3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[Bob Kelso]

There's nothing wrong with empiricism. The fault lies with thinking that it alone constitutes the only method of gaining knowledge. Empiricism breaks at that point , and becomes contradictory.

Please describe the other way to gain knowledge, as well as at what point and in what way the empirical process becomes contradictory.

I, like anyone else, gain the majority of my knowledge from empiricism. Empiricism is our very basic interaction with our physical world, interpreted by our brains. It's the simplest thing to prove. . It doesn't account for deduction, intuition and innate knowledge

Care to elaborate? How are you using deduction here? Deduction as I know it is the process of reaching a conclusion by reference to general laws and principles. What do you mean by intuition? The instance where something can be understood by common sense or intellect alone, with no real need for critical thinking? Please define what you mean when you use "innate knowledge".

Empiricism is the opposite of rationalism.

Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. Perhaps you're in your alter ego state, the infamous Trollo Baggins.

By rationalism we know thorough knowledge. Through empiricism we know through experience. A balanced and thorough view uses both.

[archangle]

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?

no ... your number 3 is stupid. You clearly should not be offering an opinion either way. And stay away from small children

[fr0d0]

The instance where something can be understood by common sense or intellect alone, with no real need for critical thinking?

I think there is no hope for you if you don't think this is contradictory.

If you do see that it's contradictory, then all of your questions are answered.

Exactly how do you think critically without using your intellect? I'm intrigued.

---

Empiricism is the opposite of rationalism.

Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. Perhaps you're in your alter ego state, the infamous Trollo Baggins.

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws...gws_rd=ssl

[Bob Kelso]

The instance where something can be understood by common sense or intellect alone, with no real need for critical thinking?

I think there is no hope for you if you don't think this is contradictory.

If you do see that it's contradictory, then all of your questions are answered.

Have you ever noticed how someone with a sharp mind can figure things out without really having to give it a moments thought? That's what I meant. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Exactly how do you think critically without using your intellect? I'm intrigued.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

---

Do you know what these words mean? I don't think you do. Perhaps you're in your alter ego state, the infamous Trollo Baggins.

https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws...gws_rd=ssl

Thanks for the link, I was thinking away from philosophy.

[fr0d0]

Have you ever noticed how someone with a sharp mind can figure things out without really having to give it a moments thought? That's what I meant. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

That's intuition then? Something attributed to rationalism over empiricism.

[GrandizerII]

There's nothing wrong with empiricism. The fault lies with thinking that it alone constitutes the only method of gaining knowledge. Empiricism breaks at that point , and becomes contradictory.

I, like anyone else, gain the majority of my knowledge from empiricism. Empiricism is our very basic interaction with our physical world, interpreted by our brains. It's the simplest thing to prove. It doesn't account for deduction, intuition and innate knowledge.

Empiricism is the opposite of rationalism.

By rationalism we know thorough knowledge. Through empiricism we know through experience.

A balanced and thorough view uses both.

Please provide examples to support your point. This is just rhetoric talk at this point.

[Bob Kelso]

Please provide examples to support your point. This is just rhetoric talk at this point.

That's Frod's MO; rhetoric->nonanswers/focus distraction->[occasional outright trolling]->rhetoric->rinse & repeat.

[Angrboda]

If, based on observations of what they tell me, I can infer that they have subjective experiences similar to my own, and other assessors continually agree upon observing themselves what they have to say, then that's an empirical approach to finding out if they are likely to have similar subjective experiences, or "qualia", to me. And especially in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

Also, concerning brain scans, if the same brain regions light up as my own upon experiencing pain (for example), and we also compared the scans to those corresponding to individuals who report that they don't feel pain, we could come up with fairly decisive conclusion regarding this matter.

Here's a little example. Suppose that when you look at something blue, you experience what I experience when I look at red. However, when you look at red, you experience what I experience when I look at blue. Because the experiences are systematically swapped, you consistently refer to blue as blue, and red as red. Now comes the experiment. How would you demonstrate empirically that your red and blue experiences are different, as opposed to us both having the same color experience when we look at the same color, red or blue. How can you empirically demonstrate one case, experiences swapped, versus the other, both sets of color experiences the same?

[GrandizerII]

Here's a little example. Suppose that when you look at something blue, you experience what I experience when I look at red. However, when you look at red, you experience what I experience when I look at blue. Because the experiences are systematically swapped, you consistently refer to blue as blue, and red as red. Now comes the experiment. How would you demonstrate empirically that your red and blue experiences are different, as opposed to us both having the same color experience when we look at the same color, red or blue. How can you empirically demonstrate one case, experiences swapped, versus the other, both sets of color experiences the same?

If you mean in the absolute sense, I can't. Nobody can. But empiricism is not supposed to be based on absolutes but rather on what's more likely based on the evidence available.

[fr0d0]

Please provide examples to support your point. This is just rhetoric talk at this point.

A rationalist reasons something to be true, where an empiricist tests. A rationalist doesn't need to check if water is wet, an empiricist does.

Empiricism has to work on absolutes. No other information is acceptable apart what can be clearly proven. That's what empiricism is. Rationalism factors in more likely solutions, and can work with subjective information.

Given two possible solutions, the rationalist can consider both to be true, and adopt either, to reach a further conclusion. An empiricist would be restricted to an unresolved first step.

Rationalism is how Christianity works. Given the statement "there is a God", the rationalist can work from the unknowable premise. The empiricist can never do that. The empiricist demands fact first and refuses to entertain conjecture.