Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

^ there only has to be a beginning for those experiences which relate to the idea of linearity.

I agree with that, but that only seems to be internally consistent.

you're not god's child, you're god representing himself as god's child for purposeful experience. you created the sense of your own creation because you chose to experience in this way, and without some form of limitation there would be no potential for experience.

In order to break out of the internal consistency into universal consistency, I'd like to see evidence for this.

[verklingen]

why are you creating a difference between internal and universal consistency? my internal consistency matters as much to my experience as any sense of universal consistency, so i perceive no difference which would grant the phrase "only internally consistent" especial meaning. you can if you want, but that's on your plate and it doesn't matter to me.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

why are you creating a difference between internal and universal consistency? my internal consistency matters as much to my experience as any sense of universal consistency, so i perceive no difference which would grant the phrase "only internally consistent" especial meaning.

Because of this.

you can if you want, but that's on your plate and it doesn't matter to me.

If you want to be internally consistent, you can if you want, but that's on your plate and it doesn't matter to me.

If you want it to matter to me, universal consistency would be the better approach.

[snapshot]

Having internal consistency is like writing a fictional book in which, within the universe created, there are no plot holes or jumps in logic. But if you attempt to translate that book into this reality, it makes absolutely no sense based on empirical data.

So you can be internally consistent, but it's akin to believing in a fictional world created by some author (namely you) as opposed to the world in which everyone else is living.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you want it to matter to me,

i don't. i'm only concerned with what matters to me. sorry. i don't care to translate my beliefs into your own. you're doing a fine job of that yourself right now.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

i don't. i'm only concerned with what matters to me. sorry. i don't care to translate my beliefs into your own. you're doing a fine job of that yourself right now.

You appear to be making objective claims, applying them to matthewmunari, and then claiming that those objective claims apply only to you.

you're not god's child, you're god representing himself as god's child for purposeful experience. you created the sense of your own creation because you chose to experience in this way, and without some form of limitation there would be no potential for experience.

This is an objective claim about the nature of reality that you're implying is true for everybody. Are you only applying your objective knowledge to people that agree with you, and then when someone disagrees with you, suddenly it's subjective and personal? Are you just making things up and hoping people will agree with you? Why should anyone take this seriously?

I understand that no one has to take this seriously, but then, what's the difference between a crazy person spouting nonsense and you? Why believe the crazy man's assertions above your own? The distinguishing factor would be evidence--the ability to link our ideas objectively through the empirical evidence of reality.

[verklingen]

dude all any of us can ever do here is give our perspective. the degree to which that perspective is on any given subject taken seriously is up to the reader. i'm nowise dictating the nature of reality for anyone, just providing some reflection which might yield discussion. lighten up a bit.

edit: had this discussion with rev not too long ago. am i supposed to preface my every post with "THIS is what verk thinks?"

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

dude all any of us can ever do here is give our perspective. the degree to which that perspective is on any given subject taken seriously is up to the reader. i'm nowise dictating the nature of reality for anyone, just providing some reflection which might yield discussion. lighten up a bit.

edit: had this discussion with rev not too long ago. am i supposed to preface my every post with "THIS is what verk thinks?"

Whether it's irrational or not, I sometimes get offended when it appears people claim what is objectively true when they can't offer evidence for it. It's like if someone said, "Time is a cycle," that by saying that without prefacing it with, "In my opinion," or, "I would like to think," the person is implying that if I disagree, I am wrong, even if no evidence can be offered to the validate the claim.

It's like by saying, "God exists," without empirical or logical evidence, I'm automatically wrong if I don't accept that conclusion.

I'm likely more arguing against the way the claim was made, because it seems to me that when statements are made without those explications, people are more likely to take them seriously as opposed to just another viewpoint which one could/should consider. To me, the lack of specificity in the language is a subtext for indoctrination, whether intentional or unintentional. And since religion and government are my two main foils at the moment I chose to single out those moments when I feel that the lack of specificity is going to cause confusion rather than clarity in the person being addressed.

[snapshot]

Ultimately, any claims which do not have logical or empirical evidence are opinions, and as such, should be prefaced by saying that. I think it's much more confusing to start out with a claim that sounds objective, and then ending the conversation by saying, "Well, we are entitled to our opinions."

I certainly agree we are entitled to our opinions, but I also think we should make it known that we are expressing opinions and not objective facts.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Whether it's irrational or not, I sometimes get offended when it appears people claim what is objectively true when they can't offer evidence for it. It's like if someone said, "Time is a cycle," that by saying that without prefacing it with, "In my opinion," or, "I would like to think," the person is implying that if I disagree, I am wrong, even if no evidence can be offered to the validate the claim.

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

Originally Posted by snapshot

It's like by saying, "God exists," without empirical or logical evidence, I'm automatically wrong if I don't accept that conclusion.

yeah, wrong to THEM and FOR them and their belief (whoever says that). just as in you yourself not believing there to be a god they are wrong to you.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm likely more arguing against the way the claim was made, because it seems to me that when statements are made without those explications, people are more likely to take them seriously as opposed to just another viewpoint which one could/should consider. To me, the lack of specificity in the language is a subtext for indoctrination, whether intentional or unintentional. And since religion and government are my two main foils at the moment I chose to single out those moments when I feel that the lack of specificity is going to cause confusion rather than clarity in the person being addressed.

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.

[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.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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?

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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?

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

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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.

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by snapshot

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?

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).

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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.

Originally Posted by snapshot

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.

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.

[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.