Atheist logic

[Haggis_McMutton]

george carlin: obviously smarter than every theist philosopher that has ever lived

if you mean every theist philosopher who tries to bend backwards to justify the absurdity that is the abrahamic god, then yeah, pretty much.

[Army of GOD]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

[pmchugh]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

[Army of GOD]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

Well there is no "correct" in philosophy anyway.

In logic, there is, but Carlin was hardly attempting to disprove god exists (which is impossible regardless).

[pmchugh]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

Well there is no "correct" in philosophy anyway.

In logic, there is, but Carlin was hardly attempting to disprove god exists (which is impossible regardless).

God exists or he doesn't, regardless of whether he can prove it he would still be correct (or incorrect).

[Haggis_McMutton]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

Well there is no "correct" in philosophy anyway.

In logic, there is, but Carlin was hardly attempting to disprove god exists (which is impossible regardless).

God exists or he doesn't, regardless of whether he can prove it he would still be correct (or incorrect).

what if it's undecidable wether god exists or not?

:trollface:

[Army of GOD]

>wether

[Haggis_McMutton]

Definition of WETHER
: a male sheep castrated before sexual maturity; also : a castrated male goat

Problem?

[Army of GOD]

CURRENT STATUS OF JIMMIES:
[  ] Rustled
[x] Unrustled

[2dimes]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

Well there is no "correct" in philosophy anyway.

In logic, there is, but Carlin was hardly attempting to disprove god exists (which is impossible regardless).

God exists or he doesn't, regardless of whether he can prove it he would still be correct (or incorrect).

what if it's undecidable wether god exists or not?

:trollface:

The fact that you cannot know if I am eating while typing this is not a factor in whether or not I am.

[2dimes]

Also,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

[Haggis_McMutton]

The fact that you cannot know if I am eating while typing this is not a factor in whether or not I am.

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

If, however, a question is completely unknowable. I.E. let's say we can PROVE that it is impossible to answer that question, then does it really make sense to say an answer exists?
From our point of view it doesn't exist anyway.

[2dimes]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

If, however, a question is completely unknowable. I.E. let's say we can PROVE that it is impossible to answer that question, then does it really make sense to say an answer exists?
From our point of view it doesn't exist anyway.

Fair enough a logical answer does not exist. That still does not affect the outcome.

[Haggis_McMutton]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

If, however, a question is completely unknowable. I.E. let's say we can PROVE that it is impossible to answer that question, then does it really make sense to say an answer exists?
From our point of view it doesn't exist anyway.

Fair enough a logical answer does not exist. That still does not affect the outcome.

My point is, we can only experience the universe subjectively. So called objective reality is just those things where our subjective realities mostly agree.
We pretty much all agree bowling balls are round, so that's considered objectively true. A great number of us disagree on what food tastes best so that one isn't considered objectively true.

I don't believe true "objective reality" exists outside of our perception.
If that is the case then what outcome? Where is the outcome? If it is impossible for us to perceive it, what is the sense in saying there is an outcome?

[nietzsche]

cogito ergo sum

[pmchugh]

But I can theoretically know wether someone is eating when they are posting on CC via any number of methods.

Ok, was I and how do you know?

Dude, there's a difference between something being unanswerable and me not having an answer to something.

If, however, a question is completely unknowable. I.E. let's say we can PROVE that it is impossible to answer that question, then does it really make sense to say an answer exists?
From our point of view it doesn't exist anyway.

Fair enough a logical answer does not exist. That still does not affect the outcome.

My point is, we can only experience the universe subjectively. So called objective reality is just those things where our subjective realities mostly agree.
We pretty much all agree bowling balls are round, so that's considered objectively true. A great number of us disagree on what food tastes best so that one isn't considered objectively true.

I don't believe true "objective reality" exists outside of our perception.
If that is the case then what outcome? Where is the outcome? If it is impossible for us to perceive it, what is the sense in saying there is an outcome?

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

[Haggis_McMutton]

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

Basically I go by "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
So no, I don't see why I should assume some kind of objective reality exists outside of our perceptions.

I have difficulty even understanding the concept of objective reality unless some kind of objective being is assumed(usually god).
What does objective even mean to you as an atheist?

[pmchugh]

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

Basically I go by "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
So no, I don't see why I should assume some kind of objective reality exists outside of our perceptions.

I have difficulty even understanding the concept of objective reality unless some kind of objective being is assumed(usually god).
What does objective even mean to you as an atheist?

I disagree with your self-centered approach to the universe. I don't think I have to know anything for it to be true.

Neit points out the most basic premise of "I think therefore I am" and beyond that I strongly believe there to be other entities. I can't say much for objective reality and I can only talk about it in relative terms, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Why does something have to be observed to be true? If there were no humans (or creatures) would there be nothing? Is there nothing?

The question of whether or not an all-knowing all-powerful being is solely and directly responsible for the creation all other things has an objective answer, because things definitely exist.

[Woodruff]

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

Basically I go by "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
So no, I don't see why I should assume some kind of objective reality exists outside of our perceptions.

I have difficulty even understanding the concept of objective reality unless some kind of objective being is assumed(usually god).
What does objective even mean to you as an atheist?

To me, the term "objective reality" means "what actually is". For instance, we do not yet know all of the inner workings of the universe. Yet, those inner workings are still working, still present, still very real. They are the objective reality, even though we cannot as yet perceive that particular reality.

I tried solipsism for a brief time. It was fantastically boring.

[AAFitz]

Also,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And from Indiana Jones: [You] have chosen...poorly.

In any case for me atheism absolutely is not a choice at all.

I simply can not believe in a God because it makes no logical sense to do so, since there is absolutely no logical, empirical reason to believe there is one. I could however, choose to ignore all reason and choose one of the many constructs of a Creator, or create one for myself, as most seem to do, but have not chosen to do so. I could however just choose to believe as one can choose to believe anything, but conversely, am not choosing to not believe.

[AAFitz]

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

Basically I go by "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
So no, I don't see why I should assume some kind of objective reality exists outside of our perceptions.

I have difficulty even understanding the concept of objective reality unless some kind of objective being is assumed(usually god).
What does objective even mean to you as an atheist?

Well, it is your choice to believe the world only exists how you believe it does, and can choose to ignore all other possibilities regardless of the evidence contrary to it, but that is fairly close to the definition of a delusion.

[Woodruff]

You really don't believe in objective reality? Just because you cannot know something to be true does not mean that it isn't.

Basically I go by "A difference that makes no difference is no difference".
So no, I don't see why I should assume some kind of objective reality exists outside of our perceptions.

I would suggest that it DOES make a significant difference. For if we presume there is no objective reality, what reason is there for science to continue to try to progress? There is nothing to discover, after all.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I disagree with your self-centered approach to the universe. I don't think I have to know anything for it to be true.

But you can't perceive the universe from anything other than a self-centered approach. Every thought, action, notion must by definition come from a self-centered approach.

Neit points out the most basic premise of "I think therefore I am" and beyond that I strongly believe there to be other entities. I can't say much for objective reality and I can only talk about it in relative terms, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Why does something have to be observed to be true? If there were no humans (or creatures) would there be nothing? Is there nothing?

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it doesn't exist, but that, from our perspective, it might as well not exist.

I think there's something. It seems more likely that this is all real rather than it's all an illusion or simulation or something.
However, that is just my subjective evaluation of my perceptions. Perhaps if I took 5 hits of acid it would seem more likely that it is all an illusion. What makes one perspective more correct than another? What makes one more "objective" than another?

The question of whether or not an all-knowing all-powerful being is solely and directly responsible for the creation all other things has an objective answer, because things definitely exist.

Do you think the answer is knowable?

To me, the term "objective reality" means "what actually is". For instance, we do not yet know all of the inner workings of the universe. Yet, those inner workings are still working, still present, still very real. They are the objective reality, even though we cannot as yet perceive that particular reality.

But the inner-working of the universe presumably have measurable detectable effects on us (whether we can currently detect them or not).
What I was saying about undecidability would be akin to proposing there is some universal force that has absolutely no detectable effect on the universe. In what sense can we claim that such a force does or doesn't exist?

Fastposted:
Fitz I do not follow you. What possibilities and evidence am I ignoring?

Fastposted x2:
Woodruff: I don't see the existance of an objective reality as a prerequisite for science. Science is after all just looking for repeatable patterns and simplyfying models in our perceived worlds.
Since science is still done from our self-centered perspective, like any other human undertaking, it seems to me that it still can't touch any so-called "objective truth".
Indeed, science seems to understand the subjective nature of our perspectives and tries to get closer to some kind of objectiveness by declaring that results should be repeatable and empirical. But this only gets closer to a mean of subjective experiences. I see no reason to call the mean of all our subjective experiences as "objectively" true.

[MeDeFe]

Carlin was pretty damn smart.

Not only that but he knew how to teach people his philosophy, by being fucking hilarious. It's ridiculous comparing his intelligence to other famous philosophers (you know, because intelligence is subjective and even so, one doesn't have to be "intelligent" [by popular opinion] to philosophize).

Also, you don't have to be more intelligent to be correct.

Well there is no "correct" in philosophy anyway.

In logic, there is, but Carlin was hardly attempting to disprove god exists (which is impossible regardless).

Dude, philosophers invented logic. Most arguments in philosophy are about whether the premises are correct or not and about whether the conclusion logically follows or not. So stop spouting bullshit.

[2dimes]

Also,

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

And from Indiana Jones: [You] have chosen...poorly.

In any case for me atheism absolutely is not a choice at all.

I simply can not believe in a God because it makes no logical sense to do so, since there is absolutely no logical, empirical reason to believe there is one. I could however, choose to ignore all reason and choose one of the many constructs of a Creator, or create one for myself, as most seem to do, but have not chosen to do so. I could however just choose to believe as one can choose to believe anything, but conversely, am not choosing to not believe.

Well it's the occam's razor or what ever if we want to invoke the Last Crusade quote.

If we die and I killed less people that pissed me off, missed out on partying completly inappropriately for a man my age, then I just cease to be after the last electrical impulses cause my brain to function. I can't spend a moment being angry in regret for not banging as many sluts of all genders potentially catching some STDs and physically harming myself further with substance abuse. Because, Even though I don't miss it, I'm not one of those guys that claims. "I used to party but I hated it and myself. I was only looking for God." I loved getting hammered. I drank lots and loved it big time. Most people told me I was an alcoholic.

Giving myself to Jesus mostly improves the lives of my kids and a bunch of losers that don't deserve me to show mercy towards them. However to God even though by human standards I may be above average. I'm just a loser that does not deserve his mercy.

If on the other hand if I reject God and he ends up being Catholic (I can't imagine but...) I'd get to spend eternity with all the cool bands but the party's over. The only consolation being Satan won't be enjoying tourturing me because he'll be chewing his own tongue too.

Which is the poor choice, miss out on 8-50 years of sex and drugs or miss out on the possability of spending eternity with Yahusua's flock enjoying things that are even better, I can't imagine what God could make that would beat that but I believe he made it and promised something better so I'm kind of excited to find out.

I'm pretty choked at my wife right now but I have really great kids (maybe that's subjective) I'm fat, warm and dry while it rains a cold rain outside the window. I'm in a band, I flew some airplanes this year and had some really great bourbon the other night. My life is blessed. Like I said I don't miss partying even though I know I'd slip right into the routine and love it. Right up to the part where I get killed by some other nasty dude I pissed off.

Do you wonder if there could be a creator?