3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[Jackalope]

You've already told me that I can't articulate why before asking. Null question.

So you agree that premise 2 is valid, as you have nothing to back up your assertions. Thanks for playing.

Fucking troll.

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

[fr0d0]

Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.

More from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an accessible and unbiased source that we can both use in my opinion rumpy. The above statement is particularly damming of your assertion.

I'm not saying that the viewpoint, seemingly widely held by atheists, is not without some merit. I do find it to be very weak though.

[Rampant.A.I.]

So you agree that premise 2 is valid, as you have nothing to back up your assertions. Thanks for playing.

Fucking troll.

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

If I am a product of your mind, the empirical verification still informs me of that which is useful to describe and perform effectively in the reality of that illusion. If it is illusory, there is no functional difference, as it continues to be the reality I inhabit in that scenario.

You're effectively asking me to prove a negative. I have no empirical reason to suspect that I am an illusion within a solipsistic mind, and should empirically prove that is not the case.

Even if that were true, how would that change the laws of reality as I experience them?

Would what I observed to be in accordance with my reality no longer be true? From whose perspective, mine, or an outside observer's?

Are you telling me you believe absolutes, such as absolute truth exist objectively?

[Jackalope]

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

If I am a product of your mind, the empirical verification still informs me of that which is useful to describe and perform effectively in the reality of that illusion. If it is illusory, there is no functional difference, as it continues to be the reality I inhabit in that scenario.

There is no functional difference *to you*, but yet in that scenario, your functional reality has a feature "other minds exists" that in reality is not true (were that to be the case) - and so, in that case, empiricism has led you to a conclusion which is false.

You're effectively asking me to prove a negative.

No. I'm asking you to prove that your consciousness is actually extant in the same reality as mine, which makes it necessary for you to examine and eliminate the alternatives. Yes, I'm invoking solipsism - which we eliminate not because we can prove that it is not so, but because it is not a useful position that we can derive knowledge from.

I have no empirical reason to suspect that I am an illusion within a solipsistic mind, and should empirically prove that is not the case.

No, no, no. Prove it to *me*, using only empiricism. I have no doubt that you're sufficiently convinced.

Are you telling me you believe absolutes, such as absolute truth exist objectively?

I most certainly do not. I'm merely suggesting that there are elements of our perceived reality that are not within the realm of empiricism (such as other minds), nor are they necessarily sharable in any real way.

Don't get me wrong, empiricism is an extremely useful tool to discover facts about reality. It isn't without limits, however - and to suggest that it's the *only* way to know anything is an overreach, in my opinion.

[Mystic]

So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

I would answer yes, truth matters to me a lot, but I don't think evidence is the only way you can come to know truths. One example is how we believe in morals. Our belief in morals doesn't come from evidence.

That said, I see belief in God much like belief in value or morality or worth.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

Great questions. Thanks for sharing them.

[GrandizerII]

So you agree that premise 2 is valid, as you have nothing to back up your assertions. Thanks for playing.

Fucking troll.

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

I observe that Rampant.A.I. is an individual who posts and makes responses to others in this forum. Every other individual I observe here (including you) confirms this observation by treating him as if he is an individual in his own right posting in this forum.

Ok, disregarding the extra questions that come with the online nature of the Internet (such as whether or not some poster here or there is actually a bot), I argue that the observation above is empirical evidence. And as such evidence has yet to be falsified, then I have established empirically that Rampant.A.I. is an individual in his own right and not a figment of your imagination.

[Jackalope]

I don't think premise 2 is universally the case, either.

Are you a conscious, sapient being, or are you a convincing illusion of same? Or are you a product of my own mind?

Prove it empirically.

I observe that Rampant.A.I. is an individual who posts and makes responses to others in this forum. Every other individual I observe here (including you) confirms this observation by treating him as if he is an individual in his own right posting in this forum.

Ok, disregarding the extra questions that come with the online nature of the Internet (such as whether or not some poster here or there is actually a bot), I argue that the observation above is empirical evidence. And as such evidence has yet to be falsified, then I have established empirically that Rampant.A.I. is an individual in his own right and not a figment of your imagination.

How does that distinguish him from a sophisticated automaton that emulates consciousness, but does not possess it. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Before you argue that such things do not exist, how would you determine this empirically?

[Rampant.A.I.]

If I am a product of your mind, the empirical verification still informs me of that which is useful to describe and perform effectively in the reality of that illusion. If it is illusory, there is no functional difference, as it continues to be the reality I inhabit in that scenario.

There is no functional difference *to you*, but yet in that scenario, your functional reality has a feature "other minds exists" that in reality is not true (were that to be the case) - and so, in that case, empiricism has led you to a conclusion which is false.

From whose perspective? The hypothetical solipsistic mind you've failed to demonstrate exists?

Funny how conveniently you allow for special pleading of that premise, yet reject other premises requiring special pleading as unconvincing, isn't it.

You're effectively asking me to prove a negative.

No. I'm asking you to prove that your consciousness is actually extant in the same reality as mine, which makes it necessary for you to examine and eliminate the alternatives. Yes, I'm invoking solipsism - which we eliminate not because we can prove that it is not so, but because it is not a useful position that we can derive knowledge from.

I have no empirical reason to suspect that I am an illusion within a solipsistic mind, and should empirically prove that is not the case.

No, no, no. Prove it to *me*, using only empiricism. I have no doubt that you're sufficiently convinced.

1.

solipsism - which we eliminate not because we can prove that it is not so, but because it is not a useful position that we can derive knowledge from.

knowl·edge
ˈnälij/
noun
1.
facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
"a thirst for knowledge"
synonyms: understanding, comprehension, grasp, command, mastery; More
learning, erudition, education, scholarship, schooling, wisdom
familiarity with, acquaintance with, intimacy with
information, facts, intelligence, news, reports, hot tip;
informalinfo, (the) lowdown
antonyms: ignorance, illiteracy
what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.
"the transmission of knowledge"
PHILOSOPHY
true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.

Does universally useless knowledge exist? If so, what would it consist of? Can you justify a belief in a solipsistic mind?

2. Prove you aren't an alien hybrid bomb programmed with memories of your childhood. If you cannot, you must walk into oncoming traffic to prevent the presidential assassination plot that will plunge the world into a nuclear holocaust

You have been programmed to ignore empirical evidence that would reveal the truth of your hybrid alien bomb nature by a reanimated cyborg clone of Philip K. Dick.

Prove this conjecture is wrong using empirical evidence.

Are you telling me you believe absolutes, such as absolute truth exist objectively?

I most certainly do not. I'm merely suggesting that there are elements of our perceived reality that are not within the realm of empiricism (such as other minds), nor are they necessarily sharable in any real way.

Don't get me wrong, empiricism is an extremely useful tool to discover facts about reality. It isn't without limits, however - and to suggest that it's the *only* way to know anything is an overreach, in my opinion.

So you do not believe in absolutes, yet also believe absolute truth about reality exists, and that absolute reality exists independent of minds that order experiences into a cohesive experience we designate reality?

Can you demonstrate how you came to this knowledge?

[Jackalope]

Here's your problem, Rampant, and the point you are missing. You say, rightfully so, that you have no empirical evidence to suggest condition X. I don't disagree with that. What I do disagree with is the notion that you can then conclude not-X, not without justifying that empiricism is sufficient to observe all of reality. It's an assumption (and one that I operate under the assumption of), but that assertion is not in itself provable empirically - it's an *assumption of empiricism*.

Empiricism is restricted to what we can detect, directly or indirectly, with our senses. How can you possibly know that (using only empirical processes) without asserting some unprovable axiom?