Evolution and atheism

[seer]

Personally I prefer the Matrix.

The steak tastes better there...

[seer]

Brain in a vat.

Have fun with it, but your arguments of this stle are part of why I refuse to take you seriously.

Of course, that is what I would expect you to say. Unbelievers hate the idea that they too take reality by faith. They like to think, like I said, that they stand on higher rational ground than the theist. But it simply is not true.

[technomage]

But it simply is not true.

Says the brain in a vat.

[seer]

Says the brain in a vat.

Yes, you can pout, mock and take your toys home - it does not change the logic.

[technomage]

Yes, you can pout, mock and take your toys home - it does not change the logic.

There is no "logic," oh vat-brain. There is only a fallacious (and false) argument that has already failed repeatedly, that wrecks your worldview as effectively as it wrecks any other, and that you cling to as if it were the holy grail.

Yes, it IS possible to empirically verify that what we perceive of the world is (within perceptual limits) a reasonably accurate understanding of the world. You reject that--not because your rejection is logical, nor because you have evidence to the contrary, but solely because it wrecks your argument that you see (contrary to fact) as unassailable. I've already presented one methodology--you rejected it without even considering what might be right or wrong with my argument.

You reject, sight unseen, any evidence or argument that contradicts your worldview, solely because you are not capable of thinking outside that worldview.

I have never said (nor do I claim) that as a non-Christian I "stand on higher rational ground than the theist." Indeed, it would be highly illogical to do so, as I AM a theist. But I can definitely state that I do stand on a higher rational ground than you, because I, at least, can see when my own arguments conflict with my worldview.

You're too vat-blind to even see that.

Enjoy your life, vat-brain. You have nothing but empty arguments, which you ceaselessly rearrange like a child's building blocks. Hope you enjoy playing with you toys.

[seer]

There is no "logic," oh vat-brain. There is only a fallacious (and false) argument that has already failed repeatedly, that wrecks your worldview as effectively as it wrecks any other, and that you cling to as if it were the holy grail.

Nothing is wrecked. Just clarified. That we all approach reality by faith - through an unprovable assumption. The real question here is why you refuse to accept this fact? Why does it bother you so much?

Yes, it IS possible to empirically verify that what we perceive of the world is (within perceptual limits) a reasonably accurate understanding of the world. You reject that--not because your rejection is logical, nor because you have evidence to the contrary, but solely because it wrecks your argument that you see (contrary to fact) as unassailable. I've already presented one methodology--you rejected it without even considering what might be right or wrong with my argument.

Yes, but for this to work you must first "assume" that you are actually experiencing reality and not something else. Every empirical argument you used to prove reality could also be used as evidence for life in the Matrix. And if you think you can logically make the case for your view set out a deductive argument - I have yet to see one in all these years.

[phank]

Once again we get a free home demonstration that "seer" is the most ironic, least appropriate handle anyone has ever found. You simply could not find a more rigid, hidebound, abject REFUSAL to see anything. Even a jellyfish can see what "seer" won't.

[seer]

Once again we get a free home demonstration that "seer" is the most ironic, least appropriate handle anyone has ever found. You simply could not find a more rigid, hidebound, abject REFUSAL to see anything. Even a jellyfish can see what "seer" won't.

Ok, make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in you head actually corresponds to reality - I will be waiting.

[technomage]

That we all approach reality by faith - through an unprovable assumption. The real question here is why you refuse to accept this fact?

Because the only way your assertion can be fact is the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat," or "Matrix living," if you prefer, is an argument of regression, where each piece of evidence brought forward is simply responded to with "Oh, but if you are a brain in a vat being fed this data, how could you tell the difference?" I mention that we can observe at least some of the neurological activity that comes from sensory input, the "vat-brain" responds "Oh, but that could just be that the scientists, in their own vat, are receiving the illusion that this is what they are observing." I mention that two witnesses can observe the same event, and they come up with (largely, within perceptual variances) the same account, and the vat-brain responds with "Oh, but those two individuals both received the same illusion in their separate vats.

It's a variation on solipsism, but what makes it truly pernicious in your case is that you are swift to apply it to others, but refuse to apply it to your own worldview. That's dishonest argumentation, Seer--I cannot state that it is deliberate dishonesty, because I believe you honestly think the argument to be unassailable. You refuse to see that there can be any evidence to the contrary, even though the evidence does exist. Heck, from our previous interactions, you refuse to even consider the arguments--you simply dismiss any contrary argument, rarely giving a reason for your dismissal, never attempting to actually refute the argument.

This is why "Brain in a vat" is a discourse-killer. Once one party or the other takes such a position, there can be no communication between those two parties. All communication becomes one way--from the "brain in a vat" theorist to any other party--because the vat-brain will not, or cannot, evaluate any argument that contradicts his position.

You are not the first person I've seen who adopted this argument, though I am far more accustomed to seeing it from 15-25 year olds. You will not be the last. But as long as you hold to that argument, I (for one) refuse to take you seriously.

There are several groups of people I can think of right off the top of my head that I generally refuse to take seriously:
1. Solipsists (including Vat-brains)
2. "New" atheists
3. Presuppositional apologists.
4. Racists
5. Political extremists (conservative or liberal)

The reason I do not take people like this seriously is because they demand something that they are not willing to grant: they demand that others attend to their words, and consider their arguments, while they refuse to extend that same courtesy to others.

As long as you engage in that style of argument, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Abandon your "vat brain" argument, and I am quite able to establish, empirically, that the world we experience is indeed the real world. Continue your argument, and frankly, you are quite literally not worth the time it would take to demonstrate my argument.

[technomage]

That we all approach reality by faith - through an unprovable assumption. The real question here is why you refuse to accept this fact?

Because the only way your assertion can be fact is the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat," or "Matrix living," if you prefer, is an argument of regression, where each piece of evidence brought forward is simply responded to with "Oh, but if you are a brain in a vat being fed this data, how could you tell the difference?" I mention that we can observe at least some of the neurological activity that comes from sensory input, the "vat-brain" responds "Oh, but that could just be that the scientists, in their own vat, are receiving the illusion that this is what they are observing." I mention that two witnesses can observe the same event, and they come up with (largely, within perceptual variances) the same account, and the vat-brain responds with "Oh, but those two individuals both received the same illusion in their separate vats.

It's a variation on solipsism, but what makes it truly pernicious in your case is that you are swift to apply it to others, but refuse to apply it to your own worldview. That's dishonest argumentation, Seer--I cannot state that it is deliberate dishonesty, because I believe you honestly think the argument to be unassailable. You refuse to see that there can be any evidence to the contrary, even though the evidence does exist. Heck, from our previous interactions, you refuse to even consider the arguments--you simply dismiss any contrary argument, rarely giving a reason for your dismissal, never attempting to actually refute the argument.

This is why "Brain in a vat" is a discourse-killer. Once one party or the other takes such a position, there can be no communication between those two parties. All communication becomes one way--from the "brain in a vat" theorist to any other party--because the vat-brain will not, or cannot, evaluate any argument that contradicts his position.

You are not the first person I've seen who adopted this argument, though I am far more accustomed to seeing it from 15-25 year olds. You will not be the last. But as long as you hold to that argument, I (for one) refuse to take you seriously.

There are several groups of people I can think of right off the top of my head that I generally refuse to take seriously:
1. Solipsists (including Vat-brains)
2. "New" atheists
3. Presuppositional apologists.
4. Racists
5. Political extremists (conservative or liberal)

The reason I do not take people like this seriously is because they demand something that they are not willing to grant: they demand that others attend to their words, and consider their arguments, while they refuse to extend that same courtesy to others.

As long as you engage in that style of argument, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Abandon your "vat brain" argument, and I am quite able to establish, empirically, that the world we experience is indeed the real world. Continue your argument, and frankly, you are quite literally not worth the time it would take to demonstrate my argument.

[seer]

Because the only way your assertion can be fact is the "brain in a vat" argument.

"Brain in a vat," or "Matrix living," if you prefer, is an argument of regression, where each piece of evidence brought forward is simply responded to with "Oh, but if you are a brain in a vat being fed this data, how could you tell the difference?" I mention that we can observe at least some of the neurological activity that comes from sensory input, the "vat-brain" responds "Oh, but that could just be that the scientists, in their own vat, are receiving the illusion that this is what they are observing." I mention that two witnesses can observe the same event, and they come up with (largely, within perceptual variances) the same account, and the vat-brain responds with "Oh, but those two individuals both received the same illusion in their separate vats.

No, you don't understand the argument. There is only, always only, one brain in one vat. Yours. Other people who see the same thing as you do or the said scientists are all induced illusions. There are no actual scientists or other people - only those who are in your head. There is no regression.

It's a variation on solipsism, but what makes it truly pernicious in your case is that you are swift to apply it to others, but refuse to apply it to your own worldview. That's dishonest argumentation, Seer--I cannot state that it is deliberate dishonesty, because I believe you honestly think the argument to be unassailable. You refuse to see that there can be any evidence to the contrary, even though the evidence does exist. Heck, from our previous interactions, you refuse to even consider the arguments--you simply dismiss any contrary argument, rarely giving a reason for your dismissal, never attempting to actually refute the argument.

It is not solipsism technomage, I "believe" my mind actually corresponds to reality, I'm just willing to face the truth - that it is an act of faith, an unprovable assumption. BTW the argument unassailable. And has been since Descartes put it forth centuries ago.

[technomage]

It is not solipsism technomage

You obviously would not know solipsism if it bit you in the posterior, Seer.

Go back to your vat. You have nothing of import to share with us "illusory non-people."

[seer]

You obviously would not know solipsism if it bit you in the posterior, Seer.

Of course I do technomage, you just hate the rational implications of Descartes' points. Unlike the sophist I do believe that other minds exist, and that my mind does correspond to reality - I will just admit (which you won't) that faith is a valid way of knowing reality. Of course you approach reality with the same faith or unprovable assumption - you just hate to admit it. So you are smuggling in your deep seated belief that you really are rationally superior to the theist, who is reduced to appealing to "faith."

Peace...

[technomage]

Of course I do technomage, you just hate the rational implications of Descartes' points.

Seer, you have no clue what I do or do not "hate." You assume you know about me because your faith adheres to a book.

Well, guess what, Seer--I'm not in your book.

You don't know me. You only know the parody of reality that your faith allows you to see.

[phank]

Ok, make a deductive or empirical argument that what goes on in you head actually corresponds to reality - I will be waiting.

By your own argument, any empirical argument would be meaningless, because you know that knowledge is not possible!

And when people point out that knowing that knowledge is impossible is self-refuting, you deny it because you know better!

And you want us imaginary people to engage with your self-refuting fantasies? WHY? Since you know you're right that knowledge is impossible, what would you learn?