Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Unlike many, if I want to know if the cat's still alive, I simply open the box and see.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Let's Present Some Evidence ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
Unlike many, if I want to know if the cat's still alive, I simply open the box and see.
Commoner
Headache
I simply am the cat inside the box. There's nothing outside the box. In fact, there's no box at all. And no inside.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
So, are you alive or dead, and where exactly is your litter box?
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Is that a law? A fact? A theory? Can I quote you to abuse other atheists with? Or is that... dare I say...
faith?
Commoner
Headache
It's faith to say that I don't think anybody would be foolish enough to try that. But it's common sense to say you can't deny anything existing as a concept. You'd have to have a concept of it to deny it in the first place. Catch 22.
So you can say that it's faith, you can quote it, you can use it and abuse it, you can try it, don't deny it.
Isn't it also common sense that it is by the concept that we know everything? That there is nothing we do not know via its concept? (Ordinarily I'd use the word "idea" here but it seems acceptable in this thread to transpose the two words.)
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
It's faith to say that I don't think anybody would be foolish enough to try that. But it's common sense to say you can't deny anything existing as a concept. You'd have to have a concept of it to deny it in the first place. Catch 22.
So you can say that it's faith, you can quote it, you can use it and abuse it, you can try it, don't deny it.
Ah,but I am the fool, to give back the word to faith; to tear down the walls of religion, to end the nightmare with a dream.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Are you a solipsist? Do you believe that anything exists outside of your mental representation of reality? Mental models are constructed on the basis of experiences, and the repetitiveness of experiences is what counts as evidence for those models.
Much of your argument seems to be verging on a reification fallacy. Ideas about objects in the world are not the same as objects in the world. To claim otherwise is pure sophistry.
No. Yes. I agree.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Yet, your posts have left me with the opposite impression. You argue as if nothing really existed but concepts, because you tend to identify the concepts with those aspects of reality that they model.
No doubt.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I think it fair to conclude that your "no doubt" also applies to the statement that you snipped.
I do not, nor have I ever on these forums, argued that only concepts exist, or that the idea of a thing is the thing. Neither are what I believe.
My "no doubt" refers to that reification is what I argue against: being misled by (linguistic) form into thinking that simply because some noun has a use, there must be something to which it refers.
Last edited:
Christ Black
New Member
consciousnesses can float around in the community's energy.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Something's floating around.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
I never knew that fallacy had a name. Cheers.
nonbeliever_92
Well-Known Member
s...t...i...l...l... n...o... e...v...i...d...e...n...c...e...
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Faith is what remains.
The old ideas about god are just that - old. I got a new one. He's like a youngster playing video games on an old style TV set. Every once in a while, he gets up to whack the set, to remove the squiggly lines, and this act spins up a prophet or two. What we don't want to happen is to have him take the back cover off of the set.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Since I had mentioned the "reification fallacy" in an earlier post, it wasn't at all clear that your "No doubt" was responding to that criticism. And my your wording is convoluted here. I did not accuse you of arguing against reification but of falling victim to it. And reification is not really a linguistic argument. It is about confusing abstractions with real objects in the physical world.