>If you stay in "relative reality" realm and psyco mumbo-jumbo world, can you prove anything?

Anything? Everything!

To a solipsist, anything that comes from other people may be treated as psychobabble and mumbo-jumbo semi-logic. He may just conclude that you're an ugly figment of his imagination, trying to play tricks on him, and stop listening. Or he may keep listening, disbelieving whatever you say.

>Hypothetically speaking, if I kill him some how, won't that prove that I exist and that indeed he existed... err.. at one time. :-)

If you kill him, his universe ceases to exist, including you. Or maybe not - depends on whether a solipsist's mind can be killed or not. Maybe you're a figment of a dead person's imagination, how would you know?

>>Or is this the old practice (which may have once been perfectly legal within your dogma) to pronounce those who think differently as insane and lock them up?
>
>I see where you're going. Ok.

Not really, this was just a sting en passant. This talk about solipsism was just a demonstration how you really can't argue anything around a perfect dogma, be it solipsism, reincarnation, theory of original sin, theory of plagiarized sin, whatever. If it's well composed, logic can't hurt it.

>Yeah in this country, anyway, you can believe almost anything you want as long as you don't infringe on someone else's rights.
>But you're right, 1) one can be "crazy" and be harmless. 2) Then there are those that think they hear "God" and act on it.
>
>So which catagory do you fall under? *g*

Unbelievers, I think. That's the easiest one, so if I fall under it, it doesn't crack my bones :).

>>Thanks, but I prefer my brain as it is. Raw and whole.
>
>I wasn't suggesting anything to you. I was just talking in general term.;)

I was just refusing the offer, in case you generally made one :).