What? This has nothing to do with God. It's to do with the limitations of our senses. I can't distinguish between two experiences which are identical. So if one is "real" and one isn't, I can't tell the difference. Neither can anyone else, but some people would like to claim otherwise.

I can't be sure anything I'm typing here makes the slightest bit if sense to anyone. Like I said, all I can be sure of is something is experiencing something. It's not an insult. I don't assume everyone isn't real. I'm simply acknowledging my limitations.

(July 22, 2015 at 12:55 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(July 22, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Rekeisha Wrote: When you reject God you can't even trust the fact that you are real and that you have worth. Your world view is broken. You would be upset if someone disrespects you or the things you love, but then you will say that none of it is real. My world view give worth meaning and purpose to every person. The only way you could truly have any real argument against my stance is if you borrow from my world view because you have given up all knowledge at this point.

Even if you're right about not having meaning without god (you're not, but, just assuming), that's still not an argument.  It's the tu quoque fallacy.

Please explain how you see my reply as a tu quoque fallacy

(July 22, 2015 at 1:33 pm)robvalue Wrote: What? This has nothing to do with God. It's to do with the limitations of our senses. I can't distinguish between two experiences which are identical. So if one is "real" and one isn't, I can't tell the difference. Neither can anyone else, but some people would like to claim otherwise.

I can't be sure anything I'm typing here makes the slightest bit if sense to anyone. Like I said, all I can be sure of is something is experiencing something. It's not an insult. I don't assume everyone isn't real. I'm simply acknowledging my limitations.

It has everything to do with God because without Him you can't make sense of anything, which you are displaying with your comment above. You are your own plumb line and you measure everything against your own understanding.  Therefore your thinking lead you to statements of nonsense.  Proverbs 1:7;3:5

If you can't be sure your comments make sense, or that you are even real then how are you sure that your thinking about God is correct either?

Reality is based on evidence, you idiot.

There is evidence that subjective morality exists. There is evidence that evolution is how life came to its current state. There is evidence that your god is a fictional contrivance designed to serve the needs of ignorant, ancient people. There is evidence to show that humans have created the concepts of "right" and "wrong" to suit their needs as individuals and as communities. There is evidence for the existence of, well, just about everything that fucking exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that reality exists because there is evidence for it.

Conversely, there is no evidence for your god. There is no evidence for any objective source of morality. There is no evidence that right or wrong are universal forces and not concepts invented by humans. There is no evidence for ghosts, goblins, faeries, werewolves, vampires, demons, angels, or any of the other cockamamie, superstitious bullshit you might have been brought up on. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that any of that shit exists.

How hard is this concept? Seriously? Your "Oh, you just don't have any standard for reality" thing is a Straw Man. Quit that shit. We believe in reality, and we believe things should be supported by some kind of peer-reviewable evidence before they qualify as a part of that reality. Our standard for reality is, in fact, much higher than yours. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in reality.

We have a standard for morality, it's very easy. We all agree that human life is important. So things that help humans are good, things that hurt them are bad. Other things are indifferent.

This is plenty enough to build a moral framework, at least a basic one. Of course, if you don't agree human life is important, then we won't agree on morality.

(July 23, 2015 at 11:45 am)Rekeisha Wrote:

(July 22, 2015 at 1:33 pm)robvalue Wrote: What? This has nothing to do with God. It's to do with the limitations of our senses. I can't distinguish between two experiences which are identical. So if one is "real" and one isn't, I can't tell the difference. Neither can anyone else, but some people would like to claim otherwise.

I can't be sure anything I'm typing here makes the slightest bit if sense to anyone. Like I said, all I can be sure of is something is experiencing something. It's not an insult. I don't assume everyone isn't real. I'm simply acknowledging my limitations.

It has everything to do with God because without Him you can't make sense of anything,

This is a demonstrable un-truth. I have no concept of a 'god' other than what other people have said their god is/does. I have lived my entire life without a 'god' (defined?), and yet I can make sense of things perfectly well.

(July 23, 2015 at 11:45 am)Rekeisha Wrote: which you are displaying with your comment above.

No it wasn't.

(July 23, 2015 at 11:45 am)Rekeisha Wrote: You are your own plumb line and you measure everything against your own understanding.  Therefore your thinking lead you to statements of nonsense.  Proverbs 1:7;3:5

No it doesn't. This is another un-truth.

(July 23, 2015 at 11:45 am)Rekeisha Wrote: If you can't be sure your comments make sense, or that you are even real then how are you sure that your thinking about God is correct either?

I/we can't. And do you want to know the real bat which hits your argument for six? Neither can you, sugar, neither can you.

The difference is that one of us in this debate is talking about universal truths, whilst the other is saying 'I don't believe you'. Which do you think is the more logical, bearing in mind the former has provided nothing but their beliefs to back up their 'truths'?

(July 22, 2015 at 12:45 pm)Rekeisha Wrote:

(July 22, 2015 at 9:09 am)robvalue Wrote: Indeed. We never experience the world, if there is one. We only have what our brain's interpretation of the supposed world is. If it was replaced by a fake feed which was just as convincing, how could we tell the difference?

See, to me, you could be a figment of my delusion, trying to persuade me that you are real, because I know I am real. All I "know" is that something seems to be experiencing something. I can say no more than that.

Then do a Neo and make me go away. Recreate your reality!
You have made a truth claim in your above statment then you contradict your-self and say that all you know is that something seems to be experiencing something.  

When you reject God you can't even trust the fact that you are real and that you have worth. Your world view is broken. You would be upset if someone disrespects you or the things you love, but then you will say that none of it is real. My world view give worth meaning and purpose to every person. The only way you could truly have any real argument against my stance is if you borrow from my world view because you have given up all knowledge at this point.

You read like a charlatan peddling crap to con money out of people, which is of course exactly what you are.

Thanks Panda, good answers

I just don't know what to say about all these random assertions that I can't do X without God.

I can replace God with anything I like and assert the same back.

Even if "God" is somehow enabling me to function, I still don't care. Good for him. What can I do about it exactly? He can stop anytime as far as I'm concerned. I don't know how believing story books are true is a consequence.

It's 2nd or 3rd rate 'gotcha!' arguments Rob. Un-evidenced proof by assertions and nothing more. *yawn* Nothing changes does it?

(July 23, 2015 at 12:01 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Reality is based on evidence, you idiot.

There is evidence that subjective morality exists. There is evidence that evolution is how life came to its current state. There is evidence that your god is a fictional contrivance designed to serve the needs of ignorant, ancient people. There is evidence to show that humans have created the concepts of "right" and "wrong" to suit their needs as individuals and as communities. There is evidence for the existence of, well, just about everything that fucking exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that reality exists because there is evidence for it.

Conversely, there is no evidence for your god. There is no evidence for any objective source of morality. There is no evidence that right or wrong are universal forces and not concepts invented by humans. There is no evidence for ghosts, goblins, faeries, werewolves, vampires, demons, angels, or any of the other cockamamie, superstitious bullshit you might have been brought up on. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that any of that shit exists.

How hard is this concept? Seriously? Your "Oh, you just don't have any standard for reality" thing is a Straw Man. Quit that shit. We believe in reality, and we believe things should be supported by some kind of peer-reviewable evidence before they qualify as a part of that reality. Our standard for reality is, in fact, much higher than yours. YOU are the one who doesn't believe in reality.

So you are right in thinking that there is no right or wrong?

Also if I get your understanding of morality correct then morality is might over right? If the majority of people say that a certain thing is correct the minority is of no consiquence? It sure did suit Hitler's needs to blame the jews and then remove them from socitey to keep his hold on power. He and others agreed that it was correct. So according to your view this is the way it should be done and the only reason it is wrong is because other have collected together to say so.