Back to the beginning: the cave

[Foxaèr]

If you're not familiar with Plato and his Allegory of the Cave, then by all means, read up.

I remember discussing this in philosophy class, and my atheism reinforced the argument I made.

The shadows on the wall are the theists reality. When the theists escape the cave at the behest of another, they are so blinded by the light of truth outside of the cave, because they have spent so much time in the darkness of the theistic cave, that they are shocked by reality.

Within this allegory actually exists the recipe for cognitive dissonance, for the human condition tends to bind us when we are confronted with the truth of reality. Prisoners of faith cannot free themselves from their chains, even if one of their own flock shows them the way.

Those who are too confused and incapable of accepting reality tend to return to the safety of the cave; i.e., religious faith.

Only the one who personally accepts the journey toward reality can realize the truth for himself.

Discuss.

[purplepurpose]

It's really hard to torture your mind for a few decades in the name of invisible heavenly currency. It's much easier to let go of such mind torture. Theists reality is a legitimized slavery and that's one of the most mind f**** things there are.

[Foxaèr]

Did some editing of the original post.

[robvalue]

I agree, theists are trapped in a cave of sorts. Some more than others.

Escaping that cave still leaves us in a larger cave, one from which I can never see any way out. We can't directly experience reality, because any information we get must go through at least one filter, most likely several, before we can interpret it. At most we can model our observations of reality as accurately as possible.

[Foxaèr]

I agree, theists are trapped in a cave of sorts. Some more than others.

Escaping that cave still leaves us in a larger cave, one from which I can never see any way out. We can't directly experience reality, because any information we get must go through at least one filter, most likely several, before we can interpret it. At most we can model our observations of reality as accurately as possible.

I disagree.

Of what filters can you adequately describe?

[robvalue]

Our senses pick up information, convert it into electrical impulses, which then get sent to our brain, which analyses it and produces our experiences. So our experience is twice removed from the initial information. We'd have exactly the same experience from a fake source which could replicate those initial impulses. We couldn't tell the difference.

[Foxaèr]

Our senses pick up information, convert it into electrical impulses, which then get sent to our brain, which analyses it and produces our experiences. So our experience is twice removed from the initial information. We'd have exactly the same experience from a fake source which could replicate those initial impulses. We couldn't tell the difference.

You've certainly provided some words, but nothing concrete. Try harder.

[robvalue]

Our senses pick up information, convert it into electrical impulses, which then get sent to our brain, which analyses it and produces our experiences. So our experience is twice removed from the initial information. We'd have exactly the same experience from a fake source which could replicate those initial impulses. We couldn't tell the difference.

You've certainly provided some words, but nothing concrete.  Try harder.

What constitutes concrete, in your estimation?

[Foxaèr]

What constitutes concrete, in your estimation?

Something that doesn't resemble word salad. Sorry, but even we atheists are not free from it's green grasp.

What I want is an example: concrete means providing a proper example.

[robvalue]

I gave what I believe to be a very accurate and scientifically defensible model of how our brains end up producing our experiences. I don't know what else to tell you, so I'll leave it there.