Clive, no one here disputes your right to be unreasonable and irrational. However, when you exercise that right, you forfeit your right to be taken seriously (and treated politely).

(July 8, 2012 at 11:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote: What then, what's the explanation for the two matching up?

How do you know they match up at all?

Sure, they might happen to match up; but maybe they don't. Maybe none of our memories are accurate.

My question is, how do you know that your memories are accurate? If you believe that your memories are accurate, what justifies that belief? What is the evidence for that belief?

Quote:The evidence EXISTS.

What actually does or doesn't exist isn't the question. You're not paying attention.

I'm asking you why we should care about evidence--or, how you know that evidentialism is true (or at least, the best theory of justification). Your answer is..."EVIDENCE EXISTS".

One, that's entirely unresponsive to the question.

Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?

Quote:THE EVIDENCE EXISTS.

How do you know?


I'll just note that you didn't deny or refute that your argument was circular.

(July 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(July 8, 2012 at 11:40 am)FallentoReason Wrote: What then, what's the explanation for the two matching up?

How do you know they match up at all?

Sure, they might happen to match up; but maybe they don't. Maybe none of our memories are accurate.

My question is, how do you know that your memories are accurate? If you believe that your memories are accurate, what justifies that belief? What is the evidence for that belief?

Quote:The evidence EXISTS.

What actually does or doesn't exist isn't the question. You're not paying attention.

I'm asking you why we should care about evidence--or, how you know that evidentialism is true (or at least, the best theory of justification). Your answer is..."EVIDENCE EXISTS".

One, that's entirely unresponsive to the question.

Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?

Quote:THE EVIDENCE EXISTS.

How do you know?


I'll just note that you didn't deny or refute that your argument was circular.

When you ask "how do you know, genius, you are demanding the very evidence you are claiming to reject the need for, derp.


1. Sneer at the need for evidence
2. Demand evidence.
Hurr durr.

CliveStaples Wrote:How do you know they match up at all?

Sure, they might happen to match up; but maybe they don't. Maybe none of our memories are accurate.

My question is, how do you know that your memories are accurate? If you believe that your memories are accurate, what justifies that belief? What is the evidence for that belief?

No more mental backflips to avoid the questions.

An observation and a memory. They evidence matches up. Prove to me that doesn't mean a thing.

Quote:What actually does or doesn't exist isn't the question. You're not paying attention.

I'm asking you why we should care about evidence--or, how you know that evidentialism is true (or at least, the best theory of justification). Your answer is..."EVIDENCE EXISTS".

Quote:I'm claiming that your basis for believing that it didn't has no evidence.

Quote:If you can't give evidence for your beliefs, fine

You keep asserting that I'm hopeless and can't show anything for my belief. I tell you the evidence is very much real and out there. Then you subtly try and change the question and pretend like that's what you didn't ask.

My belief is justified. Show me why I can't believe the data otherwise you've got nothing.

Quote:One, that's entirely unresponsive to the question.

Your assertion was that my belief was unjustified because there's no evidence. Wrong. 'THE EVIDENCE EXISTS' is 100% responding your silly claim.

Quote:Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?

Because the experiments have been done.

Let me ask you, what happens if I put mentos into a Coke bottle?

Quote:I'll just note that you didn't deny or refute that your argument was circular.

Ok, let's go there. My argument is circular. What changes?

P.s. I'll just note that you still haven't answered me in the other thread. I'll just leave this right here for you:

Quote:Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

It was but once again the thread seems to have moved back along to a completely different topic than it was at when I first joined into it. *grumblesigh*

(July 8, 2012 at 12:50 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: No more mental backflips to avoid the questions.

An observation and a memory. They evidence matches up. Prove to me that doesn't mean a thing.

Right, all you're proving is that if the memory and the experience match up, then the memory and the experience match up. That's obvious.

What I'm asking is different. What I'm asking is how you can know that your memory is accurate.

How you know p is true is different than whether p is true.

Quote:You keep asserting that I'm hopeless and can't show anything for my belief. I tell you the evidence is very much real and out there. Then you subtly try and change the question and pretend like that's what you didn't ask.

My belief is justified. Show me why I can't believe the data otherwise you've got nothing.

You haven't given any data. All you've said is that if the memory of an experience corresponds to the experience, then the memory is accurate. But that was never in dispute.

You haven't given any evidence that your memory is reliable.

Quote:Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?

Because the experiments have been done. [/quote]

How do you know that the experiments have been done?

Quote:Let me ask you, what happens if I put mentos into a Coke bottle?

Depends on what's in the Coke bottle.

Quote:Ok, let's go there. My argument is circular. What changes?

Well, it means that you've admitted that you haven't supported your belief that your memory is accurate.

Quote:P.s. I'll just note that you still haven't answered me in the other thread. I'll just leave this right here for you:

Quote:Tick tock, tick tock....

I take it you've realised your belief in God is even less rational than believing that 5 minutes can actually pass. Congratulations.

[/quote]

Okay.

(July 8, 2012 at 3:46 am)CliveStaples Wrote: Well, consider the following argument:

1) Being a reasonable person entails exhibiting a certain, proper amount of humility about what we can know.
2) Atheism necessarily entails exhibiting an improper amount of humility about what we can know.
3) Therefore, atheism entails not being a reasonable person.

This argument is valid.

It seems to me that under this kind of an argument, asserting that atheism necessarily entails a lack of humility could be both not ad hominem and not a strawman/red herring.

I reject your second premise. Atheism does NOT entail what can be known,it entails what is believed.

I don't have to claim to know, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist. My simple absence of belief in their existence defines me as an atheist.

You guys are kind of embarassing yourself in this thread. All Clive wants is for you to justify why you think your memory is reliable, yet none of you seem to even have any idea as to why you believe that it is.

As for me, I operate under the assumption that my memory is accurate, because time after time I have acted upon my memory and gotten positive results. Does this make me irrational? Maybe. But I never claimed to be rational.

(July 8, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Faith No More Wrote: You guys are kind of embarassing yourself in this thread. All Clive wants is for you to justify why you think your memory is reliable, yet none of you seem to even have any idea as to why you believe that it is.

As for me, I operate under the assumption that my memory is accurate, because time after time I have acted upon my memory and gotten positive results. Does this make me irrational? Maybe. But I never claimed to be rational.

I think that whether or not our memories are reliable is a small portion of what Clive wants us to justify. It seems more like he's looking for us to justify our atheism as a whole.

As for whether or not my memory is accurate, well I'd like to believe that it is. If it's not, then I'm living in delusion. Who's to say this isn't all just some big dream?

Of course, that's besides the point, and there's no use arguing that.

I am sure that Knockemoutt would like his ythread back...he may have even asked for it back once or twice, a couple of pages back behind this irrelevant quibbling bullshit....