[snapshot]

here you go making assumptions again. why are you assuming that the only way for us to resolve a dispute is through empirical data? why do you assume that i must hold empirical data as higher than myself? i'm not even sure what that means. no empirical data exists for a large portion of my experience, yet those experiences are every bit as real as experiences which can be proved with empirical data. so why should i hold what can be proved empirically higher than myself when "myself" comprises things empirical AND non-empirical?

The only way to resolve a dispute about that which is true involves empiricism. That which you hold as "non-empirical" cannot be verified, so why should I assume that you are correct in this assumption or be expected to I take this as anything other than opinion, which I have just as much validity disagreeing?

I feel like you'd wish to limit the conversation to something like this:

V: (Putting forth a claim)
S: I disagree.
V: That's your opinion.
S: Yes, it is.

:End of Discussion.

Your experience certainly consists of more than just empirical data. But these experiences cannot be shared on an objective level, so attempting to share them as though they were objective (such as the idea that God exists) are dishonest without the context that they are unempirical and therefore merely opinion.

another assumption. i'm not interested in convincing anyone of anything. i am more than willing to offer my every word as opinion, but why are you unwilling to consider what i have to offer as opinion before you accept it as an attack on your personal understanding that has to be taken seriously?

Because you put it forth as though it were truth. Your claims were not made humble at all. You speak with an air of omniscience that I find condescending, as something only you are privy to and only others may accept you at your word.

Personally, if I were putting forth an assertion without evidence or logic to back it up, I would say, "You don't have to accept this....this is just an opinion...take it with a grain of salt...." or simply, "In my opinion," or "I think." I've noticed you consistently put forth claims about the nature of reality which do not attempt to deny that possibility that you are wrong.

dude you really need to chill out. spent way too long on those philosophy forums i reckon.

I perhaps take it a little more seriously than you do. I don't see how this statement you make, though, could not be turned around to say, maybe you need to spend a little longer on the philosophy forums. (The way you feel when I said you need to spend a little more time on the philosophy forums may be similar to the way I felt when you said I spend too much time on philosophy forums).

you're describing how they would be wrong by being inconsistent with YOUR beliefs. i.e. logical consistency. everything you have said has fuck-all to do with their beliefs. my god man. . . amid all this talk of objectivity, consider the importance you place upon the process of subjective understanding which lead you to a belief in the objective importance of logical consistency.

They would be wrong by being inconsistent with their beliefs, I would be wrong by being inconsistent with my beliefs. We would be able to come to a consensus of who is objectively wrong by first discovering what it is we do agree upon. Logic and empirical evidence are the only objective ways by which either could call the other wrong. I could never say that your opinion was wrong, because "wrong" in that sense is meaningless. It would be like me saying that your opinion that chocolate ice cream was the best tasting ice cream was wrong.

The subjective importance I place upon objective understanding and logical inconsistency is related to the fact that I wish to communicate with people on a communal and concrete level. To know that we share an experience is much more important to me than to attempt to share subjective experiences which none can actually share except through stories. With empiricism and logic, we need not share simply stories, but reality itself. How am I to agree or to connect with you if I have no way of knowing whether the concepts which reside in your mind correspond to those in mine? In my opinion, that is the definition of bullshitting (which can be fun, but I feel does a disservice to logic and empiricism).

yeah you're getting it now. and you would pass that person off as insane or otherwise not having anything to offer you due to their "moot" assertions. but someone who doesn't abide by so rigid a logical checklist might forgive their "insanity" and have a pleasant conversation with them regardless. they may learn something new, come to think of something in a new way, or reaffirm their thoughts on certain subjects as a result of reflecting with this person rather than simply reaffirming their thoughts outright and denying themselves the chance for conversation.

A pleasant conversation, in my opinion, does not include someone putting forth unsubstantiated claims as though they were substantiated. This path that I'm taking right now, is a path which will, hopefully, eventually lead to a pleasant conversation. But I need to first know whether or not you consider your claims to be true (in whatever context) or whether you consider them to be opinion (not based on any methodology which I could use to come to the same conclusion independently).

Hopefully you're willing to accept that I don't have to accept anything you say as truth, but that if you do put something forth as truth, you ought to have a methodology by which I could come to that same conclusion.

you are right to say you are not the one experiencing the consciousness within that person's mind, but you can open yourself up to that consciousness by conversing with it. you can find out why it believes what it does, and this will invariably offer you a new perspective to consider and widen the scope of your personal experience. you could have done this here by asking why i think what i posted, but instead you asked for proof of what i was saying. and here we are conversing all about you, which i suppose may have been your original intent.

Hopefully that person will be open to the possibility that their beliefs are contradictory. Hopefully that person will also be open to the idea that contradictions are impossible, otherwise, there is no point in conversing with that person except to study that fascinating nature of a person who has an altered sense of reality. But I can't really say I'd be able to relate to that person on any intellectual level.

yes you very obviously feel like making that quiet assumption. why do you care more about how the beliefs differ than the beliefs themselves? you haven't even offered any belief in regard to this subject, all you've done is attempted to critique my belief with with your beliefs about your beliefs (only empirical evidence being valid, non-existence of logical contradiction).

When I say "beliefs," I'm not trying to equivocate. I'm starting from first principles. Beliefs based upon false assumptions or invalid first principles are automatically invalid. So, I'm trying to go beneath the beliefs which may be invalid to those which both of us must agree with in order to have a conversation/debate/argument. These beliefs are the beliefs in logic and empiricism. We can build an entire Universe of conversation from these principles.

I disagree that I haven't offered my beliefs toward the subject. But I'm not going to critique reality of the plot of a fictional book without first pointing out that the book is a work of fiction.

i accept empirical evidence, but i accept things beyond empirical evidence as well. you've built a veritable tank of a box with your beliefs and assumptions, i hope you enjoy living in it.

In my opinion, anyone who accepts things that do not have empirical evidence--outside the realm of possibility--are building a box around themselves into a world that is privy only to them. Such worlds are incommunicable, unverifiable, and, to me, very lonely.

yes, it's impossible in your terms. i choose not to put a limit on who i can converse with, but then again i'm one to, when i happen to find one, break down a wall of my box rather than reinforce it as you seem so keen on doing.

I should have said it's utterly impossible to converse with someone about objective reality without empiricism and logic. We can always bullshit. I have no problem with that (except I personally find it pointless and degrading, glossing over what's really important to all of us), but speaking about truth and objectivity have no place in conversation where people are just bullshitting.