Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 18 October 2011 07:51 PM

Oh, please, not that old canard. It depends on the logical fallacy of circularity.

No it doesn’t. It’s a way of testing your decidedly New Age notion that “State of mind has everything to do with it.”

Reality most definately is not a matter of state of mind and never was. To presume otherwise is the worst sort of arrogance beaten only by the silly posturing of theology.

Go ahead. Test it. Jump onto the railroad tracks and convince yourself that the locomotive which is barreling down on you is simply a state of mind.

Make yer peace before you attempt this.

By the way, your comment, “Just because you can’t “see” something which is in fact there doesn’t make it any less real.” is exactly what relgionists point out to Atheists when the topics of God or spirituality arise. Excuse me for not recognizing you as a religionist.

Wrong again. The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.

What I’m pointing to is what can be demonstrated to actually being there. Earlier you stated “There are records of aboriginals being unable to see the ship of Christopher Columbus even though it was right in front of them because they had not experienced anything like it before and so could not conceive of anything like it despite its reality.”

Well guess what, the ships were still there!!!!

State of mind was and remains irrelevant to that core reality. Whether or not the aboriginals could conceive of it is equally irrelevant to that reality.

Aside from ignoring the figure/ground comment because you don’t have a response, you are also ignoring the science community’s presentation of alternate universes and the documented evidence of bilocation (being in two places at once). Reality is not as simple as you would prefer to believe.

As for your comment, “The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.”, I’m sure even you can see that it is repetitive and incomprehensible. You may have meant to say “lack of evidence is not evidence of lack” which is cute but not at all what relgionists say. Religionists say exactly what I stated, namely, just because an individual lacks the ability to “see” what religion speaks about, doesn’t invalidate what religion speaks about.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that the limits of your perceptions are also the limits of what there is to perceive. Wrong.

FYI: You do not seem to understand what the argument from ignorance is. Argumentum ad ignorantiam occurs when it’s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn’t been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true. In the case of religion, religious truth is true because it exists and anyone can find out for themselves if they spend the time to apply the lessons (just like your beloved science). In your case, you are saying that religion is false because it hasn’t been proven true according to your limitations and, therefore, it is you who are committing the error of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are also disingenuous in attempting to lay that fallacy on religion by misrepresenting religion.

Factfinder, earlier in this thread, I explained that reality is what persists in being there…in your face…even though you refuse to believe in it.

You have not refuted this.

Instead, you argued that “State of mind has everything to do with it.” which is really nothing more then New Age/Post Modernist psuedo-philosophical stupidity which a lot of people confuse for a profound statement.

This is childs play to test, although I can see why you would chicken out from doing so. After all, jumping in front of a hurtling locomotive while chanting that “Reality is a state of mind” is a move gauranteed to have absolutely and irrefutably fatal results. (Or what might be considered as far worse then getting dead.)

Don’t want to test just how absolute reality is that way?

Okay, don’t blame you. You can try other ways to test this such as drinking a gallon of hemlock, or eating a heaping helping of toadstool mushrooms sauteed in a rich sauce of butter and strichnine and seasoned with nightshade.

Not as dramatic as the train but the end result will be just as absolute, certain, and non-debatable.

Reality is funny that way. It doesn’t care what you think, what you believe, or what your state of mind is. Nor is in interested in any sort of debators rheotoric or trickery (Yours, mine, or anybody else’s) or the stupidity of perspective. It just does it’s thing and you either deal with it as it actually is or become a recipient of the “coveted” Darwin Award. Don’t confuse this for a debatable or subjective point. It’s not.

Oh, and just as a little aside, those who

a) sneer as peer reviewed science what asked to present same to support an opinion (Which you’ve done when sneering at it for all the things it got wrong while simply omitting that it was science that exposed and corrected the same errors in another thread) and then

b) trying to advance an opinion with New Age/Post Modernist nonsense on the nature of reality as you have in this thread, then trying to appeal to science when it suddenly becomes convenient in virtually the same breath as you have done in this thread.

have no standing whatever for castigating anybody for supposed logical fallacies or being unscientific, or religious.

None.

Got a problem with that?

Tough.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 18 October 2011 07:51 PM

Oh, please, not that old canard. It depends on the logical fallacy of circularity.

No it doesn’t. It’s a way of testing your decidedly New Age notion that “State of mind has everything to do with it.”

Reality most definately is not a matter of state of mind and never was. To presume otherwise is the worst sort of arrogance beaten only by the silly posturing of theology.

Go ahead. Test it. Jump onto the railroad tracks and convince yourself that the locomotive which is barreling down on you is simply a state of mind.

Make yer peace before you attempt this.

By the way, your comment, “Just because you can’t “see” something which is in fact there doesn’t make it any less real.” is exactly what relgionists point out to Atheists when the topics of God or spirituality arise. Excuse me for not recognizing you as a religionist.

Wrong again. The arguement religionists use is the evidence of lack is not evidence of lack, which is a variation of the arguement from ignorance fallacy.

What I’m pointing to is what can be demonstrated to actually being there. Earlier you stated “There are records of aboriginals being unable to see the ship of Christopher Columbus even though it was right in front of them because they had not experienced anything like it before and so could not conceive of anything like it despite its reality.”

Well guess what, the ships were still there!!!!

State of mind was and remains irrelevant to that core reality. Whether or not the aboriginals could conceive of it is equally irrelevant to that reality.

All you have done is to repeat your erroneous bias AGAIN.

You have not addressed the figure/ground question.

You have not addressed the theory of prominent scientists of alternate or parallel universes.

You have not addressed anything.

You have only regurgitated some tired platitudes. One can see why you have so many posts listed. All you do is repeat, repeat, repeat. 

FYI: Your repetition is a logical error aptly known as the argumentum ad nauseum, wherein the more times you repeat something, no matter how nonsensical, the more likely you believe it to be true or to be perceived as true. Good luck with that illogic.

Atheists are supposed to value logic above all. Do you not think that it would be a good idea for you to acquaint yourself with some of the elementary rules of logic before embarrassing yourself further? Perhaps, there is an introductory course in logic being offered at a university, college, or technical school near you that you enroll in. Unfortunately, given your poor spelling, your lack of education may mean that you could not meet their entrance criteria so you may not be accepted.

All you have done is to repeat your erroneous bias AGAIN.

No I haven’t. I’ve explained what reality is and given you some ideas on how to test it, and all without turning the discussion into some silly soap opera which conflates New Age/Post Modernist psuedo-philosophy for reality and hard science.

You chickened out. (Not unreasonably since the means of testing my proposition would be 100% fatal or worse, and you know it.)

There we are.

Bye.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 22 October 2011 11:32 AM

All you have done is to repeat your erroneous bias AGAIN.

No I haven’t. I’ve explained what reality is and given you some ideas on how to test it, and all without turning the discussion into some silly soap opera which conflates New Age/Post Modernist psuedo-philosophy for reality and hard science.

You chickened out. (Not unreasonably since the means of testing my proposition would be 100% fatal or worse, and you know it.)

There we are.

Bye.

All you have is to restate your erroneous bias AGAIN AND AGAIN without addressing the figure/ground problem, the documented instances of bilocation (being in two places at once), and the current scientific theory de jour - alternate or parallel universes.

One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make the horse drink.

Attempting to debate someone like you is like playing Whack-A-Mole at the fall fair - No matter how hits are scored the mole, or its twin,  pops up again.

Attempting to debate someone like you is like playing Whack-A-Mole at the fall fair - No matter how hits are scored the mole, or its twin,  pops up again.

And which also, in case you haven’t noticed it yet, puts the lie to reality being a “State of Mind.” After all, if it was a “state of mind” you should be able to wish me away, and that the opposition which I’ve hit you with should just fade away and everybody should be cheering you on for your brilliance.

That none of this has happened…that I persist in being here…in your face….should tell you a lot, but you refuse to get the message.

I do tend to stick to the fundementals and in this case, what I proposed was an experiment to test your silly assertion that reality is a state of mind. Putting something to the test…which is what I’m asking you to do…is the way science says:

“Show it to me. Put up or shut up.”

If you’re right, you should be able to jump in front of that train, or that bus, and not come to any harm when it hits you because you’ve convinced yourself that it’s all a “State of Mind.” You should be able to swim with piranhas, or take a liesurely stroll through a snake pit full of agitated rattlesnakes and cobras and after that, drink a banana’cyanide milkshake laced with nightshade because it’s all a “state of mind.”

It doesn’t “really” exist because you don’t believe in it or don’t know it’s there or don’t know that jumping in front or speeding trains and buses or swimming with predatory fish and drinking a poison shake could be something of a health hazard.

If you’re right, that’s how it should all work.

If I’m right, (And you know damned well that I am) if you attempt any of those things, you end up a corpse or something’s lunch.

And that’s what you’ve been avoiding. If you wish to stay alive long enough to die of natural causes, I expect you to keep right on avoiding it.

So much for reality being subjective.

I’m completely done with you.

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon - 23 October 2011 08:58 AM

Attempting to debate someone like you is like playing Whack-A-Mole at the fall fair - No matter how hits are scored the mole, or its twin,  pops up again.

And which also, in case you haven’t noticed it yet, puts the lie to reality being a “State of Mind.” After all, if it was a “state of mind” you should be able to wish me away, and that the opposition which I’ve hit you with should just fade away and everybody should be cheering you on for your brilliance.

That none of this has happened…that I persist in being here…in your face….should tell you a lot, but you refuse to get the message.

I do tend to stick to the fundementals…

That only makes you a fundamentalist and just like all those other fundamentalists who have only a superficial understanding of what they argue about and who like to kill people who do not agree with them. This, of course, is no surprise considering your ridiculous stance, your refusal to debate, and, of course, your lack of education as evidenced by your atrocious spelling.

and in this case, what I proposed was an experiment to test your silly assertion that reality is a state of mind. Putting something to the test…which is what I’m asking you to do…is the way science says:

“Show it to me. Put up or shut up.”

If you’re right, you should be able to jump in front of that train, or that bus, and not come to any harm when it hits you because you’ve convinced yourself that it’s all a “State of Mind.” You should be able to swim with piranhas, or take a liesurely stroll through a snake pit full of agitated rattlesnakes and cobras and after that, drink a banana’cyanide milkshake laced with nightshade because it’s all a “state of mind.”

It doesn’t “really” exist because you don’t believe in it or don’t know it’s there or don’t know that jumping in front or speeding trains and buses or swimming with predatory fish and drinking a poison shake could be something of a health hazard.

If you’re right, that’s how it should all work.

If I’m right, (And you know damned well that I am) if you attempt any of those things, you end up a corpse or something’s lunch.

And that’s what you’ve been avoiding. If you wish to stay alive long enough to die of natural causes, I expect you to keep right on avoiding it.

So much for reality being subjective.

I’m completely done with you.