| 26 Feb 2008 10:41 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55  Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Ok but seriously, your own argument can be inverted into itself. I can say that your argument doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it to me in the same way you want me to prove my own existence to you.
The argument isn’t used in a serious attempt, merely providing an example as why things shouldn’t be instantly judged as a negative as opposed to a neutral.
Also, I would just like to point out that your own argument makes you legally insane. Hypothetically speaking, lets say your argument wins. You’ve proven that I don’t exist. But wait... your clearly talking to me! Yet you’ve just proven that I don’t exist, meaning your talking to something that you believe doesn’t exist.
That’s not at all what he’s saying. The argument he’s proposing is known as solopsism, the belief that the only thing one can be sure of the existence of is their own mind.
Going by his proposed usage of this, it’s not just you that needs to prove their existence, but everything. As far as anyone knows, reality as they know it is an elaborate illusion created by their own mind. Kind of like the Matrix where the Matrix is you.
It really is impossible to prove the existence of anything, since if you go by the solopist point of view, any “proof” offered can just be a further extension of the illusion of reality your brain creates.
Besides, solopism is a pretty dead-end belief system that really has no reason for existing save for pondering. You can’t prove it nor disprove it, since everything would be an illusion. It’s a pretty useless belief, but a valid one. I stay away from it because of how useless it is, and because it’s one of the top sins in Satanism.
You seem to be stuck on this thought that nothing can be proven, by trying to force this belief on everyone then you can claim that the existence of a god can not be question because nothing can be proven.
There is reasonable evidence, and there is your level which nothing can be proven. Most people live in the first reasonable world, care to join us?
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.Last edited 27 Feb 2008 12:43 am by Gplex | | | | 27 Feb 2008 12:46 am |
The Mangekyou Sharingan Rep: 50 Joined: 01 Oct 2007 Posts: 10,520 OFFLINE | The existence of god by physically is impossible...
but you can see His creations... ---
 
“Great new ideas usually come from very small teams... don’t give up so easily." — John Kaster — | | | 27 Feb 2008 01:00 am |
In the infinite Rep: 40 Joined: 11 Feb 2008 Posts: 10,817 OFFLINE | Itachi Uchiha wrote:
The existence of god by physically is impossible...
but you can see His creations...
Like the platypus!
Hehehe... Gods lil joke.
Don’t FUCK with my insanity I’ll warp your REALiTY | | | 27 Feb 2008 01:35 am |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25 Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | ramunematt wrote:
Ok but seriously, your own argument can be inverted into itself. I can say that your argument doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it to me in the same way you want me to prove my own existence to you.
Also, I would just like to point out that your own argument makes you legally insane. Hypothetically speaking, lets say your argument wins. You’ve proven that I don’t exist. But wait... your clearly talking to me! Yet you’ve just proven that I don’t exist, meaning your talking to something that you believe doesn’t exist.
Conclusion: you have schizophrenia; a mental illness characterized by impairments in the perception or expression of reality or Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances.
You can accept one of two:
1. You’re argument is invalid
2. You’re a schizophrenic
so... which one will it be?
Come on, I can’t be schizophrenic. Schizophrenics are terrible at spelling, grammar, et cetera and even though I’m not perfect I’m pretty good compared to the others on here. Besides, how could I be withdrawn from reality if most of my arguments are better than the other Theists and they aren’t insane? I also have no history of schizophrenia in my family.
Nor is my argument invalid, read the last dozen or so posts, It’s not a serious argument for sopolism, it’s bringing up flaws in you argument. Just because I seem to be typing to you does nothing to prove it’s not an illusion, I can “see” “hear” “touch” “smell” and “taste” in dreams, I guess you think that they are all real. I’m sorry to say this to you matt, but the only thing saying it’s not is your faith, your belief without evidence.
 Last edited 27 Feb 2008 01:43 am by Sean of the Living | | | 27 Feb 2008 01:39 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living wrote:
Come on, I can’t be schizophrenic. Schizophrenics are terrible at spelling, grammar, et cetera and even though I’m not perfect I’m pretty good compared to the others on here. Besides, how could I be withdrawn from reality if most of my arguments are better than the other Theists and they aren’t insane? I also have no history of schizophrenia in my family.
They can have bad spelling, so can anyone else.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Nor is my argument invalid, read the last dozen or so posts, It’s not a serious argument for sopolism, it’s bringing up flaws in you argument. Just because I seem to be typing to you does nothing to prove it’s not an illusion, I can “see” “hear” “touch” “smell” and “taste” in dreams, I guess you think that they are all real. I’m sorry to say this to you matt, but the only thing saying it’s not is your faith, your belief without evidence.
Ah another one who claims that evidence is just faith because we could be dreaming at this very moment, this is a extremely weak argument. Because what we see, hear, touch, smell, or taste, is conceded evidence, to claim that it isnt invalidates your argument.
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.Last edited 27 Feb 2008 01:39 pm by Gplex | | | 27 Feb 2008 02:25 pm |
Tree Guest | Hey religious debaters, I see you’re all still hard at work.
As a researcher I’ve had to examine how our view of the world effects our scientific and social research.
Anyway, we had to study epistemology and ontology and I was thinking it might be useful for you in this current debate.
Try looking them up, I’m sure wikipedia has stuff on them, but you might want to try a more reliable source instead.
Good luck. | | | 27 Feb 2008 03:04 pm |
Thanatos, God of Death Rep: 63 Joined: 31 Jan 2008 Posts: 14,451 OFFLINE | Alright since you say are sences are not reliable then by your logic I could talk to God and that wouldn’t prove a damn thing. ---
 | | | 27 Feb 2008 04:21 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50 Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
ramunematt wrote:
Ok but seriously, your own argument can be inverted into itself. I can say that your argument doesn’t exist because you can’t prove it to me in the same way you want me to prove my own existence to you.
The argument isn’t used in a serious attempt, merely providing an example as why things shouldn’t be instantly judged as a negative as opposed to a neutral.
Also, I would just like to point out that your own argument makes you legally insane. Hypothetically speaking, lets say your argument wins. You’ve proven that I don’t exist. But wait... your clearly talking to me! Yet you’ve just proven that I don’t exist, meaning your talking to something that you believe doesn’t exist.
That’s not at all what he’s saying. The argument he’s proposing is known as solopsism, the belief that the only thing one can be sure of the existence of is their own mind.
Going by his proposed usage of this, it’s not just you that needs to prove their existence, but everything. As far as anyone knows, reality as they know it is an elaborate illusion created by their own mind. Kind of like the Matrix where the Matrix is you.
It really is impossible to prove the existence of anything, since if you go by the solopist point of view, any “proof” offered can just be a further extension of the illusion of reality your brain creates.
Besides, solopism is a pretty dead-end belief system that really has no reason for existing save for pondering. You can’t prove it nor disprove it, since everything would be an illusion. It’s a pretty useless belief, but a valid one. I stay away from it because of how useless it is, and because it’s one of the top sins in Satanism.
You seem to be stuck on this thought that nothing can be proven, by trying to force this belief on everyone then you can claim that the existence of a god can not be question because nothing can be proven.
There is reasonable evidence, and there is your level which nothing can be proven. Most people live in the first reasonable world, care to join us?
Want me to make you look like an idiot by using an excerpt from the very post you just fucking quoted?
'Cause I will.
Besides, solopism is a pretty dead-end belief system that really has no reason for existing save for pondering. You can’t prove it nor disprove it, since everything would be an illusion. It’s a pretty useless belief, but a valid one. I stay away from it because of how useless it is, and because it’s one of the top sins in Satanism.
So maybe next time care to actually read my post before thinking I am a solopist? Especially when you still have a very tenuous grasp of what solopism is, based on your pathetic rebuttal.
Not to mention I didn’t force anything on anyone, just shed some light on a subject so people would understand what they are talking about.
 Last edited 27 Feb 2008 04:22 pm by watermelon man | | | 27 Feb 2008 05:17 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living wrote:
Come on, I can’t be schizophrenic. Schizophrenics are terrible at spelling, grammar, et cetera and even though I’m not perfect I’m pretty good compared to the others on here. Besides, how could I be withdrawn from reality if most of my arguments are better than the other Theists and they aren’t insane? I also have no history of schizophrenia in my family.
They can have bad spelling, so can anyone else.
I know they can, but they have a higher rate of disorganised expression and have trouble communicating with others.
Sean of the Living wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Nor is my argument invalid, read the last dozen or so posts, It’s not a serious argument for sopolism, it’s bringing up flaws in you argument. Just because I seem to be typing to you does nothing to prove it’s not an illusion, I can “see” “hear” “touch” “smell” and “taste” in dreams, I guess you think that they are all real. I’m sorry to say this to you matt, but the only thing saying it’s not is your faith, your belief without evidence.
Ah another one who claims that evidence is just faith because we could be dreaming at this very moment, this is a extremely weak argument. Because what we see, hear, touch, smell, or taste, is conceded evidence, to claim that it isnt invalidates your argument.
You still have no proof it’s real, because it could very well be an illusion. Thus pointing out a flaw in the “beliefs start on a negative” concept. I am not a genuine sopolist, I am presenting an argument for why this “beliefs start on a ngeative” thing isn’t right.
| | | 27 Feb 2008 10:40 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
bla bla bal.
so ramunematt wasnt talking to you on solopism?
Edit: and no I didnt know what solopism was, didnt know they gave it a name, though they would have just stuck with extreme skepticism. So I just ignored that part of the post.
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.Last edited 27 Feb 2008 10:43 pm by Gplex | | | 27 Feb 2008 10:41 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Sean of the Living read Atresac post. ---
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | | 27 Feb 2008 10:43 pm |
UBER 1337 Poster Rep: 25Joined: 26 Dec 2007 Posts: 2,034 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Sean of the Living read Atresac post.
I did, he wasn’t trying to debunk my points.
| | | 27 Feb 2008 10:45 pm |
you are smart Rep: 50Joined: 03 Feb 2006 Posts: 16,700 OFFLINE | Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
bla bla bal.
so ramunematt wasnt talking to you on solopism?
He was talking about Sean of the Living’s argument that not everything should be assumed to be wrong because of a lack of evidence, due to the fact that no one can really prove their own existence to anyone else.
Ramunematt took this to mean that Sean was trying to say Ram didn’t exist, so he was talking to a figment of his imagination, which would be true in a sense, save for the fact that Ram didn’t quite understand the concept all the way through.
I just shed some light on the subject.
| | | 27 Feb 2008 10:50 pm |
Addict (beyond 1337) Rep: 55Joined: 17 Jan 2007 Posts: 5,017 OFFLINE | Atresac wrote:
Gplex wrote:
Atresac wrote:
bla bla bal.
so ramunematt wasnt talking to you on solopism?
He was talking about Sean of the Living’s argument that not everything should be assumed to be wrong because of a lack of evidence, due to the fact that no one can really prove their own existence to anyone else.
Ramunematt took this to mean that Sean was trying to say Ram didn’t exist, so he was talking to a figment of his imagination, which would be true in a sense, save for the fact that Ram didn’t quite understand the concept all the way through.
I just shed some light on the subject.
Well I though you where the one and not sean who cause him/her to respond but I was wrong.
Theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. | | |
|
Previous Page - Post Reply |
|
»
Religion
» Common Mistakes of Atheists
