Question about meaning and perception of reality from a theist.

[amkerman]

man shellygirl, it's like I'm talking to a spolied 3 year old.

If I said, "To believe the sun rises in the east you must believe in the 'sun'" you would tell me I'm wrong.

You're really grasping at straws now.

---

it's like logic is an affront to your existence.

[Shell B]

For the sake of an interesting conversation:

Interesting like a nail in the head.

If you can make the claim that we experience reality, then you should be able to assert that reality is real. Correct?

Here is the problem, Perhaps. You are making a different argument than acke. He is saying you must believe it. He makes absolutely no allowances for people whose thought processes are different. Furthermore, even your argument is fucked up in that you would have to take experiences for reality for that argument to work. Some people experience reality and know they are experiencing reality, but do not think of it as real. You also have to define "reality." Are we talking about perceived reality or what is really real? That's an important distinction, given the schism between really real and perceived apparent in this thread.

From this you are then able to say that if reality is real because I experienced it, what allowed me to experience it?

That's not how his argument went. We're at a standstill again.

---

[Edit] Shell, I don't think you need to be as harsh with him as you are being. Its a simple argument, it shouldn't include the person's character.

Fuck you. Read everything that he wrote in here. I am treating him with the same disdain he is treating others. I just happen to use language that crybabies don't like. Grow up. Swears are words, so are condescending attitudes that exclude swears.

[amkerman]

and yes. you MUST believe things. simply by being aware of something you are forced to form beliefs about it.

[Shell B]

man shellygirl, it's like I'm talking to a spolied 3 year old.

Really? Spoiled three-year-olds have better grammar, spelling and vocabulary than you do?

If I said, "To believe the sun rises in the east you must believe in the 'sun'" you would tell me I'm wrong.

Your analogy sucks. If you said, "If you believe in the sun, you must believe in god." I would say, "Prove it." That is much more like what is happening here.

You're really grasping at straws now.
it's like logic is an affront to your existence.

Says the guy who is making claims and then saying he is not making claims to avoid having to prove those claims.

---

and yes. you MUST believe things. simply by being aware of something you are forced to form beliefs about it.

No, it does not. "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. " Give me proof. You keep your belief bullshit.

[amkerman]

I'm beginning to doubt you finished high school.

[Anomalocaris]

man shellygirl, it's like I'm talking to a spolied 3 year old.

Really? Spoiled three-year-olds have better grammar, spelling and vocabulary than you do?

If I said, "To believe the sun rises in the east you must believe in the 'sun'" you would tell me I'm wrong.

Your analogy sucks. If you said, "If you believe in the sun, you must believe in god." I would say, "Prove it." That is much more like what is happening here.

You're really grasping at straws now.
it's like logic is an affront to your existence.

Says the guy who is making claims and then saying he is not making claims to avoid having to prove those claims.

---

and yes. you MUST believe things. simply by being aware of something you are forced to form beliefs about it.

No, it does not. "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. " Give me proof. You keep your belief bullshit.

I don't think there is any point to talking to someone who would neither change his mind nor change the subject.

He is the archetype of the idiot fanatic.

It's hard to imagine some one more idiotic than Statler until one meets the like of this moron. Unlike statler, he is not smart enough to even attempt to camoflag his idiocy.

[frankiej]

I'm beginning to doubt you finished high school.

I'm beginning to doubt whether you can even clothe yourself... No need to get offensive

[Perhaps]

Interesting like a nail in the head.

If you don't appreciate the conversation then you don't have to take part in it. And it would most likely benefit the conversation to not be restricted by those who completely disagree with its usefulness. I love hearing other's opinions and absorbing them while comparing them with prior opinions, but others do not. No one forces anyone to take part in discussions.

If you can make the claim that we experience reality, then you should be able to assert that reality is real. Correct?

Here is the problem, Perhaps. You are making a different argument than acke. He is saying you must believe it. He makes absolutely no allowances for people whose thought processes are different. Furthermore, even your argument is fucked up in that you would have to take experiences for reality for that argument to work. Some people experience reality and know they are experiencing reality, but do not think of it as real. You also have to define "reality." Are we talking about perceived reality or what is really real? That's an important distinction, given the schism between really real and perceived apparent in this thread.

I was simply using the prerequisites for realness that you provided:

1. That because you think it, other people must.
2. Experience=reality.
3. That reality requires anything as silly as a belief in it.
4. That's what real is not real unless you are experiencing it.

I define reality the way it is defined in the dictionary, if that is allowable in this discussion.

Reality: 1. The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: "he refuses to face reality".

From this I would say that we are discussing 'real' reality. The only way, which we know of, to verify the realness of something is by consciousness. From there we can continue with my previous statement.

From this you are then able to say that if reality is real because I experienced it, what allowed me to experience it?

That's not how his argument went. We're at a standstill again.

But this is how the argument went. You told him that he needed to explain the 'therefore' which is what I'm attempting to do. Unless I'm mistaken?

[Edit] Shell, I don't think you need to be as harsh with him as you are being. Its a simple argument, it shouldn't include the person's character.

Fuck you. Read everything that he wrote in here. I am treating him with the same disdain he is treating others. I just happen to use language that crybabies don't like. Grow up. Swears are words, so are condescending attitudes that exclude swears.

Perhaps.

[reverendjeremiah]

Everyone else: willful ignorance.

If I didnt know better, I would think you were saying "Fuck You" to all the members of the forum.

Best be careful, some of the mods here dont like when n00bs post the way you just did.

[Shell B]

Perhaps, you took my statement out of context. Those weren't prerequisites for reality, ya knucklehead.