Author Topic: Jason lisle vs solipsism  (Read 2033 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12236
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2013, 03:52:37 AM »
"Worldview" is such a broad term that pretty much anything can fit into it.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2013, 04:05:51 AM »
Still talking nonsense I see, since you haven't read Kant's refutation of idealism, have you? Still waiting for you to go do your philosophy homework. [tick, tock, tick, tock]

If only it was as simple as that. I think this opens up a minefield, such as Kant's own transcendental idealism, the "hard problem" and even last thursdayism (the omphalos hypothesis).
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2013, 11:47:54 AM »
but what do you guys think of Lisle's "proof" though? is it as bad as i think it is

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2013, 01:30:24 PM »
Try to, and I will say – “But your “proof” presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a proof when you see it. So it fails.”

This is false. There is no "presuppose" required at all. One can be doing a test each time (and no presupposing or precommiting), we win. Second, one cannot prove a universal aposteriori negative and there is no requirement to "prove with absolute certainty" (b/c that is a red-herring) that our minds are not mistaken, confused, etc. The term absolute certainty is nonsense and thus presuppositional apologetics (stemming from Bahnsen who I studied under and advocated for years) is false.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Ask me to prove my claim and I will say: “But prove to me your mind is not addled, then, Doctor”. Which you won’t be able to, for the above reason. I might then add, with a flourish – “So you see, my claim is proved by the impossibility of the contrary”.

All you've pointed to here is an attempt to make an empass - "You can't 'prove to me' and I can't 'prove to you'". But all this does is mean that we should discuss your standard of evidence - why you think it's valid, whether or not it is cogent to our current phenomenological experiences, and whether it is consistently applied. For this, you might need to go do your philosophy homework first.

And of course I have a good explanation for why your brain is addled,Dr.Lisle – you were hit on the head by a rock.

How do you "know" he was hit on the head with a rock? Please prove it. You won't escape the solipsism you got yourself into by arbitrarily positing a deity, sorry. FAIL.

Second, being hit on the head with a rock does not, in itself, demonstrate that someones mental faculties are impaired. Of course, you still have the same problem as before. Your mind could be failing you into thinking he was hit on the head with a rock and is "addled". FAIL.

your “proof” presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a proof when you see it.

Even if I agreed for the sake of argument (which I don't), a 'supposition' (to think about something for the purpose of testing) demonstrates that there is what we call 'thinking' going on. That is all that is needed. Read Kant's refutation of idealism.


So it fails.So you see, my claim is proved by the impossibility of the contrary

You haven't shown that there is a true dichotomy. You haven't shown that 'the contrary' is logically impossible (even if there is a true dichotomy) and pretending that you have proved something merely by making an arbitrary assertion (which is so common to the superstitious mindset) gets you nowhere.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 01:32:50 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2013, 03:11:19 PM »
incase you haven realised it yet this is just a variation of a bizzare arguement Lisle gave, he said if evolution was true you cant know if your senses are just reactions in a puddle, this arguement was based on one found in the blog of philosopher Stephen Law, and it was used to force lisle to reflect on his nonsensical arguement

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2013, 03:52:16 PM »
Indeed.  Any evidence-based "proofs" against solipsism can be justified in an ad-hoc manner as being part one's solipsistic illusions.

Does this not make solipsism unfalsifiable, and thus untrue?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline wigglytuff

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Darwins +0/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2013, 04:58:38 PM »
yeah, but i think that was mentioned to lisle but he just kinda ignorned it

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2013, 05:28:52 PM »
You will need to find independent justification for such claims if your argument is to avoid the fallacy of begging the question.

There is no independent justification for someone deep in the throws of solipsism. As far as new ideas go...I come up with them all the fucking time...after further research I always discover that someone else has already beaten me to it.

New information?

For the solipsist, there is no such thing...it's all just a matter of remembering what you have already known. It's all been said and done before. Existence is on an infinite playback loop with one actor playing all the parts and one viewer...and they are all you.

ex uno plures



I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2013, 05:45:28 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

Who and where?

If you say Richard Dawkins, I'll laugh, because while he's a strong voice of the atheist community he's no evangelist, he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I've heard of these "atheist churches" but mysteriously I can never find where they're at, maybe you can enlighten me.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12026
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2013, 05:49:15 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

Who and where?

If you say Richard Dawkins, I'll laugh, because while he's a strong voice of the atheist community he's no evangelist, he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I've heard of these "atheist churches" but mysteriously I can never find where they're at, maybe you can enlighten me.

There's one in England, it was all over the news a few months back, topics on it here, somewhere.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2013, 05:50:27 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

Who and where?

If you say Richard Dawkins, I'll laugh, because while he's a strong voice of the atheist community he's no evangelist, he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I've heard of these "atheist churches" but mysteriously I can never find where they're at, maybe you can enlighten me.

There's one in England, it was all over the news a few months, topics on it here, somewhere.

-Nam

I heard about that one, but mysteriously I couldn't find it's exact location, no address or anything was ever provided.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2013, 05:54:27 PM »

I heard about that one, but mysteriously I couldn't find it's exact location, no address or anything was ever provided.

Maybe you could start here.

http://sundayassembly.com/
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12026
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2013, 05:55:10 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

Who and where?

If you say Richard Dawkins, I'll laugh, because while he's a strong voice of the atheist community he's no evangelist, he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I've heard of these "atheist churches" but mysteriously I can never find where they're at, maybe you can enlighten me.

There's one in England, it was all over the news a few months, topics on it here, somewhere.

-Nam

I heard about that one, but mysteriously I couldn't find it's exact location, no address or anything was ever provided.

I believe someone here actually went to it. I don't really remember, you should look for the topics. That's what "Search" is for.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2013, 05:58:33 PM »

Of course, atheism is not a worldview. It has no tenants or dogmas.

Perhaps not. But it does have evangelists.

Edit to add: it has churches now also.

Who and where?

If you say Richard Dawkins, I'll laugh, because while he's a strong voice of the atheist community he's no evangelist, he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I've heard of these "atheist churches" but mysteriously I can never find where they're at, maybe you can enlighten me.

I see others have assisted you to locate the atheist churches. As for evangelists, see below:

He has a great new book out:


The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2013, 06:06:04 PM »


he'd live and let live if people would stop trying to push their religious agendas into government policy.

I am fairly confident that almost every single human being on this planet would "live and let live" if everyone else just thought about things the same way as we ourselves do.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2013, 06:11:33 PM »
I see others have assisted you to locate the atheist churches. As for evangelists, see below [referencing Peter Boghossians book]:

You haven't even read the book, have you? Way to go judging a book by its cover there smart guy!!!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2013, 06:16:07 PM »
"A manual for creating atheists". Gee, what might this book be about? Perhaps its a book encouraging people to not try and convince people to become atheists. Maybe. Hmmmm.

The summary from the amazon page:

For thousands of years, the faithful have honed proselytizing strategies and talked people into believing the truth of one holy book or another. Indeed, the faithful often view converting others as an obligation of their faith--and are trained from an early age to spread their unique brand of religion. The result is a world broken in large part by unquestioned faith. As an urgently needed counter to this tried-and-true tradition of religious evangelism, A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason

A book of atheist evangelism. Do you disagree?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 06:19:45 PM by magicmiles »
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2013, 06:17:00 PM »
"A manual for creating atheists". Gee, what might this book be about? Perhaps its a book encouraging people to not try and convince people to become atheists. Maybe. Hmmmm.

Classic judging a book by it's cover - typical of your MO.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2013, 06:21:09 PM »
"A manual for creating atheists". Gee, what might this book be about? Perhaps its a book encouraging people to not try and convince people to become atheists. Maybe. Hmmmm.

Classic judging a book by it's cover - typical of your MO.

I haven't read "Spot goes to the park" either, but I would be confident that it is about Spot going to the park.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2013, 06:26:31 PM »
"A manual for creating atheists". Gee, what might this book be about? Perhaps its a book encouraging people to not try and convince people to become atheists. Maybe. Hmmmm.

Classic judging a book by it's cover - typical of your MO.

I haven't read "Spot goes to the park" either, but I would be confident that it is about Spot going to the park.

Classic rationalization for judging a book by it's cover. Your "confidence" is based in your irrational assumptions. FAIL.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2013, 06:28:26 PM »
Judging by the book title, and the summary...what would you consider the book to be primarily concerned with?
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2013, 06:33:50 PM »
Judging by the book title, and the summary...what would you consider the book to be primarily concerned with?

I'm going to let you go ahead and answer that one (after you've read it) since you seem to be so knowledgeable about 1)a book you have not read and 2) a position of which you are so sure about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2013, 06:41:08 PM »
Judging by the book title, and the summary...what would you consider the book to be primarily concerned with?

I'm going to let you go ahead and answer that one (after you've read it) since you seem to be so knowledgeable about 1)a book you have not read and 2) a position of which you are so sure about.

You're really something. You link to a book with a title and plot summary that clearly demonstrates the book to be about evangelising for the cause of atheism. Then, when someone points this out as an example of atheist evangelism, you start jumping up and down crying about how irrational it is to make an assumption on the books contents.

When asked to discuss how this assumption might be irratioanl or flawed, you retreat into your world of dodge. You have no credibility with me.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2013, 06:46:45 PM »
Judging by the book title, and the summary...what would you consider the book to be primarily concerned with?

What a box you must live in. You make assumptions, then when you're called out on them you regress to logical fallacies. Then you make further assumptions (thinking if someone doesn't answer you in exactly the way YOU WANT, you assume they are "dodging"), then you pout, press the button, and shout (as if you're in some popularity contest).

"Yes, show me that love of Jesus. I can feel his love from you!" pschhhh...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline neopagan

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1161
  • Darwins +86/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2013, 06:52:43 PM »
Just a side note...
I'm reading A Manual for Creating Atheists now - probably not even half way through it.  I think the title is probably intentionally a bit misleading, in that it was chosen to stir up some controversy (and assumptions) and has done that. 
If xian hell really exists, the stench of the burning billions of us should be a constant, putrid reminder to the handful of heavenward xians how loving your god is.  - neopagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2013, 06:54:59 PM »

You're really something. You link to a book with a title and plot summary that clearly demonstrates the book to be about evangelising for the cause of atheism. Then, when someone points this out as an example of atheist evangelism, you start jumping up and down crying about how irrational it is to make an assumption on the books contents.

When asked to discuss how this assumption might be irratioanl or flawed, you retreat into your world of dodge. You have no credibility with me.


You haven't had any credibility with me for a long time, since you seem to be more interested in tangents, off-topic discussions, making assumptions, and a having a pop contest instead of being forthcoming or intellectually honest. The crying is all yours Mr. middle school gossip with a whistle. Next time maybe consider not assuming you're being dodged, instead maybe think..."WWJD?"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2013, 06:55:02 PM »
Judging by the book title, and the summary...what would you consider the book to be primarily concerned with?

What a box you must live in. You make assumptions, then when you're called out on them you regress to logical fallacies. Then you make further assumptions (thinking if someone doesn't answer you in exactly the way YOU WANT, you assume they are "dodging"), then you pout, press the button, and shout (as if you're in some popularity contest).

"Yes, show me that love of Jesus. I can feel his love from you!" pschhhh...

More dodge. Conveniently fails to discuss why it is irrational to assume that a book with the title : "A manual for creating atheists"  and plot summary which states that the book contains methods atheists can use to create atheists.....is a book about atheist evangelism.

Do you want to explain why it is irrational? You have made the accusation...can you back it up with anything other than bluster?

You claim (as always) that I am looking for a specific answer......um, no. Just any answer will do. Why is my assumption irrational?
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2668
  • Darwins +76/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2013, 06:57:22 PM »
Median,


Is the book about something other than how to become an atheist? I am confused because the title and the summary do seem to indicate that this book might be a guide on how to shed one's concept of God.

So...what the fuck is the book about...since Magicmiles got it so very very wrong?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2013, 07:06:52 PM »
Just a side note...
I'm reading A Manual for Creating Atheists now - probably not even half way through it.  I think the title is probably intentionally a bit misleading, in that it was chosen to stir up some controversy (and assumptions) and has done that.

That's a slightly vague and unhelpful comment, in the context of what Median accuses me of. You have read some of the book: can you enlighten us as to whether the book is about techniques and strategies to convince theists to abandon belief?
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.