The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Aldebaran]

There is no evidence that common sense exist.....

Hahaha! You're right, at least when you consider the reason for the title of this thread.

 

[Chany]

Hahaha! You're right, at least when you consider the reason for the title of this thread.

No, common sense is usually considered a logical fallacy because it is often appealed to as a support to a premise or logical connection in the place of actual logical deduction and actual evidence. It often works by appealing to the intuition of the listener, thus allowing questionable and/or unsupported points to come through when they otherwise would not.

Could you provide evidence for the soul that doesn't come down to an argument from ignorance or an argument from credulity?

 

[Aldebaran]

No, common sense is usually considered a logical fallacy because it is often appealed to as a support to a premise or logical connection in the place of actual logical deduction and actual evidence. It often works by appealing to the intuition of the listener, thus allowing questionable and/or unsupported points to come through when they otherwise would not.

All that to define what "common sense" is? Can you give me the definition of "Jibber Jabber"? Hint, you already defined it.

 

[Colter]

No, common sense is usually considered a logical fallacy because it is often appealed to as a support to a premise or logical connection in the place of actual logical deduction and actual evidence. It often works by appealing to the intuition of the listener, thus allowing questionable and/or unsupported points to come through when they otherwise would not.

Could you provide evidence for the soul that doesn't come down to an argument from ignorance or an argument from credulity?

There is no evidence that you would understand or honestly acknowledge the existence of your soul as a real and actual personal experience. You may not be real.

 

[Chany]

There is no evidence that you would understand or honestly acknowledge the existence of your soul as a real and actual personal experience. You may not be real.

I think; therefore, I am.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think; therefore, I am.

That's not proving anything to us at all. How do we know that you think? Maybe you're an internet bot program that automatically puts out preprogrammed replies to posts. Even if you were physically present, we can't see your thoughts, if they really do exist. We'd be taking your word for it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Pity. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

Nakedly asserting that 'souls' are a reality doesn't make it true.

We'd be taking your word for it.

That is literally all you've presented so far in demonstration of the existence of 'souls' - your word.

 

[Chany]

That's not proving anything to us at all. How do we know that you think? Maybe you're an internet bot program that automatically puts out preprogrammed replies to posts. Even if you were physically present, we can't see your thoughts, if they really do exist. We'd be taking your word for it.

I'm talking about from a personal perspective.

Even if I am indeed a philosophical zombie, you know you aren't.

You can think. Because you can think, you know that, in some way, shape, and, form, you exist as a conscious agent.

This may have some problems, but, ultimately, this all comes down to pragmatism, so...

 

[Colter]

That's not proving anything to us at all. How do we know that you think? Maybe you're an internet bot program that automatically puts out preprogrammed replies to posts. Even if you were physically present, we can't see your thoughts, if they really do exist. We'd be taking your word for it.

I think we will need peer reviewed proof of consciousness, some empirical stuff, a few epistemological charts and a dissertation on neorealism before we can even broach the issue of didactic analysis.

 

[Chany]

I think we will need peer reviewed proof of consciousness, some empirical stuff, a few epistemological charts and a dissertation on neorealism before we can even broach the issue of didactic analysis.

No, I just need a good reason that isn't an argument from ignorance or from credulity.

 

[Belk]

I hope you understand that God (whether you believe in Him or not) is a living being. He's not something that's accessible if you use a particular "method" of talking to Him. He's not an object, or a math equation, or puzzle to solve.

Not in any sense of the word living I have ever heard. You are attaching a term for limited temporal beings to an infinite being. It does not fit.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Pity. Denying reality doesn't make it go away.

Merely asserting that something is a reality does not make it so.

 

[Aldebaran]

Not in any sense of the word living I have ever heard. You are attaching a term for limited temporal beings to an infinite being. It does not fit.

Well, God is living. Bible says it, so what do you want me to do about that? As for definition, mine for living would be that God is a conscious, feeling, thinking entity. There may be other ways to say it, but that's my way at this time of the night.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, God is living. Bible says it, so what do you want me to do about that? As for definition, mine for living would be that God is a conscious, feeling, thinking entity. There may be other ways to say it, but that's my way at this time of the night.

Great. Now show us, the bible is correct, with objective verifiable evidence.

 

[Aldebaran]

Great. Now show us, the bible is correct, with objective verifiable evidence.

That again? You reject it every time, so no point in going in circles again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That again? You reject it every time, so no point in going in circles again.

Yes, that again; that pesky burden of proof.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, that again; that pesky burden of proof.

You guys get the proof you ask for and then spend dozens of pages of thread space arguing about it, only to end up asking for it again. Makes me dizzy going in circles with you.

It reminds me of something in the book of Titus. I know this will mean nothing to you, but here goes anyway:

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You guys get the proof you ask for and then spend dozens of pages of thread space arguing about it, only to end up asking for it again. Makes me dizzy going in circles with you.

You seem to think that any answer will be an adequate answer.

 

[JGG]

You guys get the proof you ask for and then spend dozens of pages of thread space arguing about it, only to end up asking for it again. Makes me dizzy going in circles with you.

It reminds me of something in the book of Titus. I know this will mean nothing to you, but here goes anyway:

9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned.

Still quoting? I'm still awaiting an answer about your quote from Psalms?

 

[Colter]

Religion and Reality​

"Observing minds and discriminating souls know religion when they find it in the lives of their fellows. Religion requires no definition; we all know its social, intellectual, moral, and spiritual fruits. And this all grows out of the fact that religion is the property of the human race; it is not a child of culture. True, one’s perception of religion is still human and therefore subject to the bondage of ignorance, the slavery of superstition, the deceptions of sophistication, and the delusions of false philosophy.

One of the characteristic peculiarities of genuine religious assurance is that, notwithstanding the absoluteness of its affirmations and the stanchness of its attitude, the spirit of its expression is so poised and tempered that it never conveys the slightest impression of self-assertion or egoistic exaltation. The wisdom of religious experience is something of a paradox in that it is both humanly original and Adjuster derivative. Religious force is not the product of the individual’s personal prerogatives but rather the outworking of that sublime partnership of man and the everlasting source of all wisdom. Thus do the words and acts of true and undefiled religion become compellingly authoritative for all enlightened mortals.

It is difficult to identify and analyze the factors of a religious experience, but it is not difficult to observe that such religious practitioners live and carry on as if already in the presence of the Eternal. Believers react to this temporal life as if immortality already were within their grasp. In the lives of such mortals there is a valid originality and a spontaneity of expression that forever segregate them from those of their fellows who have imbibed only the wisdom of the world. Religionists seem to live in effective emancipation from harrying haste and the painful stress of the vicissitudes inherent in the temporal currents of time; they exhibit a stabilization of personality and a tranquillity of character not explained by the laws of physiology, psychology, and sociology." UB 1955