Board 8 > A question to the atheists of this board

(+) Yeah! (+)

Which ones? How questionable? Hope its not one of those Human Centipedes.

--
One Piece: Pirates with style!
-= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =-

From: BoshStrikesBack | #089
Out of curiosity, how do you define truth and how do you go about attempting to attain it?

Reality is entirely subjective; the world of appearances, where we connect "facts" (i.e. human impressions of the world, be they inductive, deductive, poetic, or religious) into a potentially infinite number of interpretations. Science is one of these interpretations, and only one of these interpretations.

A subjective reality is a contradiction. Either there is an objective reality, or there isn't any reality at all. Reality exists independent of human thought. While interpretations of reality may differ, things are that are. An ounce of gold is an ounce of gold. There is no situation where an ounce of gold is not an ounce of gold, even if languages and cognitive skills impose a barrier. We cannot live, as you seem to perpetuate, as if we had no knowledge of anything. I don't think you can live this way either.
There is no other way for us to know, understand, or exist outside of our five senses. If you can conceive of another way, then please elaborate for our benefit. But, as it is, any notion of super-empiricism, even if it has substance, is completely meaningless to a human being because human beings have no access to that realm of thought.

--
PSN:SeaOfRage

A subjective reality is a contradiction. Either there is an objective reality, or there isn't any reality at all. Reality exists independent of human thought.

If you operationalize "reality" as "objective reality," then of course it's going to be a contradiction. No reason to do that, however. And I'd love to see a proof of the existence of reality outside of human thought. What is the thing-in-itself? What does it look like, and how do we know it exists?

We cannot live, as you seem to perpetuate, as if we had no knowledge of anything. I don't think you can live this way either.

Sure we can; it just requires a suspension of universal judgment about things-in-themselves.

There is no other way for us to know, understand, or exist outside of our five senses. If you can conceive of another way, then please elaborate for our benefit. But, as it is, any notion of super-empiricism, even if it has substance, is completely meaningless to a human being because human beings have no access to that realm of thought.

lol, such sloppy thinking. Do you not see the direct contradiction here?

--
Houston Texans: 3-3
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

I think I'll take a crack at explaining my views from the ground up before I go to bed.

Step 1: This step is a simple tautological statement. That which exists, exists.
Step 2: I think, therefor I exist.
Step 3: I have access to a perception of reality that must exist, whether as an entity independent of myself or simply as a subset of myself.
Step 4: Anything I can observe is part of that perception, and therefor must also exist once again either as an entity independent of myself or simply as a subset of myself.
Step 5: I cannot objectively know whether or not anything outside of my perception exists or not.

Therefor I must constrain myself with working with that which I can know exists, as I have no tools establish the existence of anything else. Simple conjecture will get me nowhere. As such, I will continue to utilize the method that allows me to explain that which I am capable of explaining and knowing to exist, which is to say that which is empirical.

As truth is a property of that which exists, the only method I can use to pursue truth is the scientific method. Poetic and philosophical truths are derived from that which exists, namely the mind, and also therefor fall under the purview of science, albeit not directly.

--
MMBN style fighting game made by me in the link below!
http://sandbox.yoyogames.com/games/184947-b8bn

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it thus.'

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Not much of a refutation.

--
90s games > 00s games

I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it.

It's also impossible to disprove the empirical account of the world; both are mere assertions.

Nice try substituting literature for argument, however.

--
Houston Texans: 4-3 (lol Titans)
also Jaffar I am dubbing you the hipster Atheist.-- ExThaNemesis

nice try substituting responding to a nonargument for responding to actual points.

If both are "impossible" then what qualifies as possible? If nothing, then you've defined away the meaning of possible and impossible and I advise you to shut up until you can come back with an adequate explanation.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!

Not as well versed in philosophy as Jaffar, but I'd venture a guess that it's possible to show that it's impossible to prove X. Further, we don't have to get anywhere near that complicated, because X itself is possible.

--
90s games > 00s games

Yes it is possible to show that it's impossible to prove something.

With math.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Then what is your objection to Jaffar's statement? Clearly there is a meaningful difference between possible and impossible.

--
90s games > 00s games

I think most people would lose hope. Mass suicides.

--
Three Times Better a normal GameFAQs account.

From: red sox 777 | #111
Then what is your objection to Jaffar's statement? Clearly there is a meaningful difference between possible and impossible.

My objection is that he hides behind imprecise language and word games, and furthermore even if it was possible to prove something was impossible within math it doesn't mean that 1) Any particular statement has been proven or is provable to be possible or impossible 2) that jaffar would accept this mathematical proof 3) He seems to think everything is "impossible to prove" and hence religion, science and magic are on equal grounds.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Would you agree that all false statements are impossible to prove? Jaffar is roughly saying that all empirical statements are impossible to prove, though with a lot more nuance. What is so strange about that, even at face value? It's nowhere near saying that all statements are impossible to prove.

As for empirical evidence about God, let's imagine what the universe would look like with and without God. For with God, I'm imagining a large set of possible universes that includes ours. For without God, I'm imagining a large set of possible universes that includes ours, though with a lower probability. So probabilistic analysis of our empirical data indicates that it is likely that God exists. Obviously nothing was proven either way. And we cannot found a faith in God or against God based on such data as we have!

You probably have different views on what a universe with God would look like and what one without him would look like. But even by coming up with these expectations you are already stepping way outside empiricism. How would you know what God would make the universe like?

The farthest you can go is to say that belief in God is not useful here on earth. Even that requires a bunch of assumptions, but they're not very big assumptions to make at least for me. But guess what? The Bible openly states exactly this!

--
90s games > 00s games

Well, I imagine outright confusion and rebellion in the middle east, and a small recession in this country caused by the sudden collapse of faith-based industries.

In the 1st world not much changes, Italy adds about a square mile to its territory by annexing the papal state, and a lot of issues based around morality stop being argued so stupidly with no God component to muck things up.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png
edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?

My objection is that he hides behind imprecise language and word games

-dead at these words actually leaving meisnewbie's keyboard-

I am going to disagree with someone else.

Am I going to actually argue with that person?

No.

Am I going to point out where that person was wrong?

No.

Am I going to remove myself from the entire argument process, wherein EITHER person can be proven wrong, and instead just say that the other person is wrong without specifying why or intending to?

Yes.

You complain of me being obnoxious. Fine, I accept that because I gladly suffer no fools. Then you complain of me being confusing? I don't recall any moment where someone was actively confused by my line of argument instead of by their prejudices on what my argument could be. If you want to point them out, go ahead, I know you'd love to see me humiliated and humbled.

But no, you'd rather embrace the feeling of being right, of having pointed out some flaw in my character, rather than go to all that troublesome work of having to think clearly, speak clearly and see clearly.

And that's why you're a lazy incompetent.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

I know you'd love to see me humiliated and humbled.

no, I actually like you, I just found that very amusing. I love you for doing it most of the time, but you have no business calling anyone out for playing evasive word games

I'm wrong on that but I would be right on loving to see you humiliated and humbled if you don't point them out right now.

--
Eh? You Serious? Easy Mode? How Disgusting!
Only Elementary School Kids should play on Easy Mode.

Bosh's half-baked "logic" expressed in tens of long posts yet again crushed by simplicity summed up in a few words. Good show, Meisnewbie, good show.

--
If you like Blitzball, try Captain Tsubasa II (in English) for NES!
Top games: http://unikgamer.com/users/vlado-309.html

CharCustomZaku posted...
I think most people would lose hope. Mass suicides.

Why?

If theres no god and no afterlife, ending it all is the last thing youd do.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png
edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?

Because most people don't actually believe in the consequences of what they say.

Note: This is not my argument, nor did I know most of this information before the argument was made, so corrections to this are welcome. I do agree with it in full though. "Mike Darwin" if you're curious.

Take Steve Jobs for example. On record as saying death was the best thing ever to happen to life during the Stanford commencement speech.

And he decided to get a liver transplant right before dying of pancreatic cancer.

He's a 54 year old, with metastasized cancer. Who got a liver transplant.

This means that somehow, he managed to bribe his way into getting the transplant because no sane, honest surgeon would approve of giving a valuable, life giving liver to a person who was going to ruin it immediately after receiving it. This isn't including the numerous other medical interventions he tried (that I can't list in detail because I don't know them) and his "can do" attitude to beating it (that I can assert because I've seen a tiny bit of it)

That's not the attitude of a man who thinks "death gives value to life."

Of note, and incredibly relevant to this argument is that he decided to delay an empirically verified, life saving surgery for NINE MONTHS, in order to try out an alternative medicine treatment (a diet).

So what's the harm in not treating empiricism as an important way of learning truth?

It only killed one of the richest men in the world who was smart enough to claw his way to the topic.

Bosh's half-baked "logic" expressed in tens of long posts yet again crushed by simplicity summed up in a few words

Yeah because meisnewbie has no word diarrhea problem.

--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!