Christianity a fake! - new shit has come to light!

[Masked Dude]

I don't like "challenged." Sounds like something I should do or need or have. But I proudly accept the labels heretic, infidel, nonbeliever, etc.

[meekon5]

just because you don't believe in any gods does not mean they are not real to me.

Therein lies the problem. Things don't exist just because someone believes in them... Different "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place. That's like playing tennis without the net, making things (and rules) up as we go along...

So are you saying if I was colour blind I exist in exactly the same (experience) universe as you do. In fact take it further a deaf person does not exist in the same universe as a hearing person, they experience a completely different set of stimulus.

In fact I was referring to Descarte, and his proposition that I can not infer the universe directly only through my own senses, I can not experience the universe the way you do because I can not get inside your head. I have no guarantee that just because we both point at a colour and say it's red, we both see the same thing.

Each of us is our own universe.

(I'm probably not making complete sense here but what's different there).

[Hominid]

Very true, personal experience is subjective, due to the practical limitations you point out...  What I'm saying is that the "real" reality is far more than our own perceptions, and more importantly, our perceptions do not create the world around us. It was created before we were born, therefore it's contingent on us to interpret it as objectively as possible... like I always say, there's nothing more sacred than the truth.

Anyone want a peanut?

[cckeiser]

Answer me this please. Does the Mind exist in the Universe, or does the Universe exist in the Mind?

That is the difference between Realism/Materialism and Idealism.

What Descartes proved is there is no "out there". A reality independent of an Observer can Not be proved....it is an assumption only.
We do not really see with our eyes....we see with our mind. The same is true with all our senses. Sense input/data is transmitted to our mind...which then translates that input/data into what it believe/thinks that data should look like, sound like...etc. And there is no way anyone can prove that what their mind is perceiving it actually "out there" or if what they are perceiving has an independent existence external to their mind.
Idealism tells us it does not.
Realism/Materialism is a dead end....it cannot answer the Fundamental Question...."Why is there Something and not Nothing?" or Where did Thinkness come from. They will tell us the Big Bang, but cannot tell us what caused the Big Band. It cannot answer any of the fundamental questions.
Even Quantum Theory cannot give an answer to Origins.

I am  an Idealist....a Skeptical Idealist actually.
I agree with Meekon5....no two minds see the very same Reality. We each view Reality from our own unique perspective...Reality is what we each perceive it is....what we each believe it is.
No two people exist in the very same Reality.
I need to quote Stanislaw Lem here from his story Solaris...."There are No Answers....only Choices."
I had come to that same conclusion back in 1999, and put that as the summation of my philosophy web site back then only to find that Professor Lem beat me to it by several years.

[Hominid]

I'll say it again: these words and ideas we create from our pre-frontal cortex are just that: concepts and words.  The universe as we know it existed before we were born, and will exist after we die.  NASA, the Hubble telescope, every discipline of science all agree on the fundamentals of our physical environment, from micro to macro. Reality is not a construct of the mind. The mind perceives reality, though often in a flawed way.

Arguments/philosophy/opinions will cease to exist when you do. The earth will continue to circle the sun, as will our sun circle the milky way. If each individual created a different universe/reality, no two observations would agree. Not to rain on your parade, but that's the Achilles heel of that philosophy... There's what we *think* is real, then there's what *is* real.

Fuck, I need a beer...

[meekon5]

...The universe as we know it existed before we were born, and will exist after we die...

I have a horrible feeling I am quoting Ayn Rand but:

"When I die, my universe dies with me"

(Actually Ayn Rand
"I will not die, it's the world that will end.")

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

And the beautiful thing is that, from my viewpoint, nobody is wrong or right in this discussion. There is definitely value in debating facts, perspective, experience universes, and all. It helps us defend and reevaluate some potentially uptight thinking we may have had, to limber up the mind. But as a post-modern thinker, I do believe that there is no such thing as the capital "T" Truth. There are truths that are subjective to some extent and influenced by psycho-social-biological- spiritual elements of this big ramblin' thing we call life, and the human condition. I definitely disagree with the Modernist statement ...

Different "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place.

... but would never fault anyone for having it, and would never be so cocky to think I had to prove it wrong. I can speak to my perspective and then sit back and have a laugh, possibly with a whiskey or an oat soda. Now that is a real debate.
One thing though I feel like I should address is the idea that ...

it's contingent on us to interpret it as objectively as possible

The beauty of thought and dialogue is really embracing our subjectivity. We are humans and supposed to be flawed, and that is where the laughter comes from. The excitement. And yes, maybe some shittiness.  Striving for objectivity all the time denies this, and really doesn't sound like much fun in my lowly opinion.

[Hominid]

I definitely disagree with the Modernist statement ...

Different "truths" cannot coexist; we all live in the same place.

... but would never fault anyone for having it, and would never be so cocky to think I had to prove it wrong.

If what you guys mean by "different realities" and "different truths" is different interpretations, that's cool. But if you're saying that in your universe, 2 + 2 can be equal to 5, and the moon is made of cheese, then that flies in the face of physics and logic. Incontrovertible and fundamental truths - sorry - FACTS - do exist. Saying that the moon is made of both cheese and rock at the same time is fundamentally illogical.  To say that both can co-exist requires a philosophical dance that only higher functioning beings utilizing abstract thought can perform.  Otherwise, things are they way they are. The moon is made of rock, 2 + 2 =4, etc.

[Rev Paddy Cakes]

See, isn't this fun?!
According to one language, one way of thinking, I completely agree with the statement ...

Incontrovertible and fundamental truths - sorry - FACTS - do exist.

The beauty of being human is that we can imagine other worlds where the moon is in fact made of cheese, and 2 + 2 = 5, and how much fun that would be. Or maybe, the moon could be made of spare ribs. Would you eat it? And we can imagine a young child being told the moon is made of cheese and believing it whole-heartedly until they pick up an Astrology book, told they are wrong, and know that it is made of rock. It's a fact. They could even go to the moon some day and pick up a rock and chuck it at a fellow astronaut just for fun. No, just me?
The argument I am making is there is different ways of knowing things. A flag is made of different coloured threads but when put together it means something to people. They may hate it, love it, or light it on fire. It is more than the sum of its parts. And there are more ways than one to look at it.
My argument may sound stupid, because even though the child may have once considered the moon to be made of cheese, it never was. It was always rock. But I do not think that is the be-all and end-all of knowing. Creativity and imagination allow us to play with the facts and constants of this world, and know, represent, and experience things in an infinite amount of ways. That's why life is so much fun, is it not?

[DudePatrick]

While I enjoy this conversation, I am honor bound to point out that you never, ever prove anything through a lack of evidence.  The most conclusive response to such a situation is in regards to its likelihood.

This can be applied to any major religion, just as it can be applied to any philosophical ideal.  Descartes did not prove anything philosophically; he logically extended an argument.

The only way to prove something exists is empirically
empirical observation is subjective
I cannot prove anything, other than I experience.
I experience, therefore, I exist.

This is a formal argument, and is true ONLY if the premises are true.  If, for example, I can prove something exists theoretically or if I can prove empirical observation can be objective, then "I cannot prove anything" fails to be true.  Descartes, in fact, went on to inductively prove God.  So that wasn't great.

If for example, we can determine what an individual sees by scanning their brain (not far off), it takes a good deal of subjectivity out of empiricism.  We can still argue about the abstract relationship between brain and our concepts...whether you are seeing a real cat, or what others have identified for you (and what you self identify) as a cat.

To argue that a religion or a religious point of view is fake because of a lack of evidence is scientifically incorrect, and in fact the best we can say in such situations is "Well, that's your opinion, man."

I'm not talking about some god or another making a woman out of a rib.  I'm talking about, as another Dude said with less words, proving the negative.

Carl Sagan had the right idea...once you start dealing with religion, which is a set of beliefs that could be true at one point in time or space, it becomes too difficult to prove or disprove to be a question of fact without being able to actually observe or measure every point in space.

[BikerDude]

This has gone in the silly direction that these discussions seem to always do.
IMO the belief in a god is pretty much always as a creator or at least as some sort of literal agent in the tangible universe and that is  a specific claim.
But inevitably the discussion goes the "inner universes" and personal realities and in the process the whole of reality is dragged along for the ride as in the "the mind in the universe or the universe in the mind".
We've all seen this a million times. The reality is that most people believe in a god who hears prayers and cares if you are gay or not.
But once a serious discussion starts it's nothing to hear the discussion be about astrophysics and Descartes and any number of the typical litany of dodges that Theist apologists have in their bag of nonsense.
Non of that has anything to do with the bulk of belief that today constitutes real faith. That is faith and beliefs that influences people's actions.
The rest of it doesn't add up to a gnat fart. IMO.

[DudePatrick]

I am not a theist apologist.

I am a logical philosopher who doesn't believe in "logic except when it's not logical to me."

Evidence proves or disproves.
A lack of evidence does neither.

[BikerDude]

Answer me this please. Does the Mind exist in the Universe, or does the Universe exist in the Mind?

That is the difference between Realism/Materialism and Idealism.

What Descartes proved is there is no "out there". A reality independent of an Observer can Not be proved....it is an assumption only.
We do not really see with our eyes....we see with our mind. The same is true with all our senses. Sense input/data is transmitted to our mind...which then translates that input/data into what it believe/thinks that data should look like, sound like...etc. And there is no way anyone can prove that what their mind is perceiving it actually "out there" or if what they are perceiving has an independent existence external to their mind.
Idealism tells us it does not.
Realism/Materialism is a dead end....it cannot answer the Fundamental Question...."Why is there Something and not Nothing?" or Where did Thinkness come from. They will tell us the Big Bang, but cannot tell us what caused the Big Band. It cannot answer any of the fundamental questions.
Even Quantum Theory cannot give an answer to Origins.

I am  an Idealist....a Skeptical Idealist actually.
I agree with Meekon5....no two minds see the very same Reality. We each view Reality from our own unique perspective...Reality is what we each perceive it is....what we each believe it is.
No two people exist in the very same Reality.
I need to quote Stanislaw Lem here from his story Solaris...."There are No Answers....only Choices."
I had come to that same conclusion back in 1999, and put that as the summation of my philosophy web site back then only to find that Professor Lem beat me to it by several years.

What is your point?
This sort of annihilation is possible with everything. It serves no end.
We know what we know and if a person is intent on rendering that moot with the typical infinite regression then it simple is pointless.
At best it creates something unanswerable where people insist (either literally or through implication) to inject God or something else that they will contend is bolstered by nothing more than the very unanswerable question that they insist on creating.
In my opinion the world would be better off if people just learned to say "I don't know".  That is in FACT the only true thing that can be said about these sort of fanciful exercises. We really just don't know. And a lot of things that can't be known. But that does not make knowing less important. Knowing in the typical 'ie' provable sense. Which in my opinion is the only actual knowing.

[BikerDude]

Evidence proves or disproves.
A lack of evidence does neither.

Exactly!
A lack of evidence does not even suggest anything.

[Hominid]

I am not a theist apologist.

I am a logical philosopher who doesn't believe in "logic except when it's not logical to me."

Evidence proves or disproves.
A lack of evidence does neither.

I'll take it one step further and say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Therefore any claim not backed by fact and evidence is both illogical and nonsensical.