What justification does this atheist have and what is the truth?

[Dave Ellis]

Nobody hallucinates. We contact the spiritual world.

Do you people really expect replies like this to be taken seriously?

 

[quatona]

Nobody hallucinates. We contact the spiritual world.

The spiritual world is lame. I contact the super-spiritual world.

 

[quilbilly]

But pray tell, what is your definition of "evil"? (Since you brought it up!)

[/QUOTE]


To see a child starve to death having the ability to feed that child and do nothing about it would be an example of "EVIL" if not a complete definition. IMHO

 

[WonderBeat]

Do you people really expect replies like this to be taken seriously?

Why not? You say people hallucinate due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Fine. That is your paradigm.

I say it is actually the spiritual world flowing out through our mental sense perception. Drugs unblock the channels of perception for us to see more of this spirit.

 

[distraff]

Why not? You say people hallucinate due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Fine. That is your paradigm.

I say it is actually the spiritual world flowing out through our mental sense perception. Drugs unblock the channels of perception for us to see more of this spirit.

Hmmm. So how does God reveal himself to you?

 

[WonderBeat]

Hmmm. So how does God reveal himself to you?

Through overcoming my MIND.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you people really expect replies like this to be taken seriously?

Evidently.

Once you stop your rational mind, any belief can set up residence and can never be evicted.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

Why not? You say people hallucinate due to chemical imbalances in the brain. Fine. That is your paradigm.

Correct... We have evidence that shows this is true.

In short, Reality is my paradigm.

I say it is actually the spiritual world flowing out through our mental sense perception. Drugs unblock the channels of perception for us to see more of this spirit.

Have fun with those drugs.... I suggest you cut back a bit however.

 

[WonderBeat]

In short, Reality is my paradigm.

Reality is of course a word that means different things to different people. How it is defined varies. Some people take as real what their senses register. Others go to professionals explaining to them aspects of expertise to which their dull minds are inadequate to discovering. Others turn to holy books.

How to adjudicate which path is the correct one? As a skeptic, I do not know the answer.

Have fun with those drugs.... I suggest you cut back a bit however.

Drugs of course offer another paradigm. It is a well-known fact in science that reality is not fully how our mind and senses register it. Could it be that drugs act as less mediated form of perception into other realms or aspects of existence? I will not discount it. I say, as a skeptic, "we do not know."

 

[Dave Ellis]

Reality is of course a word that means different things to different people. How it is defined varies. Some people take as real what their senses register. Others go to professionals explaining to them aspects of expertise to which their dull minds are inadequate to discovering. Others turn to holy books.

How to adjudicate which path is the correct one? As a skeptic, I do not know the answer.

Reality is objective, and the best way to determine what is real is through independent verification. I don't buy into all this "it's real for me" crap... things are either real or they aren't. If they are "real" for you and nor real for everyone else, odds are very high you're delusional or simply wrong about what you believe.

Drugs of course offer another paradigm. It is a well-known fact in science that reality is not fully how our mind and senses register it. Could it be that drugs act as less mediated form of perception into other realms or aspects of existence? I will not discount it. I say, as a skeptic, "we do not know."

I agree that reality is not fully how our mind or senses register it... our senses fool us sometimes and we get lots of things wrong. However, all drugs do is alter how our mind and senses operate. Either way, they're still not going to be any more reliable, and odds are they'll be worse at determining reality.

 

[WonderBeat]

Reality is objective

Whooa. Jumping the gun already are we? What does that even mean, "objective"?

, and the best way to determine what is real is through independent verification. I don't buy into all this "it's real for me" crap... things are either real or they aren't. If they are "real" for you and nor real for everyone else, odds are very high you're delusional or simply wrong about what you believe.

Where are you pulling these odds from exactly?

I agree that reality is not fully how our mind or senses register it... our senses fool us sometimes and we get lots of things wrong. However, all drugs do is alter how our mind and senses operate. Either way, they're still not going to be any more reliable, and odds are they'll be worse at determining reality.

All you've basically done is load assumption after assumption. Whether reality is objective, subjective, or something else entirely is not something we are at all privy too... speaking as a skeptic.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Whooa. Jumping the gun already are we? What does that even mean, "objective"?

Objective is something that exists independently of your (or anyone elses) perception or opinion.

Where are you pulling these odds from exactly?

Observation of human behaviour.

If something within a persons "reality" is only real for that person and nobody else.... it's probably not actually real.

For example, if you think you are Napoleon and nobody around you agrees.... Your reality may be that you're Napoleon, however in actual reality you're mistaken or delusional.

All you've basically done is load assumption after assumption. Whether reality is objective, subjective, or something else entirely is not something we are at all privy too... speaking as a skeptic.

How we perceive reality has no bearing on what is actually real. Whether we are correctly perceiving something, or not correctly perceiving it, it doesn't change whatever it is out there that is being perceived.

 

[WonderBeat]

Objective is something that exists independently of your (or anyone elses) perception or opinion.

And that is your opinion that reality is that way.... And actually modern science in the form of quantum mechanics would put into question such a view. Things exist in an indeterminate wave-like state prior to someone making an observation and collapsing the wave-function into a determined outcome. Also, in the history of philosophy itself this idea has NEVER been a constant. Does a tree make a sound when it falls? Nobody knows. George Berkely built his philosophy around the idea that reality as we know it is entirely mind-created. There is no independent reality "out there."

Observation of human behaviour.

If something within a persons "reality" is only real for that person and nobody else.... it's probably not actually real.

For example, if you think you are Napoleon and nobody around you agrees.... Your reality may be that you're Napoleon, however in actual reality you're mistaken or delusional.

Actually, you haven't reached that conclusion at all. We look at people in psychiatric hospitals and see that their reality is maladaptive. That's all. The most that we can say is that their reality is an ALTERNATIVE reality which doesn't sit well with reality AS WE SEE IT. We CANNOT say that they are mistaken in any absolutely certain sense. So, again, your conclusion is groundless.

How we perceive reality has no bearing on what is actually real. Whether we are correctly perceiving something, or not correctly perceiving it, it doesn't change whatever it is out there that is being perceived.

Again, loaded assumption after loaded assumption. This view of yours may be very consoling to you. Just realize though that it has no more basis than your own opinion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

And that is your opinion that reality is that way.... And actually modern science in the form of quantum mechanics would put into question such a view. Things exist in an indeterminate wave-like state prior to someone making an observation and collapsing the wave-function into a determined outcome. Also, in the history of philosophy itself this idea has NEVER been a constant. Does a tree make a sound when it falls? Nobody knows. George Berkely built his philosophy around the idea that reality as we know it is entirely mind-created. There is no independent reality "out there."

re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/

Noun:

• The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

So sure, it may just be my opinion, however the dictionary agrees with my definition.

As for your tree falling idea, the answer is yes, it makes noise. We can know that by leaving recording devices and waiting for a tree to fall after everyone's left.

Your Quantum Mechanics bit is irrelevant as well. Just because Quantum mechanics is "weird" compared to how everyday life goes, and things react differently than we'd expect, it's still working however it works independent of us. We may be correct or incorrect in how we're perceiving it, but it doesn't change what we're observing one bit.

As for George Berkely, I'd say his idea is nonsense. There has to be a reality out there or we'd have nothing to talk about, likewise nobody could ever be wrong. If in "your reality" you think the sky is green, then nobody can argue with you. It's a completely useless idea and it stifles our ability to learn, debate and discover new things.

Actually, you haven't reached that conclusion at all. We look at people in psychiatric hospitals and see that their reality is maladaptive. That's all. The most that we can say is that their reality is an ALTERNATIVE reality which doesn't sit well with reality AS WE SEE IT. We CANNOT say that they are mistaken in any absolutely certain sense. So, again, your conclusion is groundless.

People in psychiatric hospitals (like you're describing) are delusional. It's not an "alternate reality", it's a completely messed up view of the reality everybody is in. And yes, we can certainly say someone who believes they are Napoleon is wrong. Napoleon has been dead nearly 200 years.

Again, loaded assumption after loaded assumption. This view of yours may be very consoling to you. Just realize though that it has no more basis than your own opinion.

And the definition of reality based on the dictionary.... But whatever, right?

 

[WonderBeat]

re·al·i·ty/rēˈalətē/

Noun:

• The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

So sure, it may just be my opinion, however the dictionary agrees with my definition.

So? The dictionary is compiled according to the general usage of words. It doesn't say anything deeply philosophical about the nature of reality.

As for your tree falling idea, the answer is yes, it makes noise.

You don't know that.

We can know that by leaving recording devices and waiting for a tree to fall after everyone's left.

That is still an observation. It's just mediated somewhat differently.

Your Quantum Mechanics bit is irrelevant as well. Just because Quantum mechanics is "weird" compared to how everyday life goes, and things react differently than we'd expect, it's still working however it works independent of us. We may be correct or incorrect in how we're perceiving it, but it doesn't change what we're observing one bit.

No, QM definitively shows that the nature of some aspects of reality are directly impacted by acts of observation. If you can't accept that, well, sorry. I don't claim to be an expert on QM, but some things about it are entangled with the act of us observing. So... no, it's not fully "independent." It actually is dependent on us to a large extent.

As for George Berkely I'd say his idea is nonsense.

Interesting that you regard one of the most prominent philosophers ever of penning "nonsense." This to me shows you are not worth responding to regarding his ideas.

People in psychiatric hospitals (like you're describing) are delusional. It's not an "alternate reality", it's a completely messed up view of the reality everybody is in. And yes, we can certainly say someone who believes they are Napoleon is wrong. Napoleon has been dead nearly 200 years.

You basically do not know their reality, or whether or not it has any level of reality.

And the definition of reality based on the dictionary.... But whatever, right?

Dictionaries don't say much when it comes to actual intellectual debate. Only common usage of words. So, yeah, I say "whatever" to what the dictionary says regard reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So? The dictionary is compiled according to the general usage of words. It doesn't say anything deeply philosophical about the nature of reality.

And I'm using the definition of reality as it is generally used. If you want to change the definition, that's your prerogative.... however most people will not agree with how you are using the word. That's the whole idea of what general usage is.

You don't know that.

Yes I do, we understand how physics and energy transfer works. And as I said, we can record it to see if it still makes a noise with nobody around

That is still an observation. It's just mediated somewhat differently.

So what if nobody ever listens to the recording, and therefore there is no observation? Will that affect what sounds were recorded?

No, QM definitively shows that the nature of some aspects of reality are directly impacted by acts of observation. If you can't accept that, well, sorry. I don't claim to be an expert on QM, but some things about it are entangled with the act of us observing. So... no, it's not fully "independent." It actually is dependent on us to a large extent.

I think you have a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics. However, even if you are correct and our observations have a direct impact, that still does not overturn my point.

Things exist in reality as they are, and they will work independently of us. If we intervene and change something, that is still within the basis of reality... we have just changed whatever we changed. The same goes for Quantum Mechanics.

If two people are observing one phenomena, and they see two different contradictory things going on, the only options are either one of them is right, or both are wrong. It's impossible for two contradictory things to be correct. There is no such thing as a "personal reality", there's only your perception of what is real.

Interesting that you regard one of the most prominent philosophers ever of penning "nonsense." This to me shows you are not worth responding to regarding his ideas.

Argument from authority fallacy.

There's a lot of very wise words spoken by a number of prominent philosophers.... there's also a whole lot of nonsensical crap out there too. The ideas should stand or fall based on their own merits, and in this case, there is no reason or evidence that shows his views on this matter are correct.

And if you really want to go down this line of argument, I'm sure I can dig up philosophy and rules of logic from other philosophers that contradict what he says.

You basically do not know their reality, or whether or not it has any level of reality.

I may not know what's going on in their heads, but I do know if someone thinks they are Napoleon, their perception of reality is skewed.

Dictionaries don't say much when it comes to actual intellectual debate. Only common usage of words. So, yeah, I say "whatever" to what the dictionary says regard reality.

And I say "whatever" to how you are trying to redefine a word to suit your argument.

 

[Illuminaughty]

And I want to point out, why does he have to help his enemies?

Omnibenevolent implies benevolence to everyone by defenition. If he is only benevolant towards his friends he would be "like the pagans".


"If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that."

Matthew 5:47

 

[Eudaimonist]

Omnibenevolent implies benevolence to everyone by defenition.

As far as I can tell, omnibenevolent doesn't mean "good towards everyone".

Omnibenevolent means "all good", as in having a flawless moral character, at least as far as deities are concerned. For instance, God is omnibenevolent because he has, among other things, commited and commanded acts of genocide.

Don't worry, it's only genocide against "wicked" enemies. In that case, genocide is perfectly moral and admirable, as Hitler showed.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/omnibenevolent


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Illuminaughty]

Omnibenevolent means "all good"

Not being benevolent toward someone wouldn't be a characteristic of being all good / benevolent. All good would necessarily imply no bad.