[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

that's a silly assumption. why not instead think that if you disagree, your disagreement doesn't matter to what they think or believe?

I'm unable to comprehend where I am assuming anything. If someone makes a claim about objectively reality and I disagree, the only possibly way to resolve that dispute is through something higher than both of us: empirical data. When someone makes an objective claim, they implicitly agree to the fact that reality is that which exists and that there is a method by which one can come to a truth about its (reality's) nature.

If you're only interested in convincing people about the true nature of reality who do not care about following the methodology by which that knowledge was gained, then you are just indoctrinating people. If you do care that people agree with you for the right reasons, then you'd be more than willing to either offer up the fact that your statement is just an opinion which is purely subjective and doesn't have to be taken seriously or that there is empirical evidence which the other person must accept--unless the person rejects reality, making any assertions you put forth moot anyway.

yeah, wrong to THEM. just as in you yourself not believing there to be a god they are wrong to you.

I would only believe they are wrong if they are inconsistent with their own beliefs. They would have to tell me they are wrong, but perhaps the only way they could come to that conclusion would be by me asking questions, such as the question of whether their claims are logically consistent, whether they believe logical consistency to be important, or whether they require evidence for their claims in order to believe them to be true.

I would never say someone is flatout wrong unless they were inconsistent with themselves. If someone believed they lived in the book Alice in Wonderland and rejected all empirical evidence, there would be no possible way for me to tell them they were wrong, for I am not the one experiencing the consciousness within that person's mind.

that's cool man. just know everything you're talking about is based on assumption. erroneous assumption in this case, but i recognize that this sense of being told you are wrong is very real to you. so i won't discredit your determination, just reflect the alternative possibility above.

I feel like when someone is saying something that I disagree with, they are saying I'm inconsistent with my own beliefs. Therefore, I try to ask questions to try to reconcile whether our beliefs differ. Questions like: Do you accept empirical evidence as valid? Do you accept that logical contradictions cannot exist?

If you don't accept empirical evidence, then no amount of evidence could possibly dissuade you, but then again, you couldn't make any claims which required empirical evidence either. It's a similar situation with logic: If you accept that logical impossibilities can exist, then you can't possibly put forth logical claims to support your assertions, as you already accept that any contradictory claims opposed to your assertions could just as easily exist as well.

Thus, it's utterly impossible to converse with someone who does not accept empirical and logical evidence. I see all such conversations as solipsist and isolationist, divorced from reality, which is why I prefer objectivity and consider it to be the most communal of all forms of communication.