My logic is as follows:

There is no solid physical evidence for the existence of any diety at this time. At the same time, there is no way the existence of any deity can be disproved. Because of this, anyone can make any claim about any deity and that claim cannot be disproven nor proven. Therefore all claims are subjective and valid only to the individual and to other individuals who share the same view.

Because of this, the actual existence of any deity does not make any difference. The only thing important is the IDEA of the existence of the deity. A new idea about a deity creates a new diety, and the destruction of a group of ideas about a diety destroys a diety. I think this is called a meme... sort of an intellectual abstraction that is inherited socially.

My point is, all this arguing about whether or not some god or other exists is completely irrelevant. As long as people have the idea for a god, that god exists to the fullest extent that any god can exist. Therefore, all dieties which people concieve of exist (though only to that person) and arguing about whether or not they can be proven to exist physically is a waste of time.

So stop it.

Since I accepted that god existence is more probable than not, I've learnt soo many things about life and people (the minds of people) that all relate nicely to my beliefs.

I can't be assed arguing to someone about gods existence, but I would argue for people to consider his existence and think about how his existence would relate to life if it was true.

Another thing I'd argue is not to accept anyones beliefs apart from your own, but to never become attached to beliefs. Let them constantly grow and be corrected if needs be. It doesn't matter if you are wrong, coz if you have an open mind it'll get there eventually.

quote:Originally posted by Recidivist:



My point is, all this arguing about whether or not some god or other exists is completely irrelevant. As long as people have the idea for a god, that god exists to the fullest extent that any god can exist.

You're just playing with words. The latter statement is technically true - the "fullest extent" meaning "not at all, except in your feeble mind." But so what? That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to discuss it. Does it occur to you that maybe some of us enjoy arguing? I know I do, and if you don't like it, drag your ass back to Spurious. Christ, the fucking audacity...

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Things don't pop in and out of existence just because you think of them. And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

I'm not arguing the importance of religion through history. Religion has been extremely important in many ways. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have any valid basis, however. Take for instance the notion of biological race. Throughout history, people have viewed other populations of people as being "naturally" (biologically) different from them in a meaningful way. This has been the basis for race. We are learning now, however, that genetically there is no way to classify humans into discrete races for many reasons. One is that every population of humans has mixed with all of the populations around them to the extent that no single population is meaningfully different from all other populations. In this way humans across the globe display clinal rather than discrete variation. So, biological race has no scientific validity whatsoever. This doesn't mean that the social notion of race is not important. Despite the fact that there is no basis, race shapes the lives of just about everyone in the world. Same with religion.

Second, I'm not even saying that there isn't any basis for religion. I'm saying that since there is no way to differentiate between a basis that exists in the physical world and a basis that exists only mentally, the differentiation is itself meaningless in arguing the validity of any religion. Thus any religion can be valid merely by being concieved.

As for philosophical mumbo-jumbo, you should realize that everything said on this board is philosophical, and just because my brand of philosophy takes a bit more though than yours doesn't mean you should discredit it.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

You're just playing with words. The latter statement is technically true - the "fullest extent" meaning "not at all, except in your feeble mind." But so what? That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to discuss it. Does it occur to you that maybe some of us enjoy arguing? I know I do, and if you don't like it, drag your ass back to Spurious. Christ, the fucking audacity...

You say you like arguing. Arguing is nothing but playing with words. Words represent ideas. We use words to articulate our ideas. Therefore saying that anyone is "just playing with words" discredits your own argument just as much as it discredits theirs. What a stupid thing to say.

Also, the fact that I've seem to upset you so much means that you're disturbed by what I've said, which is good. My purpose is to challenge other peoples notions of what is correct.

Words represent ideas, this is true. but when you take ideas and shift their meaning, they lose their definite meaning, thus destroying their value in debate. The fact remains that you're telling me to stop it, and thus you're an idiot who can't stand debate.

You upset me because you seem so devoid of any intellectual integrity whatsoever. "What does it matter"... it matters because there is a right and wrong answer, dipshit. Reality is not subjective.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

You upset me because you seem so devoid of any intellectual integrity whatsoever. "What does it matter"... it matters because there is a right and wrong answer, dipshit. Reality is not subjective.

The argument over whether ot not something is worth arguing over, is a valid argument. I really don't see what's so stupid about what Recidivist said. He argued that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven by logic, and so there is no way to reach an answer that falls into "right and wrong". Now if you think what he's speaking is total bullshit - prove it. You can say he's wrong, but what on Earth is so idiotic about it?

Also claiming "reality is not subjective" as if that's the most obvious thing in the world seems to be devoid of any intellectual integrity.

Motherfucking...

Okay, I'm gonna explain this one more time. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side of any debate. Come on, haven't you guys even taken a speech class? Perhaps an example would be helpful. Suppose I were to claim that the universe was created by a cabal of cosmic mimes. Maybe I even believe that these mimes continue to rule over us and answer our prayers. Of course, I can't prove this. But can you empirically disprove it?

Of course not. Given the omnipotent nature of these cosmic mimes, they could easily obscure themselves from we feeble mortals. So how do we determine the existence or nonexistence of these cosmic mimes?

Put simply, the only intellectually defensible means of ascertaining truth is to believe only that which can be proven. If there's no proof of something, I have no reason to believe in it. Why would I? Hell, why would you? So, in the above example, we would conclude that the cosmic mimes do not exist. Surely, it's possible, but in theory everything is possible. Proof is what distinguishes the possible from the actual.

As for the concept of objective reality being "devoid of any intellectual integrity,"... wow, kid, you're just a walking ball of fallacies, aren't you? Well, in the name of science, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and conducted a little experiment. I sat in my dorm room for a few minutes, repeatedly declaring to myself, "Sylvia Saint is standing in front of me with a bottle of Glen Livet and a carton of Luckies." To my shock and horror, this did not occur. Hence, we can logically conclude that reality is not affected by the private, fallacial claims of one individual. Shucks, and I was in the mood for scotch.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Things don't pop in and out of existence just because you think of them. And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

Philosophy is not "mumbo-jumbo". It is the practice of not <b>blindly</b> accepting other's views. It allows humans to use their power of reasoning which sets us apart from other life-forms. So without practice in philosophy things would be left in mystery because their would be no inquisitive minds to unlock the secrets of the world or even beyond this world. Those who practice philosophy are not influenced easily, they do not "fall in line." You are a sheep if you chose to follow someone else's path and do not experience life for yourself.



[This message has been edited by Galen (edited 10-06-2003).]

ok, how about this to throw in the stupidness of this topic:

do dragons REALLY exist?

let me rephrase that for you stupid religeous crack-monkeys. if you believe in something, is there any way to prove you wrong? 'cause, let's face it, in the days of Chris Colombus, EVERYONE thought the world was flat as a pan-cake. he may have proved'em wrong, but he had the idea to begin with that the world was round. basically, if you believe in something, who's to say you're wrong? if you are still wondering what crack-pot i was smoking, lemme explain in another way. some people when they were young had imaginary friends. who's to say they didn't exist except for the perceiver?

Shalakai

i dunno about you.. but i just thoroughly confused myself

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Motherfucking...

Okay, I'm gonna explain this one more time. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side of any debate. Come on, haven't you guys even taken a speech class? Perhaps an example would be helpful. Suppose I were to claim that the universe was created by a cabal of cosmic mimes. Maybe I even believe that these mimes continue to rule over us and answer our prayers. Of course, I can't prove this. But can you empirically disprove it?



You are correct that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. What you are ignoring though, is the fact that any dispute to a claim is a counter-claim, and is subject to the same burden of proof. You don't have to prove that what I say is false, but you do have to prove that the reasons you give for arguing that what I say is false are true. Follow that?

For instance, when you said "Reality is not subjective," (which you were using as a counterclaim against my claim) you provided a claim with no backing whatsoever. You just threw it out there. Because of that, nobody is going to take this claim seriously.

I would argue, in fact, that reality MUST by its nature be subjective. This is because no human can truly know what any other human is thinking. Sure, we can tell someone what we think, but how do we KNOW they understand, or even have any conception of what we're saying. Yes, we can listen to their responses, and those responses can even make logical sense, but that doesn't mean that the person you're talking to really conceptualizes reality in the way that you do. This is a very basic philosophical argument, and the fact that you're not familiar with it tells me that you're probably in over your head in arguing with me.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

Motherfucking...

Okay, I'm gonna explain this one more time. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side of any debate. Come on, haven't you guys even taken a speech class? Perhaps an example would be helpful. Suppose I were to claim that the universe was created by a cabal of cosmic mimes. Maybe I even believe that these mimes continue to rule over us and answer our prayers. Of course, I can't prove this. But can you empirically disprove it?

Of course not. Given the omnipotent nature of these cosmic mimes, they could easily obscure themselves from we feeble mortals. So how do we determine the existence or nonexistence of these cosmic mimes?

Put simply, the only intellectually defensible means of ascertaining truth is to believe only that which can be proven. If there's no proof of something, I have no reason to believe in it. Why would I? Hell, why would you? So, in the above example, we would conclude that the cosmic mimes do not exist. Surely, it's possible, but in theory everything is possible. Proof is what distinguishes the possible from the actual.

As for the concept of objective reality being "devoid of any intellectual integrity,"... wow, kid, you're just a walking ball of fallacies, aren't you? Well, in the name of science, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and conducted a little experiment. I sat in my dorm room for a few minutes, repeatedly declaring to myself, "Sylvia Saint is standing in front of me with a bottle of Glen Livet and a carton of Luckies." To my shock and horror, this did not occur. Hence, we can logically conclude that reality is not affected by the private, fallacial claims of one individual. Shucks, and I was in the mood for scotch.

First off, stop being so fucking patronizing, what the hell is your problem?

Now: the existance of objective reality CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. I did not fucking say the concept of objective reality is devoid of any intellectual integrity, I said that making such a claim without proving it is. So please explain to me, the huge idiot, what objective reality is. For example: you see the world in certain colors. Someone who is color blind sees the same things in other colors. Now who's to say your colors are right and his wrong? How do you know which one of you is actually color blind? And more importantly, what are the "objective" colors? Your perception alters the way you percieve reality. So even if there is an objective reality out there, you are not seeing it; what you are seeing is your brain's interpretation of reality. Since people who you call color blind will percieve reality differently, even the statement "the sky is blue" is subjective. The existance of "objective reality" is in age long philosophical dispute, but I guess if YOU said it, there's nothing to argue about anymore, since the genius has spoken. What the fuck does your Sylvia Saint example have anything do with it? The fact you can't alter something does not mean your grasp of it is objective, does it? So cut the bullshit and amswer to the point, after giving some thought to what you are saying.

Now, back to God. Yes there is no empiric proof of his existance (though there is some disputable logical proof). However, believing in God is not a matter of science. It is more of an emotional decision. If you want to believe in cosmic mimes, it's your choice - religion isn't about the existance of some entity, but about the philosophy of life this belief dictates. So I don't care if your mimes exist, since I can't determine how "real" they are... however if you tell me what decisions this leads you to, I'll be happy to dicuss them.

Besides, I'm willing to bet my ass you believe in a shitload of things without them being proven to you. Do you double check every "scientific" thing you hear? Are you aware of the facts that scientists always, and I mean ALWAYS, make certain unprovable assumptions that are absolutely neccesary to the development of their theory? How is that better than believing in God? There is no empiric way to prove the laws of geometry (draw a triangle. No matter how accurate you draw it, it will NEVER have exactly 180 degrees, if you measure close enough). You assume the world is rational and can be explained by human logic - this assumption is as unproven as the existance of any deity.

I'm not religious; don't really believe in any concept of God either. But your arguments make you just as ignorant as the average religious fanatic.

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-07-2003).]

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-07-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Recidivist:

I'm saying that since there is no way to differentiate between a basis that exists in the physical world and a basis that exists only mentally, the differentiation is itself meaningless in arguing the validity of any religion.

ie. there is no way to tell the difference between a real god and an imagined god.

If this is the case, then God's existence does not matter.

Assuming this is your point, I get it and agree. However, as Armed&Angry said, reality is not subjective.

If this is not the case (an existing god is distinguishable from a nonexisting god, as claimed by the vast majority of theists), it matters a lot.

quote:Thus any religion can be valid merely by being concieved.

I take valid here to mean "having a true basis". With that definition, this statement is clearly ridiculous. What do you mean by valid?

And just for the record, I have nothing against philosophy; it is statements and paragraphs that manage to fill up my monitor without saying anything meaningful that get my goat.

quote:You don't have to prove that what I say is false, but you do have to prove that the reasons you give for arguing that what I say is false are true. Follow that?

No, what the opposing side has to prove is that the reasons you give for arguing what you say is true are false.

You and theists completely fail to give a reason. Guess whose side is without basis.

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

Do you double check every "scientific" thing you hear?

No. However, the existence of quarks has no effect on my life; the existence of God has a great effect indeed.

quote:(draw a triangle. No matter how accurate you draw it, it will NEVER have exactly 180 degrees, if you measure close enough).

If this is the case, you are measuring improperly, most likely due to errors in reading your protractor and thickness and straightness of your lines. If I could draw a triangle with infinitely thin and straight lines (in a geometry program, for example), its angles will always total 180 degrees.

quote:You assume the world is rational and can be explained by human logic - this assumption is as unproven as the existance of any deity.

If the world is not rational, there is no basis for anything, so why bother trying to understand anything?

Look, there is a very big problem here - you are looking at it the wrong way. The existance of God, as an entity, probably cannot be proven in any scientific method; however for a religious person, God doesn't need to be proven. That doesn't make him stupid or ignorant, like you seem to believe - it's just another way to look at things. Now sure, you can make up a God and claim that it exists, and no one can prove otherwise. But you will not believe in that God. You will know it is not real. Whereas a person who believes in God (and I'm not talking about the non-thinkers who just follow their parents and such) believes in him in an aprioric sense. He does not need any proof. It is a matter of emotion, not logic. Do you look for scientific proof for your feelings? No. You feel love, or hate, and that is all the proof you need for its existance. A true believer FEELS belief. It is an emotional decision, not a rational one. He is not just claiming some God exists, he feels that this is true. And like any other feeling, it is not something that should be explained by scientific methodology.

The scientific way of thought is so popular today, that it has become a religion; the moment something is labeled as "scientific" it cannot possibly be wrong. And science assumes everything is rational and can be explained in rational terms. That is its assumption. Religion on the other hand throws in God, an irrational entity. This is also an assumption (=unprovable). So you can claim the world is entirely rational, or you can claim there is an irrational God; anyway, you cannot prove any of these claims. As for reality being objective - I've answered that already.

Anyway there is no relation between religion and science. Science is about explaining life, religion is about the meaning of life. A religion is not "valid" because the God it describes exists or doesn't exist... no religion, including the religion of believing whatever scientists ask you to believe, is truer than any other religion. The concept of God is completely abstract - it is just a starting point for religious philosophy, no more. Much like science needs some purely abstract concepts such as the laws of physics, that have nothing to do with reality. The belief in God is more than just praying to some entity that you don't know if exists. It's a way to look at life. Stop being so damn primitive and thinking anything you don't believe in is "stupid". You are so stuck in your way of thought that you can't grasp how unimportant it is if God can or cannot be proven. Without noticing, you are being just as closed mind as religious people, unwilling to see anything that isn't scientific.

It's not just quarks you know. Most of modern physics is based on abstract concepts that are believed in without anyone ever bothering to check them. And if you say physics have no effect on your life - well they do, and a much greater one than that of God, for that matter.

You can not, and will never be able to, draw a triangle with infinitely thin and straight lines. Sorry, triangles do not exist in this world, only as concepts in your mind - just like God exists as concepts in the minds of believers.

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

The existance of God, as an entity, probably cannot be proven in any scientific method

Why not? If God exists, he has a measurable effect on the universe. If this is not the case, then he might as well not exist and there is no point in believing.

quote:Now sure, you can make up a God and claim that it exists, and no one can prove otherwise. But you will not believe in that God. You will know it is not real.

What if I teach my children that my made up god exists? They will believe it. Does it make him real?

Perhaps when they get older they will attribute certain feelings to the god they were raised to believe in. Does that make him real?

quote:You feel love, or hate, and that is all the proof you need for its existance. A true believer FEELS belief.

I feel love; therefore I know love exists.

I feel I believe in God; therefore I know belief in God exists.

What a revelation.

quote:The scientific way of thought is so popular today, that it has become a religion;

Not the religion of anybody who knows the meaning of the word "science".

quote:Religion on the other hand throws in God, an irrational entity.

Why is God the only irrational entity in a universe full of rational ones? So that theists can wiggle out of having to do anything but spout feelings?

quote:Stop being so damn primitive and thinking anything you don't believe in is "stupid".

It's not beliefs contrary to mine that are stupid, it's unfounded beliefs.

quote:Most of modern physics is based on abstract concepts that are believed in without anyone ever bothering to check them.

Barring a giant scientific conspiracy, any theory worth its salt has been tested and given enough peer reviews to be accepted by people knowledgeable enough to hold a meaningful opinion.

What I believe of physics has absolutely no bearing on how I live my life.

quote:just like God exists as concepts in the minds of believers.

Just because the idea of something (a triangle, God) exists, it doesn't mean the thing exists.

edit: preemptive strike

[This message has been edited by Craftian (edited 10-08-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Recidivist:

You are correct that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. What you are ignoring though, is the fact that any dispute to a claim is a counter-claim, and is subject to the same burden of proof. You don't have to prove that what I say is false, but you do have to prove that the reasons you give for arguing that what I say is false are true. Follow that?

For instance, when you said "Reality is not subjective," (which you were using as a counterclaim against my claim) you provided a claim with no backing whatsoever. You just threw it out there. Because of that, nobody is going to take this claim seriously.

I would argue, in fact, that reality MUST by its nature be subjective. This is because no human can truly know what any other human is thinking. Sure, we can tell someone what we think, but how do we KNOW they understand, or even have any conception of what we're saying. Yes, we can listen to their responses, and those responses can even make logical sense, but that doesn't mean that the person you're talking to really conceptualizes reality in the way that you do. This is a very basic philosophical argument, and the fact that you're not familiar with it tells me that you're probably in over your head in arguing with me.

I am familiar with it. A French philosopher pimp-slapped your whole stupid argument about 300 years ago. Rene Descartes, I believe, but don't quote me on that one. Look, I know you think you're hot shit because you paged through "The Matrix and Philosophy," but you're really just coming off as assinine. Come on, kid.

If you'd go back and READ my post, you'd notice that I did give a factual example. Of course, your whole argument predicates the complete unreliability of factual evidence, seeing as reality is apparently at the mercy of everybody's prejudices, but let's not dwell on that when there's so much meatier idiocy to be dealt with.

Reality isn't subjective. PERCEPTION is subjective. Stop confusing the two, it just makes you look even more amatuerish. The color blind individual can't see color, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? When you get down to it, red is red. You may call it red, or roho, or rot, hell, call it Shirley, but it's the same concept.

I'll give you another example, though I remind you that as an unabashed sophist you've no right to call for one. One day I got done with work, went out to my car, and started driving home. I had gotten into my car with a tasty Lucky Strike I had just lit. Towards home, the smoke was getting low, so I removed it from my mouth and flicked it out the window. Now, the fact that I perceived the window to be open doesn't mean that it was; in fact, I'd just washed the damn thing, and I was a little out of it, so I perceived wrong. Did my perception change the fact that the window was closed? Of course not. How we "conceptualize reality" is completely irrelevant. Reality really doesn't give a two-penny damn what you think about it, and until you learn to think beyond bad Keanu Reeves movies, neither will I.

And Marvin, kiddo, wise up. Science is based on sketching up the universe according to what evidence we have. When the evidence changes, so does science. Religion, on the other hand, is mostly based on the rejection that evidence of any kind is needed. Science isn't perfect. But it's still the best method we have of figuring out the workings of the universe. Of course, since you just admitted that the believer seeks no proof, I'm just gonna laugh at you and move on.

What's my problem? I'm surrounded by dumbasses like you two who can't tell their ass from a whole in the ground, and insist on debating the merits of each with me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy crushing your stupid arguments, but Christ, to make them and then claim superiority is just laughable.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

I am familiar with it. A French philosopher pimp-slapped your whole stupid argument about 300 years ago. Rene Descartes, I believe, but don't quote me on that one. Look, I know you think you're hot shit because you paged through "The Matrix and Philosophy," but you're really just coming off as assinine. Come on, kid.

If you'd go back and READ my post, you'd notice that I did give a factual example. Of course, your whole argument predicates the complete unreliability of factual evidence, seeing as reality is apparently at the mercy of everybody's prejudices, but let's not dwell on that when there's so much meatier idiocy to be dealt with.

Reality isn't subjective. PERCEPTION is subjective. Stop confusing the two, it just makes you look even more amatuerish. The color blind individual can't see color, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? When you get down to it, red is red. You may call it red, or roho, or rot, hell, call it Shirley, but it's the same concept.

I'll give you another example, though I remind you that as an unabashed sophist you've no right to call for one. One day I got done with work, went out to my car, and started driving home. I had gotten into my car with a tasty Lucky Strike I had just lit. Towards home, the smoke was getting low, so I removed it from my mouth and flicked it out the window. Now, the fact that I perceived the window to be open doesn't mean that it was; in fact, I'd just washed the damn thing, and I was a little out of it, so I perceived wrong. Did my perception change the fact that the window was closed? Of course not. How we "conceptualize reality" is completely irrelevant. Reality really doesn't give a two-penny damn what you think about it, and until you learn to think beyond bad Keanu Reeves movies, neither will I.

And Marvin, kiddo, wise up. Science is based on sketching up the universe according to what evidence we have. When the evidence changes, so does science. Religion, on the other hand, is mostly based on the rejection that evidence of any kind is needed. Science isn't perfect. But it's still the best method we have of figuring out the workings of the universe. Of course, since you just admitted that the believer seeks no proof, I'm just gonna laugh at you and move on.

What's my problem? I'm surrounded by dumbasses like you two who can't tell their ass from a whole in the ground, and insist on debating the merits of each with me. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy crushing your stupid arguments, but Christ, to make them and then claim superiority is just laughable.

Well, you've certainly proved some superiority here.

So you agree perception is subjective. Very interesting. You agree you have no way to see, touch, hear or feel the world objectively, since all your senses are part of your subjective perception?

Then answer me this:

1. How, exactly, do you know an objective reality exists out there? You are actually saying: even though I cannot prove the existance of objective reality, and in fact there is no way I can even grasp it, it must exist, because I feel it exists. How do you even know there is a world outside your own perception of it?

2. Ok, assuming there is objective reality outside your perception. What difference does it make? If we can never ever actually reach that reality because our perception, which we are born with and cannot change, is subjective, doesn't that make the existance of such reality a moot point? Since you seem to think throwing Descartes into your post makes it super smart (I wonder, did you ever actually read his stuff? He has a rather interesting deductive proof of the existance of God. Arguable, but interesting; I'd guess you'd call him an idiot sophist and such), I will say this approach is the one taken by Kant and Nietsche, who said that objective reality that is outside of our perception is important as the chemical formation of the water to drowning sailors. Of course, this adds nothing to my point, but apparently mentioning a philosopher in your post makes it a better post.

P.S.: Don't give me this crap. I'm probably older than you, and I've actually studied fucking philosophy, so get that Matrix shit away from me. I thought that movie was bullshit. I also think you're a total shithead, judging by this thread, but that has NOTHING to do with the intelligent argument we're having here. So let's keep it like that, you are gaining nothing from calling me an idiot. But hey, if that makes you feel wiser...

quote: I am familiar with it. A French philosopher pimp-slapped your whole stupid argument about 300 years ago. Rene Descartes, I believe, but don't quote me on that one ... Reality isn't subjective.

Descartes basically said that everything, except your own existence, is subjective. The only thing you can be certain about (therefore, "real") is that you exist... “Cogito Ergo Sum”

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Descartes basically said that everything, except your own existence, is subjective. The only thing you can be certain about (therefore, "real") is that you exist... “Cogito Ergo Sum”

Actually, "I think therefore I am" was just his starting point. He then attempted to prove, deductively, that we actually can trust our perception of the world (God is real -> God is perfect -> God does not lie -> God would not decieve us -> our perception is valid).

Edit: Oh, and he wasn't saying your physical existance is certain, just that the existance of your thought is certain. Anyway, I may have made some slight mistakes due to crappy memory, but this was the direction of his philosophy.

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-09-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Descartes basically said that everything, except your own existence, is subjective. The only thing you can be certain about (therefore, "real") is that you exist... “Cogito Ergo Sum”

If you'll go back and read my post, you'll note that I said "don't quote me on that." This is a common aphorism to describe a factoid whose validity the user is not entirely certain of. M'kay?

How do I know objective reality exists? Look, people, I really would appreciate it if you could actually read my posts. I don't think that's asking too much. I've given two examples of instances in which one's personal beliefs and prejudices failed to influence reality. Doesn't this imply that reality is beyond the manipulation of our perceptions, i.e. not subjective? And your continued attempts to render the conversation "irrelevant" are getting a bit old. The existence of objective reality is quite relevant. We can't see it in total, but we can try our damnedest to get as close to seeing it clearly as possible. Isn't it preferable to try as hard as possible to find the facts than to just zone and pull shit out of your ass? Read any post by eBlip before answering.

You think I'm a shithead? Aw, man, does this mean I can't come to your birthday party? Take a fucking number! Do you honestly think I care what you think? I'll never meet anyone on this board in person, except for a few friends that I introduced to Totse. I WANT to piss you all off! Your friendship means nothing to me, while your anger amuses me quite a bit.

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

If you'll go back and read my post, you'll note that I said "don't quote me on that." This is a common aphorism to describe a factoid whose validity the user is not entirely certain of. M'kay?

How do I know objective reality exists? Look, people, I really would appreciate it if you could actually read my posts. I don't think that's asking too much. I've given two examples of instances in which one's personal beliefs and prejudices failed to influence reality. Doesn't this imply that reality is beyond the manipulation of our perceptions, i.e. not subjective? And your continued attempts to render the conversation "irrelevant" are getting a bit old. The existence of objective reality is quite relevant. We can't see it in total, but we can try our damnedest to get as close to seeing it clearly as possible. Isn't it preferable to try as hard as possible to find the facts than to just zone and pull shit out of your ass? Read any post by eBlip before answering.

You think I'm a shithead? Aw, man, does this mean I can't come to your birthday party? Take a fucking number! Do you honestly think I care what you think? I'll never meet anyone on this board in person, except for a few friends that I introduced to Totse. I WANT to piss you all off! Your friendship means nothing to me, while your anger amuses me quite a bit.

What anger are you talking about? I don't want to be your friend. I just don't want to waste my Goddamn time. But nevermind, I anticipated this "yer just a pussy" response.

I read your posts. You've shown your perception doesn't alter reality at certain occasions. Very well, however for reality to be objective, you must ALWAYS be able to percieve it objectively. I will try to make my point clear:

There is no reality you can ever reach, that will be outside your perception of it (can you imagine a world where 1+1=3, red is blue and right is wrong?).

To you, your perception of reality IS reality. When you say "reality", you don't mean some obscure abstract concept that can never be approached, it is your brain's interpretation of reality.

Thus, if your perception of reality is subjective, 'reality' itself, or what you are referring to under that name, is also subjective.

Now you're gonna give another example: Oh yeah? Well how came I want Denise Richards to be sitting on my dick and she's not? Well another person may be insane, and imagine Denise Richards really IS sitting on his dick, when to you it is obvious she is not. How is that insane person supposed to know she is not there? To his perception, the reality wherein Denise Richards is on his dick is the truest, most objective reality there is. Yeah yeah Matrix, whatever you say idiot, you still aren't answering to the point.

I'll say this one more time in different words, so maybe even YOU can comprehend it: you make a claim - 'reality is objective'. Now, to prove that claim wrong, all I have to do is give ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE that shows otherwise. I've given you one: the color-blind person. The lunatic. I make a claim - 'reality is subjective'. To prove that, all I need is ONE FUCKING EXAMPLE where two people percieve the same reality otherwise, and it cannot be proven that one of them is wrong. I've given those examples.

Go read a book.

Edits: Stupid typos

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-09-2003).]

[This message has been edited by marvin (edited 10-09-2003).]