and I will try too.  I'm trying understand things as much as anyone else around here, IMO, so, I may be completely wrong on the matter.. if that is the case, I suppose I will find out soon enough. 


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: "I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

"I think, therefore I am" would appear to be the central premise of solipsism.

The question is then, whether, "you are because I think you are" or "you are."

As for your point with the science.. in part, yes. Unless you accept that things to exist as independent entities, then all of science is meaningless (in the most fundamental sense). You, I think, don't accept this premise, therefore science has meaning and purpose.

Even so, why I said "in part" is because even if all of reality is a figment of your imagination, "science" still seems to work within your imagination. So, it doesn't require "faith" to know that it works. It merely works with regard the the "illusionary reality."

I'm sorry if I'm being unclear. Just say "explain a different way" in response.. and I will try too. I'm trying understand things as much as anyone else around here, IMO, so, I may be completely wrong on the matter.. if that is the case, I suppose I will find out soon enough.

It might suprise you to know that I think fundamentally everything is in doubt. That we can never be 100% sure of anything. This is actually consistent with the scientific world-view, where even the most established "laws" of science are only theories.

 I just think that science is good enough.

That the physicial evidence is good enough.

In philosophical musings I can agree that sure everything could be an illusion. Thats why I brought up Berkley at the beginning, he believed that the only thing that could tie it all together was belief in God because everything was in such question.

The point that I'm trying to make is that you can't even be sure that your mind is your own.

That everything really is in question.

But what I should probably be emphasizing is that none of us really live this way in practice.

I'd venture a guess that in your day to day life evidence from the physical world plays a major role in your decision making.

I also think that evidence from the physical world cannot be described as a matter of faith because in practice we all accept it as evidence.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Take for example if I believe that my Cat teleports at night, well  that would be faith because I have no evidence.

Versus if I believe that my cat lives at my house because I see her there every day.

I think that sollipsism is an interesting intellectual exercise, but meaningless in practice.  

Your life is a love story!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Tilberian

wavefreak wrote:
Tilberian wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
LOL. Can an illogical position, held on to for irrational reasons be defeated through logic and rationality? There should be a warning label for people that want to debate Christians. "Beware all who enter here, for there be faith".

Point to something that atheists have faith in, wavefreak.

You misunderstand. The faith is that of the Christian. The warning is to the atheist. Faith is immune to logic.

I dont know Wave, if you unofficially want to take on the title of "atheist", but after that last line, you deserve it. 

Quote:
Faith is immue to logic

Yea, just like like the skitzo in the rubber room Hilton who believes they are Napolean. I agree, once somebody is that far gone, what can you do about it? Certainly a tough nut to crack.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Slayne

wavefreak wrote:
Slayne wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I personally consider the possibility that there "might not be" a God.

 

So why even bother being a theist if you are clearly if you still show agnosticism,

It's called self honesty. Some people recognize that there are some things for which absolute certainty isn't possible.

And clinging to absurdity is a solution?

Sure, I dont know if I will instantanously become a woman tommorow morning. But if you want to hedge bets that I will, you'd be a fool and I would be glad to take your money. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I'd venture a guess that in your day to day life evidence from the physical world plays a major role in your decision making.

I also think that evidence from the physical world cannot be described as a matter of faith because in practice we all accept it as evidence.

I don't get how this undercuts my argument. Just because I "accept it as evidence" does not mean its not a matter of faith. Whether or not it is done in practice..

Quote:
Take for example if I believe that my Cat teleports at night, well that would be faith because I have no evidence.

Versus if I believe that my cat lives at my house because I see her there every day.

I think that sollipsism is an interesting intellectual exercise, but meaningless in practice.

Not analogous in the slightest.

Don't you see that the same evidence that you use for believing the alternative theory of non-solipsism is the exact same evidence that is used for believing solipsism?

It's like, if the only two hamburger places are A and B. Everyday I see you with a hamburger, therefore I say you go to B everyday (even though I "admit" that you could have gone to A).

The only difference between this analogy and the argument I've made in the past is that this one actually IS meaningless. Whether you believe A or B doesn't really matter.

With regards to solipsism/non-solipsism however it DOES matter. Whether you believe 100% percent or not, "practice" in life can only be consistent with one or the other. Your belief, either in practice or "faith," which are one in the same in this scenario, is the difference between being a sociopath and a "normal" citizen of a community.

How can you be "more a solipsism than not" and not be a sociopath?

Still.. the original question has not been answer. Name ONE bit of evidence that "tends to prove" non-solipsism and not solipsism.

I venture to say that it cannot be done. Yet, still, most people accept non-solipsism, or "practice" consistent with it.

Quote:
And clinging to absurdity is a solution?

Sure, I dont know if I will instantanously become a woman tommorow morning. But if you want to hedge bets that I will, you'd be a fool and I would be glad to take your money.

Nono.. but arrogance certainly is.. especially when I'm in a nice civil discussion. I find it particularly useful to make categorical judgments about the other persons' belief instead of understanding it. Then again, I guess I usually do know the fundamentals about that persons belief merely by his label--sufficient to make the categorical judgment at least.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:
I'd venture a guess that in your day to day life evidence from the physical world plays a major role in your decision making.

I also think that evidence from the physical world cannot be described as a matter of faith because in practice we all accept it as evidence.

I don't get how this undercuts my argument. Just because I "accept it as evidence" does not mean its not a matter of faith. Whether or not it is done in practice..

Quote:
Take for example if I believe that my Cat teleports at night, well that would be faith because I have no evidence.

Versus if I believe that my cat lives at my house because I see her there every day.

I think that sollipsism is an interesting intellectual exercise, but meaningless in practice.

Not analogous in the slightest.

Don't you see that the same evidence that you use for believing the alternative theory of non-solipsism is the exact same evidence that is used for believing solipsism?

It's like, if the only two hamburger places are A and B. Everyday I see you with a hamburger, therefore I say you go to B everyday (even though I "admit" that you could have gone to A).

The only difference between this analogy and the argument I've made in the past is that this one actually IS meaningless. Whether you believe A or B doesn't really matter.

With regards to solipsism/non-solipsism however it DOES matter. Whether you believe 100% percent or not, "practice" in life can only be consistent with one or the other. Your belief, either in practice or "faith," which are one in the same in this scenario, is the difference between being a sociopath and a "normal" citizen of a community.

How can you be "more a solipsism than not" and not be a sociopath?

Still.. the original question has not been answer. Name ONE bit of evidence that "tends to prove" non-solipsism and not solipsism.

I venture to say that it cannot be done. Yet, still, most people accept non-solipsism, or "practice" consistent with it.

Quote:
And clinging to absurdity is a solution?

Sure, I dont know if I will instantanously become a woman tommorow morning. But if you want to hedge bets that I will, you'd be a fool and I would be glad to take your money.

Nono.. but arrogance certainly is.. especially when I'm in a nice civil discussion. I find it particularly useful to make categorical judgments about the other persons' belief instead of understanding it. Then again, I guess I usually do know the fundamentals about that persons belief merely by his label--sufficient to make the categorical judgment at least.

What makes you think I dont understand?

"A disimbodied being got a girl pregnant" What part of that claim do you not understand?

I know that cant happen just because somone uttered it. Just like claiming that Thor makes lighting is an absurdity too. I'm sorry if my failure to sugar coat life offends you, but that is your problem, not mine. That does not make me arrogent. Your claim that all claims are equal by default IS ARROGANT!

You rightfully reject Thor but I am not calling you arrogent. I would call you wise to do such. I think you are stuck on "dont offend", and I think the truth is far more important than ego. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37