Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Willamena]

??? Assumption or realise, in either case you have accepted the idea of my existence in order to have the discussion. Maybe the fault is mine here since I used the term ‘assumption’ to be synonymous with ‘premise’ in this discussion.

Okay.

I never doubted your reality, in anything I said.

 

[Willamena]

Yes. You need a reality for you to exist in…..
this IS saying presupposing is the same as experiencing, when you consider what I said was,
I can presuppose reality does not exist, at the same time I exist in reality.
How on Earth is that a contradiction?
Unless you are suggesting "presupposing reality" is the same thing as "existing" in, or "experiencing" reality.
The word "presuppose" means to believe in advance or to require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.
I can "imagine" I don't exist, and still exist, in other words, and I can imagine what it would be like If I did not exist.

Assuming is bringing something in that is not in evidence, as when we bring in a piece of information to serve our argument in a debate. A presupposition is assumed, but (by comparison) it is firmly in place before an argument is even formed, so that the argument is shaped to fit the thing so assumed.

If you presuppose reality does not exist, that is essentially suggesting that your entire belief system has formed around this idea, as our beliefs reflect our understanding of reality.

 

[Atheologian]

Assuming is bringing something in that is not in evidence, as when we bring in a piece of information to serve our argument in a debate. A presupposition is assumed, but (by comparison) it is firmly in place before an argument is even formed, so that the argument is shaped to fit the thing so assumed.

If you presuppose reality does not exist, that is essentially suggesting that your entire belief system has formed around this idea, as our beliefs reflect our understanding of reality.

No, and what you two are doing is focusing a narrow definition of the word. You can presuppose anything you like, this is how religions start. In some Eastern religions, they do just that. They presuppose they do not exist at all, and are being dreamt, not truly existing, but the figment of an imagination of a being that DOES exist.
I'm not saying I agree, or it makes a lot of sense, but that is exactly what they are doing in that case.

 

[PureX]

Proving the basis of any idea false, is as good as proving the idea itself false. If I prove to you that gravity exists, and can show you the equation, why would you believe in invisible strings that tether us to the earth? Even though they claim to explain the same phenomenon, one is real and one isn't. I can already see where you would take this argument. When I say, evolution, you say "intelligent design", or something similar. When I say big bang, you say "God did it". Is that a ball park assumption?

Most theists feel that evolution and the Big Bang are just the mechanisms of creation: God's methodology. So how do you imagine that these disprove the existence of God? And what does gravity have to do with anything?

 

[PureX]

There is also another factor at play here. When I was still a believer and did my first few sessions as alter boy I remember having what I consider at the time to be spiritual experiences. When people I talk to in real life describe to me experiences that remind me of my own past experiences I see tremendous similarities. The bit that bugs me is that, fundamentally, there is no evidence I can produce for the experiences of myself or others – but the very same criticism applies just as much to yourself.
Hence why I am putting the charge of conformational bias front and centre here. And I do feel that a point I raised earlier bear repeating:
” Think about what you are doing here. You are doubting the experiences of Scientologists solely because they interpreted their experiences differently than yours. It is worth noting that those experiences really did cause “dramatic transformational characteristics including a paradigm shift in one’s perspective of reality” for those Scientologists – they just reached a different conclusion than yours.

If your only reason for doubting those experiences is because of a differing conclusion, then doesn’t that lend weight to the charge of conformational bias?”

I'm neither doubting nor accepting their conclusions. Nor am I judging their experiences. I honestly don't think God gives a crap whether we are scientologists of Hindus. And I know I don't.

What we think is just not all that important compared to what we do, and who we are.

I'm sorry that God as you conceived of God didn't work for you. I recommend trying a different concept of God. But you've obviously decided that God doesn't exist, instead. So fine. That's your decision - deal with it. But what's the point of attacking other people's God concept? Especially when you have nothing else to offer them but your imagined truth of a dead and meaningless universe.

 

[PureX]

Argumentum ad populum.

LOL! I love the way you guys pull these labels out of your philosophy 101 classes and slam them down on the table as though they're some devastating smack down. When in fact the don't mean anything. *smile*

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"Especially when you have nothing else to offer them but your imagined truth of a dead and meaningless universe."

Who said we - or anyone- should offer ANYTHING? You keep dodging this question just like you dodge the reality one. WHY is there any thing to BE offered? Anytime by anybody?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

LOL! I love the way you guys pull these labels out of your philosophy 101 classes and slam them down on the table as though they're some devastating smack down. When in fact the don't mean anything. *smile*

So you now deny that logic has any use. This gets curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Willamena]

No, and what you two are doing is focusing a narrow definition of the word. You can presuppose anything you like, this is how religions start. In some Eastern religions, they do just that. They presuppose they do not exist at all, and are being dreamt, not truly existing, but the figment of an imagination of a being that DOES exist.
I'm not saying I agree, or it makes a lot of sense, but that is exactly what they are doing in that case.

A sound philosophy supports that "they do not exist at all" and that the world is "being dreamt". They didn't just sit down one day and decide it (well . . . I suppose in way they did ).

Are you talking about supposing rather than presupposing?

 

[themadhair]

I'm sorry that God as you conceived of God didn't work for you. I recommend trying a different concept of God. But you've obviously decided that God doesn't exist, instead. So fine. That's your decision - deal with it. But what's the point of attacking other people's God concept? Especially when you have nothing else to offer them but your imagined truth of a dead and meaningless universe.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that, for me, this is a simple case of intellectual honesty? And how does the meaning you attach to an idea have any bearing on the truth value of that idea?

LOL! I love the way you guys pull these labels out of your philosophy 101 classes and slam them down on the table as though they're some devastating smack down. When in fact the don't mean anything. *smile*

Pointing out errors in logic, particularly fallacies, is a part of that intellectual honesty I referred to above. Doesn’t the fact that you are using not just flawed logic, but using well-known examples of flawed logic that even have their own name, not matter to you? Probably not if intellectual honesty isn’t important to you.

 

[Atheologian]

Most theists feel that evolution and the Big Bang are just the mechanisms of creation: God's methodology. So how do you imagine that these disprove the existence of God? And what does gravity have to do with anything?

gravity? that's called an "example". As for methodology, the god that theists generelly refer to is based on the bible, yet somehow, he's not... You can't just pick and choose whatever parts of a certain religion you like or don't like. It matters little what conception of a deity you've built for yourself, it's still just an adaption of the original, subject to the same skepticism. When the original explanations of his "methodology" can't hold water, what does that say about the God you developed from the original?

Is your god somehow above the bible?
If so, that means he's basically something you made up in your head. If you don't believe the bible, it's safe to say you don't believe in the God FROM the bible, rather your own personal concoction that better fits your needs.

Now, in the case that you DO believe in the Bible, any bible based on the old testament, and you believe, at the same time, in Evolution or the Big Bang, you're simply a hypocrite.

Whatever Idea you fabricated for yourself of "God", is either one of several available religions, or else an entitiy that is entirely in your own head.

I don't think I need to imply the silliness of creating your own god.

You could go in the direction of Eastern Religion, and claim that God is somehow synonomous with nature, or that god is Harmony, God is everything, God is this, God is that, but what you are describing is actually nature, harmony, everything, this and that.

I think the real issue behind this notion of God, boils down to the soul. Noone wants to stop existing. People can't accept the idea that life will end. We are arrogant enough to think our lives should somehow go on forever, as if we are entitled to eternity. This is why so many people believe in ghosts.

 

[PureX]

Ahhhhh! Now I get it. You aren't an atheist after all, you're an anti-Christian literal fundamentalist. Well even I don't believe most of the stuff those people are claiming.

 

[PureX]

Why is it so hard for people to believe that, for me, this is a simple case of intellectual honesty? And how does the meaning you attach to an idea have any bearing on the truth value of that idea?

Please excuse me. I really don't mean to imply that you aren't sincere. I apologize.

Pointing out errors in logic, particularly fallacies, is a part of that intellectual honesty I referred to above. Doesn’t the fact that you are using not just flawed logic, but using well-known examples of flawed logic that even have their own name, not matter to you? Probably not if intellectual honesty isn’t important to you.

Try to imagine it from my point of view. I'm 52 years old, and have been in hundreds of these kinds of discussions over the years. I have many times heard every kind of cheap trick humans have come up with to protect their egos and their ideas, and I have fallen into them all one time or another, myself. So forgive me, but when someone points one out and shouts "gotcha!" it appears to me a lot like pointing at one gnat in a whole cloud of gnats and shouting; "a gnat, oh my God, kill it before it eats us all!" *haha*

Also, I am an artist by both nature and education. I've been trained to think outside the box, so to speak, and have done so for many years. I've done so for so long that the box doesn't hold any major place of respect in my life or thinking. It's just the old status quo to me. I enjoy logic and I can see it's a valuable intellectual tool, but it's a far, FAR cry from the 'totem of all truth' some people around here think it is. Same goes for the scientific process. I've been around the arts most of my life and so have seen with my own eyes the many great ideas and insights that have come from people using far different intellectual tools than logic and scientific process. They were using tools like intuition, empathy, fantasy, brutal self-honesty, intellectual/emotional/spiritual deconstruction, chance, rigid conformity, and a lot of others I can't think of at the moment. And they weren't just talking about these tools, they USED them. They APPLIED them to their lives and to physical world around them to see what the results would be. These are people of real insight and courage, living the ideas that we just talk about. They have beaten back their egos and are able to adopt all sorts of new ideas and let go of all their old ones, just for the joy of exploring new ways of seeing the world around them. They really do this!

I'm just throwing this out there so you'll maybe understand why those old and tired nineteenth century philosophy class rules don't mean all that much to me. I agree with you about how intellectual dishonesty is unhealthy and annoying, and all. But with we humans, rigorous honesty is something that comes only with a lot of practice, and we never really get it down fully. So along with the honesty, we need a lot of patience and forgiveness, too. But most of all we need open ears, eyes, hearts, and minds. As an artist I can honesty tell you that breaking the rules teaches us as much as following them ever will.

 

[PureX]

"Especially when you have nothing else to offer them but your imagined truth of a dead and meaningless universe."

Who said we - or anyone- should offer ANYTHING? You keep dodging this question just like you dodge the reality one. WHY is there any thing to BE offered? Anytime by anybody?

Well, it just seems rather cheap, to me, to be tearing down the beliefs of others when you have nothing to offer them that's better. If their beliefs are working for them, why don't you just let them be? After all, you don't have anything to contribute to the interaction, right?

 

[Commoner]

So you now deny that logic has any use. This gets curiouser and curiouser.

PureX has been denying that from the start. (not making a funny)

 

[Commoner]

LOL! I love the way you guys pull these labels out of your philosophy 101 classes and slam them down on the table as though they're some devastating smack down. When in fact the don't mean anything. *smile*

These are cheap personal attacks, PureX.

I still use the basic equations I was thought in "Math 101", that doesn't mean they are not appropriate and it certainly doesn't mean that's all I know about math. If you have an actual argument about why you think your logic wasn't flawed, when it's clear to others that it was, please present it.

If you don't want your arguments to be labelled as logical fallacies, rephrase them so that they are not. It would be more honest and accurate anyway.

 

[Atheologian]

Please excuse me. I really don't mean to imply that you aren't sincere. I apologize.
Try to imagine it from my point of view. I'm 52 years old, and have been in hundreds of these kinds of discussions over the years. I have many times heard every kind of cheap trick humans have come up with to protect their egos and their ideas, and I have fallen into them all one time or another, myself. So forgive me, but when someone points one out and shouts "gotcha!" it appears to me a lot like pointing at one gnat in a whole cloud of gnats and shouting; "a gnat, oh my God, kill it before it eats us all!" *haha*

Also, I am an artist by both nature and education. I've been trained to think outside the box, so to speak, and have done so for many years. I've done so for so long that the box doesn't hold any major place of respect in my life or thinking. It's just the old status quo to me. I enjoy logic and I can see it's a valuable intellectual tool, but it's a far, FAR cry from the 'totem of all truth' some people around here think it is. Same goes for the scientific process. I've been around the arts most of my life and so have seen with my own eyes the many great ideas and insights that have come from people using far different intellectual tools than logic and scientific process. They were using tools like intuition, empathy, fantasy, brutal self-honesty, intellectual/emotional/spiritual deconstruction, chance, rigid conformity, and a lot of others I can't think of at the moment. And they weren't just talking about these tools, they USED them. They APPLIED them to their lives and to physical world around them to see what the results would be. These are people of real insight and courage, living the ideas that we just talk about. They have beaten back their egos and are able to adopt all sorts of new ideas and let go of all their old ones, just for the joy of exploring new ways of seeing the world around them. They really do this!

I'm just throwing this out there so you'll maybe understand why those old and tired nineteenth century philosophy class rules don't mean all that much to me. I agree with you about how intellectual dishonesty is unhealthy and annoying, and all. But with we humans, rigorous honesty is something that comes only with a lot of practice, and we never really get it down fully. So along with the honesty, we need a lot of patience and forgiveness, too. But most of all we need open ears, eyes, hearts, and minds. As an artist I can honesty tell you that breaking the rules teaches us as much as following them ever will.

This is typical... long drawn out spiel full of emotion to counter any FACTS thrown your way. I am exactly what a say I am, an atheist. This is called a discussion, or debate. In any debate or discussion, you are going to hear things you don't agree with, and may offend you. That doesn't mean you can lash out with personal attacks, and win the debate that way.

 

[Atheologian]

Well, it just seems rather cheap, to me, to be tearing down the beliefs of others when you have nothing to offer them that's better. If their beliefs are working for them, why don't you just let them be? After all, you don't have anything to contribute to the interaction, right?

Tearing down the beliefs of others in the name of humanity, medicine, science, liberty, love and peace seem perfectly reasonable. What seems cheap, to me, is to continue to follow MEN who claim to be holy, speak to "GOD" and make draconian rules from an ancient book of lies, deceit and repulsive ideals.

Let me go further an say, that when we cast out a Murderer or Rapist from society, we don't make sure his feelings aren't hurt first. We don't care if the murder and rape made him happy, to allow him to spread his miscreance is unnacceptable. When our morals as a whole change, evolve from what they were in draconian times, and your religion can't keep up, your religion's got to go.

 

[Atheologian]

Ahhhhh! Now I get it. You aren't an atheist after all, you're an anti-Christian literal fundamentalist. Well even I don't believe most of the stuff those people are claiming.

I never said anything about Christians. All they did was rip the old testament off the Jews anyway. Im talking about any of the desert religions. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are all based on the same scripture. PAGAN scriptures from before the time of the old testament.

I'm waiting for you to suggest that your god was developed entirely independent of the god of the old testament, without him in mind. I know it's coming...

 

[Atheologian]

1. Less so as we become more enlightened. It tends to be the less well educated who believe.
2. Evolution is not random but the 'breathing forth of life' may well have been. No purpose, no plan, just primordeal soup and lots of time.
3. And it could well not be. I'll go with the big bang. Where everything came from, I don't know but it doesn't make me want to invent a god who roasts babies in hell.

he also mutilates their genitals.