solipsism - Is this a justifiable charge against atheists?

[shunyadragon]

In another thread Leonard accused atheists of being slopsists here; http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ight=solipsism

I would rather call it a choice, as I don't like the implication that beliefs can't be based on evidence. It is, in the end, a choice. Though for the life of me I can't see why anyone would choose solipsism.

I asked the question;

I believe solipsism is the belief that; "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." I believe the view of the atheists and maybe strong agnostics is that "All minds and mental states that exist are naturally the result of physical brains, and no other 'minds' nor 'mental states' exist."

The only thing I could conclude is that this is indirectly a challenge to 'Philosophical Naturalism.'

Please clarify how 'solipsism' applies here, and how it is a problem with atheism.

I believe accusing atheists as solipsists is a fallacy, but which fallacy?

[Sparko]

The fallacy of shunyadragon trying to understand Leonhard. I call this fallacy: brainfart.

[seer]

The fallacy of shunyadragon trying to understand Leonhard. I call this fallacy: brainfart.

I don't even understand what he is asking. Do you?

[Sparko]

I don't even understand what he is asking. Do you?

Leonhard and you were talking about Tassman and JimL's views of reality and freewill. Shuny could not follow along and is wondering why Leonhard thinks atheists believe that only they are real.

[seer]

Leonhard and you were talking about Tassman and JimL's views of reality and freewill. Shuny could not follow along and is wondering why Leonhard thinks atheists believe that only they are real.

LOL, that was not at all what Leonhard was getting at!

[Sparko]

LOL, that was not at all what Leonhard was getting at!

I know. It only took me two minutes to read back through the thread a page and figure it out. I had not even been reading the thread before.

[shunyadragon]

I know. It only took me two minutes to read back through the thread a page and figure it out. I had not even been reading the thread before.

So far no coherent response. Actually I do not consider solipsism to to be a viable belief from any perspective, and especially any form of atheism nor agnosticism.

[Leonhard]

My name was mentioned so much in this thread, I took Shunya off ignore for a bit to see what on Earth he was rambling about now.

In another thread Leonard accused atheists of being slopsists here; http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ight=solipsism

Shunya, you're burning a strawman. I didn't accuse atheists of being solipsists. I said that that were only two rational choices: solipsism or empiricism. This was in response to seer's skeptical threat arguments to JimL. We make a choice between those two positions.

That's really all I said.

I believe solipsism is the belief that; "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states." I believe the view of the atheists and maybe strong agnostics is that "All minds and mental states that exist are naturally the result of physical brains, and no other 'minds' nor 'mental states' exist."

It can also more softly be the position that nothing except one's own thoughts are knowable. Or even that knowledge, in general, is completely impossible. Though this is usually called 'Radical Skepticism'

The only thing I could conclude is that this is indirectly a challenge to 'Philosophical Naturalism.'

It was no challenge. Just a clarification to seer.

Please clarify how 'solipsism' applies here, and how it is a problem with atheism.

It's not anymore a problem for 'atheists' than it is for 'theists', it's about what sort of commitments you have. There's no rational argument you could in principle use to argue a committed solipsist out of solipsism. It's a choice that person has made. If you discount all external sensory perceptions or even the validity of your thought process, no argument could avail you.

For a hilarious example of this, see this scene from the old indie movie Darkstar, where a crew tries to convince a sentient bomb not to explode.

I believe accusing atheists as solipsists is a fallacy, but which fallacy?

Most atheists aren't solipsists, so I wouldn't accuse them of being it. I have read the writings of a few radical postmodernists who were soft solipsists (they believed knowledge was impossible), and as far as I know, they were atheists.

Very few people (I doubt any) are solipsistic. It's more of a curious intellectual problem in regards to how we know what we know, and what we can trust given that our senses can be fooled, and our thoughts can err. Solipsism is perfect self-consistent and infinitely simpler than actually trying to deal with this whole thing we call Reality.

[seer]

So far no coherent response. Actually I do not consider solipsism to to be a viable belief from any perspective, and especially any form of atheism nor agnosticism.

The point shuny is that Leonhard never said what you claimed. And the reason why solipsism is attractive is that it is logically consistent. You can not logically (i.e. deductively) demonstrate that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. That is a leap of faith, or as Leonhard said, a chosen commitment, and this is done without logical justification.

[seer]

There it is in a nut shell!

[One Bad Pig]

There it is in a nut shell!

Dark Star is awesome.

[seer]

Dark Star is awesome.

I have no idea what Dark Star is, but that was a good clip.

[Sparko]

Wait. so how do I know that there are actually other people typing posts into this thread and not just some spambots?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Wait. so how do I know that there are actually other people typing posts into this thread and not just some spambots?

That's preposterous. Of course, we're real! Now, about that Nigerian Prince who wants to give you money...

[Sparko]

That's preposterous. Of course, we're real! Now, about that Nigerian Prince who wants to give you money...

But I can't take your word for it! You could be a spambot!