Search the Community

In "Against the Gods" (available from https://freedomainradio.com/free/). Stefan gives four reasons why gods are contradictory. These are described in the section "Why Are Gods Self-Contradictory?". The first reason is that: "Since gods are portrayed as the most complex beings imaginable, they may well be many things, but eternal cannot be one of them." The premise that gods are portrayed as complex does not correlate with the concept of God as historically developed in the West. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy begins its article on "Divine Simplicity" by bluntly stating: "Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God." (Para. 1, Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/).The Encyclopedia stresses that the concept of Divine Simplicity is not unique to Christianity but developed from Plato and Aristotle: "The Platonic idea of a highest principle, combining supreme unity and utter perfection, strongly influenced Jewish and early Christian discussions of God’s supreme unity and perfection. . . . Aristotle’s first mover is a simple, unchanging form that still causally affects other beings... The Platonic notion of a supreme perfection at a remove from all things and Aristotle’s causally efficacious, disembodied mind would combine to suggest a powerful model for Western theologians seeking language to describe God’s nature." (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Divine Simplicity", section "1. Origins", para. 1). God is specifically described as simple, not complex in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Now it is clear that an infinite being cannot be substantially composite, for this would mean that infinity is made up of the union or addition of finite parts — a plain contradiction in terms. Nor can accidental composition be attributed to the infinite since even this would imply a capacity for increased perfection, which the very notion of the infinite excludes. There is not, therefore, and cannot be any physical or real composition in God." (Catholic Encyclopedia > G > The Nature and Attributes of God, "Simplicity of God", Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IC). Radio Replies Vol. 1 also specifically defines God as being simple: "God is a spiritual, substantial, personal being, infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, absolutely simple or lacking composition, immutable, happy in Himself and by Himself, and infinitely superior to all that is or can be conceived apart from Himself. He is incomprehensible in His infinite perfection by all lesser intelligences, although knowable as to the fact of His existence as Living Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immense, and distinct from all that He has created. That is what I mean by God." ([emphasis mine] "8. What do you mean by the term God?", Retrieved from http://www.radioreplies.info/radio-replies-vol-1.php?t=2). Why does Stefan say that "gods are portrayed as complex"?

Hello everyone Recently a Moroccan Atheist got his YouTube live streaming activity suspended and one his satirical video about Salomon deleted without any rational explanation given to him. This has become a trend that YouTube is censoring free speech and criticism of Islam especially within the Ex-Muslim community as they regularly receive strikes and sometimes get permanently banned from YouTube for criticizing Islam. It is possible that the Youtube arabic team of moderators act out their personal feelings and ban some contents based on their personal beliefs and emotions instead of community guidelines. This has become a very dangerous trend as many Ex-Muslim arabic and non arabic speaking are being censored and permanently banned from YouTube. Atheism in the muslim world is on the rise and during the last 5 years tens of millions of individuals men and women have left Islam to Atheism or converted to other more peaceful religions in secrecy. These people live like strangers in their own countries some of them are ostracized by their families, threatened and sometimes killed for leaving Islam. Internet and Social medias are their only outlets for free expression as they are isolated within their societies. It is also important to mention that this increasing trend of people leaving Islam has got some Islamic governments and clerics very worried of losing their credibility and power over people. Muslims especially radicals consider Internet and freedom of expression as the biggest threat to Islam and they are influencing Facebook and Youtube to censor and ban content that uncovers the dirty hidden secrets of Islam. I am linking to this Moroccan Atheist video down below. Please support him by liking his video (in english) and sharing it with everyone interested in this topic. We need more people like him! Thanks a million! Video title: Youtube Strikes Again! Channel name: Kafer Maghribi (translates to Moroccan Infidel)

Here are my thoughts on Stefan's video "Why I Was Wrong About Atheism" ( ) 1. “For the most part atheism is an outgrowth of faith in the modern god called the state.” Atheism is only and specifically the idea that there is no god it gods, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 2. He hasn't proven that the nihilism and leftism of the majority of atheists is a cause of atheism or atheism is a cause of the leftism or nihilism. This is a chicken and egg thing that is pretty complicated. Do more people come to leftism and nihilism because of atheism, or are more people atheism because of leftism and nihilism? 3. Stefan's claim that religious people don't force him to do anything but lefty socialists do. “They [Christians] don’t force me to do anything. On the other hand, the lefties, by constantly running to big daddy government to enforce their moral conscience on everyone else, regardless of consequences, regardless of ethics, regardless of voluntarism, regardless of the need to choose that what is essential to virtue, socialist by running to big daddy government, well the force me to do lots and lots of things. They take my money, they bury me in regulations, they involve my cash in foreign wars, they do lots of god awful things, and if I try to follow my own conscience and do what I think is best with my recourses, well they support cats in blue showing up with guns to drag me off to jail because I am not paying my taxes.” Christians are in favor of war and taxes. According to gallop, “Protestants and frequent churchgoers most supportive of Iraq War”. Not sure where this idea that Christians are antithetical to the state is coming from and is being taken as a given. Atheists are 3.1% of the American population and the Government is more than 99.9% operated by religious people. [post=http://tinypic.com/r/2woxi6b/9][/post] I don't know how we square that circle. Even if we accept Christians are not forcing adults to follow their ideas, and are just asking them to submit to God or go to hell (how pleasant of them), they are forcing and brainwashing helpless children, which is child abuse. http://youtu.be/Xb2dZqgGm50 3.1% of the US is atheist. On the other hand here is the percentages of people who are Christian 86% in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The drop to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility if Christianity by shining light on 4. Throwing the baby (atheism) out with the bath water (leftist and nihilistic atheists). “We all seem to need an irrational authority to order us about and if we take away God, wushhh, into the power vacuum rushes the state.” Atheism is a new cultural phenomenon which has greatly expanded due to the Information Age. It is the rebellious teenager who has woken up one day and realized that his parents rules are authoritarian, abusive, and manipulative and decides that he is no longer subject to their rules. However, there is no other direction available to him to fill that void. He becomes the rebel without a cause. He finds his new rules in other lost teenagers, in the nihilistic programming of the media, in his leftist teacher who tells him everything is relative and there is no right or preferable values, well except altruism of course. The void left by his authoritarian parents is filled by chance and by whatever other ideological structure is already formed to step in. Christianity made up 86% of the US population in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma. However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism. Now we stumble across this teenager, what do we do? Do we cower in disgust at what the nihilist anti-intellectual culture and leftists teachers has filled him with and tell him to go back to his authoritarian abusive parents because at least he would have structure? Or do we teach him how to think? How to reason? How to rebuild a new structure on the solid foundation of philosophy? Stefan, we have to give these people who are leaving religion a new foundation, the right methodology of thinking - philosophy. Don't send people back to religion because you are disgusted with what the void of religion and what it has been filled with so far. Lets build the RIGHT structure, one built on reason, logic, consistent methodologies, and then fill this void as much as we can. Push back nihilism and leftism - demonstrate it to be the evil that it is. Do not retreat back to religious dogma and superstition as a form of structure. The change is going to happen regardless, and if we aren't there Marxism will continue to feed off of the rebels. You have made huge strides already to present a new way, a way of thinking, thoughtfulness, logic, philosophy, don’t give up now.

"Often we are so busy thinking about how much is wrong with the Church, that we forget to consider what the World would be like without it" - G.K Chesterton Full disclosure: I am a Roman Catholic, but this is not an attempt at trying to prove anything. Simply a description of what a world without God is like from a strictly personal perspective. My parents both grew up in the Communist block, my mother in Hungary, my father in Mongolia. Before the communist era, Hungary had been a multicultural country for 900 years with Catholics, Protestants and Atheists , while Mongolia was also a multicultural country with Buddhists, Animists, and Atheists. Both my parents grew up atheists, then they both became protestants seperately, then both gradually converted to Catholicism in my lifetime. The People's Republic of Mongolia had not seen a single Christian Missionary on its territory since the collapse of the Mongol Empire. Mongolia was the second country in history that adopted Marxism-Leninism. When the republic was declared in 1924, countless thousands of religious men and women were executed in the first five years. Even today, if you go on a road-trip to the Gobi desert, you can find hundreds of bullet shells scattered around in the ruins of old monasteries. I myself have picked up a pair. After 70 years of communist rule, in 1992, a year after the fall of the Soviet Union, hundreds of protesters took to the streets of Ulaanbaatar to demand freedom from from Communism. Admittedly, unlike the Hungarians, the people of Mongolia knew not what they were asking for instead - all they knew, was that whatever they had currently was not ok. My father was among the protesters, he saw scores of aroured vehicles line up in front of the parliament,ready to open fire. He also spotted a few of his old friends among the soldiers who were tasked with dispersing the crowd, Mongolia was a tiny country with only 700 000 residents in the capital, so it was inevitable that there were friends and families among the soldiers and the protesters. The president of Mongolia heard the demands of the people, and triggered dismantling of the Socialist System without much delay. One of his first acts as the leader of the free country was to write a letter to the Holy See, requesting missionaries asap. He was a smárt man, as he knew, with the collapse of the Communist Value System in people's lives, the vacuum that would be left in its stead would be catastrophic - he was right. The missionaries took a while to arrive, but they were not too late. The people of Mongolia were indeed thirsty for a replacement to the old failed values, thus they were most eager to listen to anything coming from the west. Mongolia, behind Kyrghizistan, is unofficially the last modern country on the planet to host Christianity. The People's Republic of Hungary officially granted freedom of religion in the constitution, but of course, that was far from reality. Every priest, who was ordained before 1985, most certainly had spent at least 3 years in prison, 1 year in solitary confinement, gone through sleep-deprivation interrogation for a month, and many were executed for conspiring against the state. Lay people who were christians were not allowed to hold public office, but were not actively persecuted to excess. My mother became a Christian during communist rule, and became active among believers, smuggled russian bibles into the Soviet Union, where people copied the few bibles the had gotten by hand, and distributed the copies in the vast Siberian territories. With the fall of communism, the people of Hungary needed no encouragement to reclaim their old Christian/Catholic national identity, and start rebuilding what was destroyed in the past 40 years. I grew up in Mongolia in a most atheistic milieu. My brothers and I were the only christians at the schools we attended. At the very beginning of the millenium, christianity was still regarded as the culture of the pathetic, poor, stupid, unintellectual people. I was most confused by those labels as a child, since I was born in Hungary, and knew what thousand years of christianity really looked like. Christianity was the most beautiful thing in my life - the churches, the music, the nicest people in the World, and most important of all, Hope. The sore lack of Hope, is something that westerners do not immediately notice, but it is the only thing consistently present in every part of the World that was not built on Christian foundations. The lack of Hope is something every Mongolian feels, once they return from their vacations to Europe. It is a phenomenon that I cannot explain in words, but it is something that makes me value what Christianity has given to the World.

Recently, Stephan has discussed atheism and its correlation with statism and leftist ideals. While atheism is just one position about the existence of god(s), Stephan's position is that people without religion lack the moral directives of the religious. For example, Atheists must derive things like work ethic and family values from their personal experience rather than religious literature. Skepticism requires fair application to maximize enlightenment (atheism is only one line of dominoes, to borrow Steph's analogy). Where is the first line of dominoes, then? What first principles must a person acquire so that they don't narrow their scope of skeptical inquiry?

I say that sentence to remember all the work that lies ahead, to reach the goal of the reasonable and voluntary society of Ancapistan. Atheism is a prerequisite in order to have a reasonable society. Yet most atheists are statists who don't recognize the power of voluntarism. I can see the US currently is becoming less religious but that alone is no reason to celebrate. Because Atheism is necessary but not sufficient.

how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality?

Saw this video posted on YouTube, and thought it worth sharing here. "I don't believe lack of knowledge is a license to start inventing fantasies." Sadly, it would seem like we are still having to debate these simple truths today.

In this updated, expanded edition, starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion - that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security - Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism. Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary. “Vitz offers a radical new thesis about the psychological origins of atheism. By studying the lives of numerous famous atheists, from the old atheists Nietzsche, Sartre, and Freud to the new atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennet, Vitz discovers a startling common pattern: atheism arises in people with dead, absent, or abusive fathers. By contrast, prominent defenders of religious belief-including Blaise Pascal, John Henry Newman, and G.K. Chesterton-were blessed with attentive, loving and caring fathers. Vitz's provocative book raises important questions about psychology, religious belief, and the importance of fathers. ” - Christopher Kaczor, Author, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church “Quite simply, Paul Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless is a minor classic, a book that should be on the short list of all those who want to understand, in the deepest terms, the ill effects caused by the failures of fatherhood. Faith of the Fatherless should function as a gateway book to research in all fields examining our current, highly-secularized culture, a culture marked deeply by both unbelief and hostility toward the family and especially fatherhood. ” - Benjamin Wiker, Author, Architects of the Culture of Death “In deploying Freudian theory against atheism itself, Paul Vitz has proven beyond a doubt what's missing from secular accounts of secularization: namely, actual human beings. His thesis is intellectual jujutsu of the first order, as anyone reading this timely revisiting will appreciate in full. ” http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1586176870

I am celebrating one year of sobriety, and have put together an audio journal about addiction. This is the most difficult presentation I have put together so far. I had to carefully explore my parental inner-voices. It is a reconstruction of three different sessions recorded over the past week. I could not have explored this topic so closely without first deFOOing from my toxic family. Toward the end, I reflect on a strategy for changing the Twelve Step Program to remove god and the abdication of the self from the equation, which makes it a more humanizing process. Thank you for listening, and I appreciate the input as always! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkhFWbmUI4 I want to recommend any of Nathaniel Brandon's works on self-esteem and Jay Earley's IFS books, as these are the primary resources that I use for self-exploration and therapy. Shout out to Elliot Hulse of Strength Camp for providing a physical manifestation of self-esteem that I can model, and Stefan Molyneux and the Philosophy Crew at Free Domain Radio for being major influences on me recognizing and acknowledging my destructive addiction. This has been a collaborative effort to be certain.

faith of the fatherless http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1586176870 In this updated, expanded edition, starting with Freud's "projection theory" of religion - that belief in God is merely a product of man's desire for security - Professor Vitz argues that psychoanalysis actually provides a more satisfying explanation for atheism. Disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. A biographical survey of influential atheists of the past four centuries shows that this "defective father hypothesis" provides a consistent explanation of the "intense atheism" of these thinkers. A survey of the leading defenders of Christianity over the same period confirms the hypothesis, finding few defective fathers. Vitz concludes with an intriguing comparison of male and female atheists and a consideration of other psychological factors that can contribute to atheism. Professor Vitz does not argue that atheism is psychologically determined. Each man, whatever his experiences, ultimately chooses to accept God or reject him. Yet the cavalier attribution of religious faith to irrational, psychological needs is so prevalent that an exposition of the psychological factors predisposing one to atheism is necessary. “Vitz offers a radical new thesis about the psychological origins of atheism. By studying the lives of numerous famous atheists, from the old atheists Nietzsche, Sartre, and Freud to the new atheists Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennet, Vitz discovers a startling common pattern: atheism arises in people with dead, absent, or abusive fathers. By contrast, prominent defenders of religious belief-including Blaise Pascal, John Henry Newman, and G.K. Chesterton-were blessed with attentive, loving and caring fathers. Vitz's provocative book raises important questions about psychology, religious belief, and the importance of fathers. ” - Christopher Kaczor, Author, The Seven Big Myths about the Catholic Church “Quite simply, Paul Vitz's Faith of the Fatherless is a minor classic, a book that should be on the short list of all those who want to understand, in the deepest terms, the ill effects caused by the failures of fatherhood. Faith of the Fatherless should function as a gateway book to research in all fields examining our current, highly-secularized culture, a culture marked deeply by both unbelief and hostility toward the family and especially fatherhood. ” - Benjamin Wiker, Author, Architects of the Culture of Death “In deploying Freudian theory against atheism itself, Paul Vitz has proven beyond a doubt what's missing from secular accounts of secularization: namely, actual human beings. His thesis is intellectual jujutsu of the first order, as anyone reading this timely revisiting will appreciate in full. ”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIxSeiqyGXQ

I still have mixed feelings about this. I know there has been a lot of controversy on the boards around the call in show "An Atheist Apologizes to Christians" so perhaps you will find this video thought-provoking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU5-oh-ZbZg

This was an amazing conversation, thanks to the caller and Stef for sharing it. It's certainly provoked a lot of thought and examination for me; I invite everyone to give it a listen. It's a long call but it is most certainly worth it.

I have an interesting opportunity as an atheist living in a Christian household. The people at my church have no inclination as to my leanings towards atheism, and yet I have been asked to host an adult Bible study. It started out with just a teen Bible study, where we discussed the question of God's existence. We did a few weeks of preparation and study of both sides and then at the end concluded with a debate. I very much enjoyed this, as many of these people had never had any contact with the other side. It really highlighted how foolish it was to try and prove God's existence, and during the debate this became very clear. In any case, it seems my study was appreciated well enough that I have been asked to host an adult Bible study. It's an interesting opportunity for me. I have a chance to subtly demonstrate the flaws in Christianity and provide some interesting discussion that most Christians will never get otherwise. And again, none of them know that I am an atheist. What topic should I focus on for the next month? I have to start planning out my lesson plans and I was wondering if I could get suggestions, especially as to how I can provide a critical view of Christianity that might sway people while still being invited back to host the study.

I'm not an atheist, but I enjoy Molyneux's thoughts. I hope that I am still welcome here and I won't push my believes onto others.

Today while working with my retail job I had a Muslim coworker talk to me about books she read in class. One book she mentioned was 1984. This spun into a conversation about statism and a state not allowing you to think, question things, telling you what to do and when to do it etc., We both agreed an oppressive state was not the place we would want to live in. However, she has a God that tells her what she can eat, who she can marry, how many times she has to pray, that it is wrong to question him, if she abandons him she will be killed and send her to hell etc. etc. I feel like the real difference between 1984 and Islam is that in 1984 you can hunt down your tyrants where in Islam you have an imaginary tyrant that was stolen from the Christians. I didn’t feel the work place would be the right place for a religious debate. My question is how do you get religious people who claim they are against tyranny to wake up and realize they have an imaginary tyrant calling the shots for them?

The purpose of this topic is to discuss why some philosophical people feel the need to extend an olive branch to religious people. For religion rests on faith, superstition, and a metaphysical position that is anti-reality. To go against reality is to go against life, logic, and reason, and as such, religion is antithetical to philosophy. Ask yourself, would you tolerate someones opinion who wanted to make an argument to you about science and told you that his proof rested on faith? Would you tell someone that they had no place in science? What would you tell someone who’s response to you was that you shouldn’t berate or alienate people who believe that faith is part of the scientific method? To me faith has no place in philosophy, or any conversation around philosophy, just like it has in science or any of its theorems, hypothesis, or proofs. We should not make these ideas feel welcome, for this is not an aesthetic preference. This is a fundamental way on how you view reality, and therefore affects all of the branches of philosophy. People who promote philosophy are enemies of religion. We should be shaming religious ideas wherever they arise, not patting them on the back for agreeing with us on other ideas and just acting like it’s a difference of opinion on this certain issue. What are your thoughts? Should we be pragmatic and hold out olive branches and try to pull people out of a deep sticky pool of nonsense, or should we shame and isolate, hoping our leadership and non-wavering support of reason shock people out of their faith?

Here's a look at a former pastor who as an experiment decided to "live like an athiest", and then became one after the year. Nice to hear, but this sent my red flag up. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/ryan-bell-atheist_n_6397336.html Q: Your significant other is a Christian. How are you navigating that? A: It’s challenging sometimes, but she is an open-minded, thoughtful person. I’d call her a Christian Humanist, or a Humanist in the way of Jesus, if that makes any sense. I still share a love for the stories of the radical Jesus preferring the poor and downtrodden, so we’re not as different as it may seem on the surface. Besides, our relationship is about more than debates about God’s existence. What I appreciate about FDR is the it doesn't shy away from what others are willing to brush off as people being free to believe what they want. I'm curious if the ex pastors wife would have married him if he were an athiest and she a believer from the beginning of their relationship. Do any of you out there have any stories of belivers (male or female) marrying an athiest or vice versa as the ex reverand puts it, ".. our relationship is about more than debates about God’s existence.? Do any of you have a partner who is a believer and has children who hear your loving and spirited debate? If so I'd love to know how well or not that goes. Finally, and naturally, I'd love to hear Stef interview this couple together to get at a fuller story of this kind of coupling. New Years Best,

A while back I had the idea to compile a playlist of songs with a philosophical bent and that had meaning to me. As the list grew I divided it into four parts: 1) Anarchy; 2) Atheism; 3) Defoo; 4) Virtue. Below is the first part, and I'll be posting the others before the year's end. I hope this music brings a tiny bit of joy into your day. https://8tracks.com/mdrake88/philosophy-playlist-part-1-of-4-anarchy "I started this playlist series because sometimes music can speak louder than arguments. The first part contains songs relating to power and anarchy. The progression from beginning to end is one that mirrors my own journey from self-described conservative to political libertarian to philosophical anarcho-capitalist."

Matt Dillahunty has been doing some awesome work on rebutting theist arguments for the existence of deities on his youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=0 If you're not already familiar with Matt, he is the regular host of the The Atheist Experience and the NonProphets, and recently made the decision to work as a full-time counter-apologist making videos, and traveling and debating theists. You can support his work here: http://www.patreon.com/AtheistDebates I would like discussion to center around debating techniques and tactics -- efficient use of arguments, common traps and dead ends, what to listen for from your opponent, etc. Check out his apologetics/counter-apologetics wiki at http://www.ironchariots.org

On another forum, the DailyPaul, there was a thread on the topic of "faith:" http://goo.gl/HdkDzBMyself (Enjoying The Deep End) and another member (Micah68) got on to a topic that he (Micah68) presented. You can go to the link and look at the back and forth there for full details into my thinking and his.Here is the argument. Having challenged him, he posted several different "versions" or "wordings" of the argument: Now I propose that the argument is fallacious. I propose that the argument ASSUMES that "personal realities" exist. I ask "How do we know that there is EVEN SUCH A THING as a PERSONAL REALITY?"I could equally posit a: "Feminine reality vs masculine reality," "Structured reality vs impulsive reality," "Joyful reality vs miserable reality," "Tasty reality vs bland reality," Bald reality vs hairy reality," etc....And does my mere proposing these "types of realities" therefore necessitate THAT THEY ACTUALLY EXIST? So there is actually a "Tasty Reality?"---- I see the argument as a "Begging the question fallacy." Because the premise necessitates the conclusion be true; that a "personal reality exists." The argument merely ASSERTS that "personal realities exist."----So can you guys jump in here with your thoughts? Let me know what your "position on the argument" is, and "if you think the argument is even valid or if it contains a fallacy." So do you think there is such a thing as an "impersonal reality" or a "personal reality?" Do you think these categories exist? And do you take a position on it; do you think reality is personal?I look forward to your thoughts.Thanks