View this page "Reality"

[rappoccio]

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[Simpleton]

On Mar 6, 8:26 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

Finally!

What took you so long?

[rappoccio]

Bad memory :). It's been done for months LOL.

[Dag Yo]

Regarding your section that says:

"So what we seek to do is to define a practical version of "reality"
that we can describe by some means. To do so, we must make several
assumptions. Those assumptions are:

1) I exist.
2) Others exist.
3) Our mutual experiences are accurately represented."

I don't believe that whether "I exist" is any sort of "assumption" at
all. It is most certainly a self-evident claim. Perhasp that should
be edited a bit.

[Drafterman]

On Mar 6, 11:26 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

Assertion:

rappocio is god.

Proof:

At the top of this page it says "reality was created by rappoccio"

All hail rappoccio!

[Dag Yo]

Brilliant

[Trance Gemini]

LMAO!

Nice one!

[Lawrey]

rapp,'

Having read and digested your paper, I am bound to say that
I'm not too sure where you are going and, or what your intent is.
Therefore I am cautious in committing myself to ridicule by saying
that basing a paper on what Einstein and Hume (1711-1776),
abeit well known and brilliant in their individual fields, is
pandering
to assertions and assumptions made at that time and not
necessarilly relevant now. Do you go along with the following
from Hume:

Hume carried sense empiricism beyond Locke to the extreme,
and, while agreeing with Berkley that matter as something beyond
sensation is an unverifiable inference, he drew the same
conclusion about spirit. In this he ignored entirely Berkley's
recognition of the fundamental difference between knowledge of
the mind itself and what is within the mind. He devoted attention
wholly to the sensory contents of experience, refusing to make
pre-suppositions on whose basis such contents are intelligible.
He reduced all experience to "impressions" of sense and "ideas"
which are the lingering images of them. Recognising that
"impressions" are irreducible to anything more ultimate, he classed
them all as innate in this sense. Hume believed that we did not
perceive our own bodies, but of these, too, we have only sense
impressions. There is no mind, only a succession of perceptions,
a heap or collection of perceptions united by certain relations, and
falsely supposed to be endowed with an underlying "personal
identity." ( From my own interpretation as at "The Philosophy of
One on the Many.) www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk

If we cannot perceive our own bodies as Hume suggests, how
does that effect:

1) I exist.
2) Others exist.
3) Our mutual experiences are accurately represented.

And how do you interpret *I* ?

I suspect this is not what you are getting at though.

Then you treat us to along drawn out trolly about the Matrix and
whether we can trust our own personal subjectivity as an
objective fact. Which in my opinion is just so much guff out-
side of reality and pointless except to point out it's failed
assertions. We then come to the Plane X and Plane U, with
intrusions and the metaphysical. Which to me is another
pointless exercise going nowhere and quite meaningless
and unnecessary,because we only end up with what we
already knew about observation and science's reliance on it.

It's just my opinion but that seems an awful lot of effort
spent to come to the last part and theological assertions of
gods to show Plane U and metaphysical god and heaven
is tantamount to idolatry of the unknowable.

Unless your intent was to give a good critique of the Matrix,
Ok! you succeeded. well done!
A well constructed and thoughtful production.
Take no notice, just a tad beyond me. :)


On Mar 7, 4:26 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

[rappoccio]

I don't always quite buy into the Cogito argument, but yes, in some
sense it's self-evident. I'll think about it and see if I can tighten
the screws.

[rappoccio]

HAHAHAHA! That was great ;)

> All hail rappoccio!

I demand sacrifices of chocolate bunnies. Preferably the big ones. If
you do this, work hard, and have a good job, I promise I'll let you
make a lot of money. :)

[rappoccio]

On Mar 7, 2:02 pm, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> rapp,'
>
> Having read and digested your paper, I am bound to say that
> I'm not too sure where you are going and, or what your intent is.

Mostly it's a rebuttal against those that claim that "Gee, you're not
sure that reality exists, therefore since you assume reality exists, I
can assume a three-in-one creator deity exists and sacrificed himself
to himself and you don't get to make fun of me". On the contrary, that
argument is flaccid as a wet noodle :)

> Therefore I am cautious in committing myself to ridicule by saying
> that basing a paper on what Einstein and Hume (1711-1776),
> abeit well known and brilliant in their individual fields, is
> pandering
> to assertions and assumptions made at that time and not
> necessarilly relevant now.

Yes, the current philosophical train of thought is less in line with
Hume and more in line with a "Bayesian-type" acquisition of knowledge.
This wasn't really intended as an original idea, more of an
explanatory exercise for a book I was considering writing.

> Do you go along with the following
> from Hume:
>
> Hume carried sense empiricism beyond Locke to the extreme,
> and, while agreeing with Berkley that matter as something beyond
> sensation is an unverifiable inference, he drew the same
> conclusion about spirit. In this he ignored entirely Berkley's
> recognition of the fundamental difference between knowledge of
> the mind itself and what is within the mind. He devoted attention
> wholly to the sensory contents of experience, refusing to make
> pre-suppositions on whose basis such contents are intelligible.
> He reduced all experience to "impressions" of sense and "ideas"
> which are the lingering images of them. Recognising that
> "impressions" are irreducible to anything more ultimate, he classed
> them all as innate in this sense. Hume believed that we did not
> perceive our own bodies, but of these, too, we have only sense
> impressions. There is no mind, only a succession of perceptions,
> a heap or collection of perceptions united by certain relations, and
> falsely supposed to be endowed with an underlying "personal
> identity." ( From my own interpretation as at "The Philosophy of
> One on the Many.)www.lawrenceeleyot.co.uk

Here's my take: This truly is an unfalsifiable question. No one on
earth is totally devoid of sensory input, so can we really know (short
of horrifically degrading experiments) someone could be "taught"
mathematics without seeing two sticks together in front of them? I
don't see how to do this. Personally I'm inclined to think that our
sensory input does give us a rudimentary understanding of "quantity",
far before we're able to articulate it. But since there truly is no
information about it, I'll reserve my actual judgment until such time
as information is available (but I doubt it ever will be, truly).

> If we cannot perceive our own bodies as Hume suggests, how
> does that effect:
> 1) I exist.
> 2) Others exist.
> 3) Our mutual experiences are accurately represented.

The "I exist" is there because I'm not always so comfortable with
Descartes' cogito argument. But again, I do salvage it in my mind
because of the reasons I outline, with the "Matrix" analogy: Clearly
there is some level of "existence" in which "I" exist, should I be
thinking. Is this "reality"? It's the only meaningful reality we can
discern, so in that sense, yes.

> And how do you interpret *I* ?

The first person perspective that is most likely a result of neurons
firing in my brain in a complicated way.

> I suspect this is not what you are getting at though.
>
> Then you treat us to along drawn out trolly about the Matrix and
> whether we can trust our own personal subjectivity as an
> objective fact. Which in my opinion is just so much guff out-
> side of reality and pointless except to point out it's failed
> assertions. We then come to the Plane X and Plane U, with
> intrusions and the metaphysical. Which to me is another
> pointless exercise going nowhere and quite meaningless
> and unnecessary,because we only end up with what we
> already knew about observation and science's reliance on it.

Ahh, but I don't think it stops there. The question really is, is the
"reality" that we observe the "actual reality" that exists? I have
argued that it is the only "actual" reality that makes any sense to
discuss to begin with. If someone wants to say that we REALLY live in
some "other" plane in "reality", which we visit when we die, and that
"this" reality isn't actually "real", that's just a bunch of
unfalsifiable nonsense that has no utility nor value (and I've gotten
it here from Omprem and partially from Brock Organ, so it's a point
that needed to be made, sad as that sounds).

> It's just my opinion but that seems an awful lot of effort
> spent to come to the last part and theological assertions of
> gods to show Plane U and metaphysical god and heaven
> is tantamount to idolatry of the unknowable.

Well, the history of this document is based on arguments with Omprem,
Brock Organ, and most recently, simonsaysbye (but I had already
developed the argument far before simon came on the scene, he just
prompted me to post this because it rebuts his arguments that "gee,
you can't make fun of me because you make assumptions too"). I did
want to address all the points raised in those debates overall.

> Unless your intent was to give a good critique of the Matrix,
> Ok! you succeeded. well done!
> A well constructed and thoughtful production.
> Take no notice, just a tad beyond me. :)

Oh, no, it's not beyond you, I appreciate your input ;)

[Lawrey]

Rapp',

Thanks for that helpful clarification. This directs me to a
whole raft of questions I would very much like to see you,
Simp' and others tackle regarding reality and the A/C
argument. We seem to shift around the outskirts of the
problems we face.

No-one needs me to remind them, that for decades religion
has driven the carthorse of unreality constantly in one direction
towards the unreal. Christianity another inbred offshoot of that
horse, evolved into a stobborn mule and relentlessly drove its
breed further, becoming the preferred packhorse. While
atheism a well worn and ponderous hack, tagged on behind
the wagon trian, keeping apart from it and staying in its safe
reality.

Mules are notoriously difficult animals to train, they have two
speeds, (dead slow & stop!) they know one direction >>>>
forward and they hate to deviate from the well trodden path.

In dealing with *reality* as you seem to recognise; it is for each
a personal recognition and perception of the *I am because I
exist*, or the 1. 2. 3. of your paper.

What your paper did not allow, was the psychology of the herd
group and the individual psychology of each member in that
group. The herd mentality or pschological bent, which is to stay
dogedly, and without deviation from the groups direction.

The group has long since been taught they and they alone are
infact in and on the well-beaten track of reality on which they
have and are being driven. This IS their reality, for them there
is no other. The mule (christianity), is a stubborn animal.

The hack (atheism) on the other hand lives in the real world and
allows itself to wander where it wills, it learns the finer points of
dressage, how to side-step, reverse change and move diagonally
through life's set courses. It is able to contend with diverse
instruction through observation of its own survival along the
course it has so far taken and learns through that experience and
the gains it makes through testing the water before it jumps in.

This is their reality, trial and error are no strangers, nor are they
anything to fear. they may walk on the well beaten track but are
able to get off it when they see the direction it takes leads them
to but one unreal end, without the joy of the knowledge of reality.

What has psychology to do with reality. (mindset).
The mule accepts the psychology of the master driver (religion).
Religion's course is set on a superstitious belief that its goal is
real
and cannot accept any deviation from that goal which will lead
them to the eventual prize of the belief. Their mindset. Their
reality.
Their congnitive perception of reality, which when tested is found
wanting but their psychology allows a cognitive distortion of the
real,
in order to permit the perception. The Mule sees the Hack in reality,
but stubbornly rejects it, because it has learnt only the one
direction
along the well-trooden, safe track that the group follows and if the
group follows it, it must be safe and right in reality.

What I would like to hear discussed is how we break or impress this
minset of the mule? why is it necessary? Do we impact more on the
individual mule or should we tackle the group mentality as a whole?
Do we tackle their psychological, or cognitive distortions by gentle
and reasoned debate in a group? or do we adopt direct psychological
challenge? i.e., *Prove it!*approach?

The answers of course suggest that we have to apply the method to
the individual's psychological profile. Is it a natural follower of
the
group, or like simon, who seeing the hack's aproach realises the group
is wrong, but stubbornly refuses to get off the beaten track that goes
one-way-only, not knowing or having learnt yet how to side-step; still
living in his learnt reality yet envying the hacks view of reality.

Can I suggest that with simon, he wants the long-drawn-out discussion
simply because he finds it difficult to face the direct bullet, he
wants to
prolong his beliefs for as long as we will let him, he wants
constantly to
excuse and justify his beleifs for himself if not for us.
What he needs is to be kept to the rough point of the hack's reality,
The short, sharp sound-bite that does not allow too much discussion
and letting off the hook. The put up, or shut up approach.

There is a lot of complaint of the "Proove It!" stance, But I submit
it
is working in the hack's favour since the hack is used to proving for
himself. The very fact the theists are doing most of the complaining
speaks volumes and like a spoilt child who sees his brother so able
riding a bike which he cannot master, kicks the bike in frustration.
(You'll note we didn't use the horse analogy here because horses
kick quite hard and have been known to incur a knock out blow!)
the bicycle can't kick back! but the analogy does show that the theist
is forced, perforce to consider the problem and more and more are
beginning to see the green grass off the beaten mule trail.

But what do you think is the best way to tackle the stubborn mule
syndrome. Just how do you go about lighting a fire under its belly?
Or are we doing OK! as we are and should we be content to carry on
steady as she goes so to speak. What are we as individuals looking
or hoping to achieve in our world and view of reality?





This was
solely to provide a mechanism if a pair of individuals wanted to
conduct a more structured and formal debate.

> > > work.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Dev]

If you are God, then chocolate bunnies killed your son.

[scooter]

Just finished reading this. Absolutly stellar, Rapp. I'll take some
time to digest it and post something. Thanks for sharing!!

Save the Daylight!!!



On Mar 6, 10:26 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

[scooter]

There are a couple of things I'd like to address.

First, I think its important to recognize the axiom that humans are
all basically built the same in their ability to perceive. I.E., none
of us has some superior ability that allows them to "see" into, or
otherwise communicate with, a fictionally derived Plane U.

Following from the above axiom, the notion that observation and
perception are somehow limiting is completly irrelevant since everyone
is working with the same tools. Reading thousand year old texts does
not magically grant you special powers or insight into new fictional
Planes or objectivity. In fact, the very act of authorship, regardless
of who the authors were, is completly reliant on the same
"limitations"; the same can be said for the reader.

Finally, since the only tools we have are subjective, the best we can
do is try to eliminate, as much as possible, that bias. As you
correctly suggest, that is achieved through a consensus of
observations that point to a high probability or truth value.

These methods have demonstrably shown to be the only viable methods
for discovering truth.

On Mar 6, 10:26 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

[Dag Yo]

Might I ask on what grounds you "don't always quite buy" it? As best
I can tell it only provides proof that 'I exist as "something"' -- it
makes no statement as to what exactly that something is.

[scooter]

Whew. Took awhile getting here. I need a faster mule!! I kid.

Well, let's get going,yes?

How do you break the mindset of the mule? Well, the mule, in this
case, is not an individual but a collective. So, its a social
movement. Like other social movements it will be displaced and
replaced by another. Progress will not be measured in years but in
generations and it will be marginal because of the nature of this
particular social phenomenon. Try to think of it an terms of group
behavior. The social aspects of the group design the psychological
imprint on the individual. The same is true in a riot, for example.
Group behavior is determined by the social norms created within the
repsective environment. You follow? Its no different for religion. The
difference is only in the strength and integrity of acceptable
behaviors as is governed by discipline. The behavior of a rioter is
dispelled rather quickly by immediat and swift punishment thereby
eleiminating normalized behaviors. On the other hand, praying,
tradition and ritual are all perpetuating religious participation by
reinforcement. Since we can't take the punishment approach, the next
best thing is to discredit those rituals and start a counter-movement.
Don't be afraid to talk with your friends about how you feel. I think
most of us already are doing that but don't expect immediate results
like we see in the disolution of riot behavior. The nature of the
psychological and sociologucal mindset of religion is deeply
entrenched. It will take generations in as much as it has taken Mr.
Obama to have an opportunity to run for President. In any case, we are
doing what we have to do already. Stay engaged and repel
institutionalized religion. Remember, the function of religious
discipline is what perpetuates the disease. Eventually, we will win,
however. I just hope it doesn't come too late.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Keith MacNevins]

If you are a demon, dev, then you might spend a lot of time in Hell.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 8, 5:38 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Rapp',
>
> Thanks for that helpful clarification.

My pleasure.

> This directs me to a
> whole raft of questions I would very much like to see you,
> Simp' and others tackle regarding reality and the A/C
> argument. We seem to shift around the outskirts of the
> problems we face.
>
> No-one needs me to remind them, that for decades religion
> has driven the carthorse of unreality constantly in one direction
> towards the unreal.

Yes, and this new attack of "atheism is even less rational than
theism" is a disturbing (and false) new trend that I hear fairly
often.

> Christianity another inbred offshoot of that
> horse, evolved into a stobborn mule and relentlessly drove its
> breed further, becoming the preferred packhorse. While
> atheism a well worn and ponderous hack, tagged on behind
> the wagon trian, keeping apart from it and staying in its safe
> reality.
>
> Mules are notoriously difficult animals to train, they have two
> speeds, (dead slow & stop!) they know one direction >>>>
> forward and they hate to deviate from the well trodden path.
>
> In dealing with *reality* as you seem to recognise; it is for each
> a personal recognition and perception of the *I am because I
> exist*, or the 1. 2. 3. of your paper.
>
> What your paper did not allow, was the psychology of the herd
> group and the individual psychology of each member in that
> group. The herd mentality or pschological bent, which is to stay
> dogedly, and without deviation from the groups direction.

Oh, yes, indeed, there are plenty of discussions we could have about
why religion feels this way. I didn't even touch the "group think"
aspects.

> The group has long since been taught they and they alone are
> infact in and on the well-beaten track of reality on which they
> have and are being driven. This IS their reality, for them there
> is no other. The mule (christianity), is a stubborn animal.
>
> The hack (atheism) on the other hand lives in the real world and
> allows itself to wander where it wills, it learns the finer points of
> dressage, how to side-step, reverse change and move diagonally
> through life's set courses. It is able to contend with diverse
> instruction through observation of its own survival along the
> course it has so far taken and learns through that experience and
> the gains it makes through testing the water before it jumps in.

Right. I think the point to remember, too, is that even theists do
this type of thinking, but only when applied to things in "Plane X".
They make additional (unnecessary) assumptions about "other" places,
etc. This is why theism is, a priori, less rational than atheism.
There are simply more assumptions that need to be made that are not
necessary to make, and explain nothing.

> This is their reality, trial and error are no strangers, nor are they
> anything to fear. they may walk on the well beaten track but are
> able to get off it when they see the direction it takes leads them
> to but one unreal end, without the joy of the knowledge of reality.
>
> What has psychology to do with reality. (mindset).
> The mule accepts the psychology of the master driver (religion).
> Religion's course is set on a superstitious belief that its goal is
> real
> and cannot accept any deviation from that goal which will lead
> them to the eventual prize of the belief. Their mindset. Their
> reality.
> Their congnitive perception of reality, which when tested is found
> wanting but their psychology allows a cognitive distortion of the
> real,
> in order to permit the perception. The Mule sees the Hack in reality,
> but stubbornly rejects it, because it has learnt only the one
> direction
> along the well-trooden, safe track that the group follows and if the
> group follows it, it must be safe and right in reality.
>
> What I would like to hear discussed is how we break or impress this
> minset of the mule?

Slow, persistent education. That's about the best answer I've come up
with. It's arduous, and difficult, but that's the only way I know of.

> why is it necessary? Do we impact more on the
> individual mule or should we tackle the group mentality as a whole?

I think both is necessary. We can convince individual people of their
folly, and at the same time we can attack the generic beliefs and
whittle them away, one by one, until naught is left.

> Do we tackle their psychological, or cognitive distortions by gentle
> and reasoned debate in a group? or do we adopt direct psychological
> challenge? i.e., *Prove it!*approach?

It's really a question I have no answers to, unfortunately. The
strategy forward in my mind is

1) Understand why people think this way (cognitive dissonance from
reality to make way for wishful thinking).
2) Educate people as to the folly of thinking that way.
3) Provide alternatives.

These are tough to do, all three of them. Who knows how to proceed in
practice?

> The answers of course suggest that we have to apply the method to
> the individual's psychological profile. Is it a natural follower of
> the
> group, or like simon, who seeing the hack's aproach realises the group
> is wrong, but stubbornly refuses to get off the beaten track that goes
> one-way-only, not knowing or having learnt yet how to side-step; still
> living in his learnt reality yet envying the hacks view of reality.

Yes, this is the difficulty. When someone is convinced of the argument
before the argument is made (like Simon), then there is little that
can be done aside from demolish it to smithereens and hope that they
see it for what it is: dead in the water, and abandon it. If people
are actually being honest with themselves, they'll see it for what it
is. However, often people are NOT being honest with themselves and
instead are deliberately and willfully deceiving themselves, and that
is the harder problem.

> Can I suggest that with simon, he wants the long-drawn-out discussion
> simply because he finds it difficult to face the direct bullet,

Yes, I think that's specifically right. His arguments (by his own
admission) were defeated. However he is convinced (for no reason) that
he can "go away and fix it" and come back and we'll lose. This is
frankly dangerous thinking. Being convinced of a non-existent argument
is just ridiculous, it's a mental cycle that the mind provides to give
an outlet for the delusion. Brock Organ, Simon, and others are of the
same camp here: Assume you're right, then find an argument to support
it, and if it doesn't actually fit, use a shoehorn. But the problem
is, they're trying to cover the blemishes on a four-hundred-pound
pimpled, foul-smelling overweight person who can't get out of bed with
a bikini made of floss and two stickers. It's just not going to
happen! They cover one tiny little pimple, but the rest of the surface
area is still exposed and repugnant.

> he
> wants to
> prolong his beliefs for as long as we will let him, he wants
> constantly to
> excuse and justify his beleifs for himself if not for us.
> What he needs is to be kept to the rough point of the hack's reality,
> The short, sharp sound-bite that does not allow too much discussion
> and letting off the hook. The put up, or shut up approach.
>
> There is a lot of complaint of the "Proove It!" stance, But I submit
> it
> is working in the hack's favour since the hack is used to proving for
> himself. The very fact the theists are doing most of the complaining
> speaks volumes and like a spoilt child who sees his brother so able
> riding a bike which he cannot master, kicks the bike in frustration.
> (You'll note we didn't use the horse analogy here because horses
> kick quite hard and have been known to incur a knock out blow!)
> the bicycle can't kick back! but the analogy does show that the theist
> is forced, perforce to consider the problem and more and more are
> beginning to see the green grass off the beaten mule trail.
>
> But what do you think is the best way to tackle the stubborn mule
> syndrome. Just how do you go about lighting a fire under its belly?
> Or are we doing OK! as we are and should we be content to carry on
> steady as she goes so to speak. What are we as individuals looking
> or hoping to achieve in our world and view of reality?

I think the best way to go is as we're going: Slow, deliberate
demolition of their arguments and hope for the best!

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

No, I don't require sacrifices of blood. Just chocolate. ;)

[rappoccio]

Thanks ;)

[rappoccio]

On Mar 8, 1:22 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are a couple of things I'd like to address.
>
> First, I think its important to recognize the axiom that humans are
> all basically built the same in their ability to perceive. I.E., none
> of us has some superior ability that allows them to "see" into, or
> otherwise communicate with, a fictionally derived Plane U.

Yes, I wanted this to be sort of part of the "common observations". If
we didn't all work the same, then common observations wouldn't be able
to contribute to understanding. However, we observe that it is the
case so far, so we continue to operate under this as an assumption
since it appears to be a safe one.

> Following from the above axiom, the notion that observation and
> perception are somehow limiting is completly irrelevant since everyone
> is working with the same tools.
> Reading thousand year old texts does
> not magically grant you special powers or insight into new fictional
> Planes or objectivity. In fact, the very act of authorship, regardless
> of who the authors were, is completly reliant on the same
> "limitations"; the same can be said for the reader.

Exactly right. This is where Brock Organ's argument falls to pieces.
He must admit that he gains truth from these tools, and therefore
cannot deny them from another person. So we're no more
"existentialist" than he is (but I freaking hate that word, it's so
loaded and undescriptive).

>
> Finally, since the only tools we have are subjective, the best we can
> do is try to eliminate, as much as possible, that bias. As you
> correctly suggest, that is achieved through a consensus of
> observations that point to a high probability or truth value.

Exactly. The scientific method is the way to go :)

[rappoccio]

Well, this is another thread in its own right, but overall the cogito
goes like this:

1) I think.
2) Therefore, I am

This is a little misleading, since it should read

1) That which thinks, exists.
2) I think
3) Therefore, I am

But strictly speaking, this is an additional assumption. I'm starting
to learn about Bernard Williams' objections as well (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams), Ultimately he says that the
subjective inference "I am thinking" is insufficient to establish
anything outside of the subject (i.e., existence). But I think that
the distinction is irrelevant for the most part, since if we ARE
thinking but DON'T exist, then we've just made a definition of
"existence" that is basically meaningless. So I suppose that while it
doesn't strictly show that one exists a priori, it shows that one
exists in the only meaningful way possible. I'm a realist, though, so
I don't really dwell on this limitation. The real, usable, utilitarian
definition of "existence" is more than adequately demonstrated by "I
am thinking".

[rappoccio]

That's a good point. The individual may in fact be swayed by an
argument, but feels that they can't leave the group due to social
pressures (the old, "If you believe in evolution your parents will
disown you" mentality). It's a real phenomenon, and you're right to
bring it up.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Lawrey]

scooter,

Yes! I agree it was rather slow and ponderous, but I see you
gathered the riens and show a remarkable understanding of
the beast and I appreciate particully the problem you out-line
in your comment:

> "On the other hand, praying, tradition and ritual are all
> perpetuating religious participation by reinforcement".

Tradition and ritual are always going to be a tough nut to
crack! Here the *mule* has the upper hand and they know it.
As you say it will take a long time and we are in for the long
trek.
Thanks for your respones scooter.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dag Yo]

> Well, this is another thread in its own right, but overall the cogito
> goes like this:
>
> 1) I think.
> 2) Therefore, I am
>
> This is a little misleading, since it should read
>
> 1) That which thinks, exists.
> 2) I think
> 3) Therefore, I am

I suppose i've always read it as (and my dammit i'm probably going to
sound stupid because i'm not going to include a half-dozen applicable
premises to it first.):

1) Actions can only be taken by things that exist.
2) I think.
3) Therefore, that thinking is done by an existant thing.

> But strictly speaking, this is an additional assumption. I'm starting
> to learn about Bernard Williams' objections as well (http://
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams), Ultimately he says that the
> subjective inference "I am thinking" is insufficient to establish
> anything outside of the subject (i.e., existence). But I think that
> the distinction is irrelevant for the most part, since if we ARE
> thinking but DON'T exist, then we've just made a definition of
> "existence" that is basically meaningless. So I suppose that while it
> doesn't strictly show that one exists a priori, it shows that one
> exists in the only meaningful way possible.

I wouldn't say "meaningless", rather I think it better to say that the
existence evidenced by that argument isn't terribly a useful starting
point from which to make other inferences about the existence of
anything else.

-

[Lawrey]

Rapp',

Very many thanks. Much as I had anticipated, you make
some astute observations. I am gobsmacked with your
pimple analogy. Lol... "But the problem is, they're trying to

> cover the blemishes on a four-hundred-pound
> pimpled, foul-smelling overweight person who can't get out
> of bed with a bikini made of floss and two stickers. It's just
> not going to happen! They cover one tiny little pimple, but
> the rest of the surface area is still exposed and repugnant."

I'd never in a million years have thought of that! ;))

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[scooter]

On Mar 9, 2:52 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's a good point. The individual may in fact be swayed by an
> argument, but feels that they can't leave the group due to social
> pressures (the old, "If you believe in evolution your parents will
> disown you" mentality). It's a real phenomenon, and you're right to
> bring it up.

Really, I believe its the most determinative factor (in the nature vs.
nurture argument). And, upon close examination it explains the
geographical differences in denomination and religious views across
the globe. I.E, proximity to one another is the most predictive
variable to religious affiliation. E.G., if you grow up in a Utah town
of mormons, you will most likely be mormon. Couple that with the fact
that I can't think of anything else that explains the ability to
convince someone to believe the entire "born of a virgin etc." story.
Unfortunatly, I have been unable to devise a more empirical method for
measurement. Having said that, I think the definitive answer is going
to have to come from our friends in the Biology dept. Personally, I'm
just gald I put the onus on them ;)

[scooter]

I agree. Let us not fret, however. In fact, I read the other day a
poll showing that the largest growth amoung religious affiliations is
"no affiliation." Note, however, that does not necessarily mean they
are not believers. It does mean they are not being subjected to the
barrage of religious discipline employed in churches. From my
perspective, that's a good sign ;)

[rappoccio]

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/reality

[rappoccio]

Yes, precisely. That's why I still take it as a (very weak) axiom, it
might be able to just drop it altogether.

[rappoccio]

On Mar 9, 3:48 am, Lawrey <lawrenc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Rapp',
>

> Very many thanks. Much as I had anticipated, you make
> some astute observations.

Thanks ;)

> I am gobsmacked with your
> pimple analogy. Lol... "But the problem is, they're trying to
>
> > cover the blemishes on a four-hundred-pound
> > pimpled, foul-smelling overweight person who can't get out
> > of bed with a bikini made of floss and two stickers. It's just
> > not going to happen! They cover one tiny little pimple, but
> > the rest of the surface area is still exposed and repugnant."
>
> I'd never in a million years have thought of that! ;))

Hehe :)

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

Great points. I think you're right, it is the most decisive factor by
far.

[Lawrey]

Dag Yo


I was pondering this response of yours to Rapp' and I thought
you might allow me to plant this seed of thought in response.
In the main I concur.

1) That which thinks, exists.
2) I think
3) Therefore, I am


But strictly speaking, this is an additional assumption. I'm
starting
to learn about Bernard Williams' objections as well (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams), Ultimately he says that the
subjective inference "I am thinking" is insufficient to establish
anything outside of the subject (i.e., existence). But I think that
the distinction is irrelevant for the most part, since if we ARE
thinking but DON'T exist, then we've just made a definition of
"existence" that is basically meaningless. So I suppose that while it
doesn't strictly show that one exists a priori, it shows that one
exists in the only meaningful way possible. I'm a realist, though, so
I don't really dwell on this limitation. The real, usable,
utilitarian
definition of "existence" is more than adequately demonstrated by "I
am thinking".

> "But I think that the distinction is irrelevant for the most part, since
> if we ARE thinking but DON'T exist, then we've just made a
> definition of "existence" that is basically meaningless."

We have not defined anything we have made an illogical statement.

I am not at all convinced that we would be thinking if we did not
exist.
The whole point and reason for Descartes *cogito, ergo sum* was to
establish his existense. The whole idea being to contest the
skeptics.
Having thus justified his own being he could then go on to justify
his
belief in anything beyond himself.


Do you think the lowly worm knows it exists? (Just a thought.). :)

> > > > the screws.- Hide quoted text -

[Lawrey]

Dag Yo,

On second thoughts, I err and am guilty of facetiousness.
My humble apologies. The worm bit was simply to make the
point that whilst it is vitally important ecologically for many
reasons and under-pins our own ability to survive
envoironmentally, it is probably not aware as we are with its
existence, nor conscious as we are of reality.


We consider ourselves far superior to the worm that does
what it does best and without which the world would suffer
and it does not consider reality. Humans are obsessed with
the real and yet the majority reject it on religious grounds.
Something of a paradox.
I didn't really expect you to know how my thoughts run away.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dag Yo]

I've been out for a few days so I missed this, but thanks for
answering it for me. :)