We are more like a digital TV with its built-in 'studio'. — Gregory A

Are you saying we our a medium?

Science involves more induction issues the more empirically-laden you make it.

Science involves more induction issues the more empirically-laden you make it. — Shwah

I know Hume's problem, etc. Science is just the least worst thing we seem to have. It makes us fail better. Let's let our theories do our dying for us.

I can understand that position. I would say math that was valid 3000 years ago is still valid today without any losee of truth.

Once again atheism trying to shove its leftist agenda down people's throats. Y
— Gregory A
— Tom Storm

You seem to enjoy a phobic anti-atheist rant. Good for you! However, many atheists are conservatives. Some are fairly right wing. Ayn Rand was an atheist. Libertarians tend to be atheists. Many atheists are arseholes. They are not really a team. Some atheists believe in ghosts and astrology. The only thing they have in common is the lack of a particular belief. To say that atheists are all far left social engineers is to engage in a conspiracy theory. Many people like these conspiracy theories as they make it easier not to think.

Atheism, another head of the Hydra that is the Left, should be feared. My counter-attacks are needed to prolong my right to exist as a conservative. There are left and right elements to Christianity, but generally theism itself is on the right, conservatives.

The worst bloodlettings in history have been carried out by atheist regimes,
— Gregory A

Superficially true. But these regimes did not kill for the 'glory of atheism' the way The Inquisition, The Crusades, the Witch Trials, Putin, Islamic State, Isis, etc, killed or kill 'for the glory of God'. They killed as part of a cult of personality and in the name of political fanaticism and nationalism. I would agree that political fanaticism is as bad as religious fanaticism. But I wouldn't include Nazi's - they had the Catholic church and the sermons of Martin Luther to back up their thinking and the slogan, 'Gott Mit Uns' - 'God is with us' was very important in Nazi lore and old German nationalism. — Tom Storm

True in the fundamental sense. Their status as atheists (godless) allowing them to kill regardless of being conscious of any philosophical value. Atheists hypocritically raise these points, fought and enforced in the name of God only, but otherwise not in compliance with either Christianity or Islam. And still not anywhere near the number of dead at the hands of those who were atheists at the time of these events. The American Civil War, another bloodbath, perpetrated by the Left, their atheist leader Abraham Lincoln.

An analog TV receives and displays signals on a direct one-to-one basis. A digital TV takes in code and builds from that picture & sound. We are more like the latter. Our brain is like a studio where things are put together allowing our conscious minds understanding of what may be in effect (and partly) a simulated reality.

What about the denial of Bigfoot, ghosts, or aliens? Can one logically deny those? — Hanover

Hah! Good one. I guess the statement "There are no bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens" could logically trip you off. But in fiction, we could be at liberty to talk about them. So, the proper way to deflect this type of inquiry is, bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens exist in fiction.

If each human you meet, confirms to you (if you ask them) that in their opinion, humans dream, then that is proof enough. — universeness

So anecdotal account can serve as proof. What if every human you meet confirms to you that god exists, would you accept that as proof of god?

Yeah that's what I do. I like that approach. I see no other way than to talk about them as they are.

In the USA, I don't see the silencing of theists or really any kind of supernatural theorists. You can even believe that extraterrestrial reptiles who eat children run the world and they won't lock you up. You can blog about the flatness of the earth as you fly around the globe. As far as I can tell, religious folks are often resentful of the intellectual minority who dare to challenge or mock not silence such theories. — lll

Richard Dawkin's crusades include the USA. There are prominent atheists there too. The right of free speech should preclude anyone from being locked up for what they believe, and for the expresion of those beliefs too. The atheist's challenge is not to 'put up' but is to put up or shut up. It is an attempt at censorship. Atheism is not to be aware of ethics afterall.

By the same token, can you proof to me that you are awake and not dreaming? — EugeneW

Why would you ask that? Is that even intellectually honest? That's the thing -- this is not about JTB. This is about requiring someone to produce proof of his or her belief in god. What utter nonsense!

Why would you ask that? — L'éléphant

Because you can't show that either.

This is about requiring someone to product proof of his or her belief in god. — L'éléphant

The existence of the universe is proof of gods.

Atheism is not to be aware of ethics afterall. — Gregory A

Why is that?

The existence of the universe is proof of gods. — EugeneW

You know you can make a case about that. If physicists can make a case about the big bang by pointing to things present in our universe, you could also do the same with god. They call those things evidence that the big bang happened -- but mind you, those evidence could also be present without the big bang happening. It's not if and only if those things exists, that big bang happened.

Hah! Good one. I guess the statement "There are no bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens" could logically trip you off. But in fiction, we could be at liberty to talk about them. So, the proper way to deflect this type of inquiry is, bigfoot, ghosts, and aliens exist in fiction. — L'éléphant

So atheism is logical as long as God is fictional ? Isn't that exactly what atheists say?

No your objection doesn't work because you still have to speak of them all as existing.

It's weird how atheists slobber for that finish line sometimes.

No your objection doesn't work because you still have to speak of them all as existing. — Shwah

Nouns, even proper nouns, needn't have referents to have meaning. "The king of France doesn't exist" is a meaningful proposition despite the non-existence of a king of France.

Your argument that the very declaration that God doesn't exist somehow bootstraps him into existence because logic dictates every speakable noun have an empirical referent is absurd. I can't speak aberjobbies into existence.

I'm a theist, by the way. There are atheists too. I can't deny their existence because I've actually seen them. I'd be hard pressed to claim I know there is a god more than I know there are atheists.

That's the whole point. You don't need an *empirical* reference but you do need some reference otherwise it's a meaningless non-proposition.

No walk back on my part. You just can't respond intelligently to what I actually wrote. Adios.

"Intelligently" is a goofy term with no real reference and is really non-propositional.

That's the whole point. You don't need an *empirical* reference but you do need some reference otherwise it's a meaningless non-proposition. — Shwah

No, it' is a proposition and it has meaning and it has no referent whatsoever.

If it has no reference then how can you predicate anything about it? It needs something to build off of. For instance the queen of england has a material reference where the queen of france has one as well but in the past etc. In any case the queen is the object which is more accurately understood through predications.

Genius, "intelligently" is an adverb. :roll:

it has no reference then how can you predicate anything about it? It needs something to build off of. For instance the queen of england has a material reference where the queen of france has one as well but in the past etc. In any case the queen is the object which is more accurately understood through predications. — Shwah

"I am the king of America" is a meaningful proposition. It has a truth value, and it is false. "King of America" has no referent. "I am the king of Canada" is similarly a false proposition, but it is distinct in meaning from the first proposition, meaning "king of America" and "king of Canada" have different meanings, despite neither having a referent.

Science is just the least worst thing we seem to have. It makes us fail better. Let's let our theories do our dying for us. — lll

:up:

Your argument that the very declaration that God doesn't exist somehow bootstraps him into existence because logic dictates every speakable noun have an empirical referent is absurd. — Hanover

:clap: Amen, brother!

I said term which includes any part of speech or phrase.

How can you parse the phrase "king of america" without a referent at all? I feel it's necessary to emphasize that the referent does not need to be material but if you don't know what a king is or what america is or what they are when conjoined (a linguistic conception, a monarch of america game simulator) then you can't meaningfully decide whether it's true or not.

said term which includes any part of speech or phrase. — Shwah

Every part of speech has a referent? What about articles, prepositions, verbs, gerunds, etc? Where is the "the", the "about", the "cooking"?