05-12-08, 11:20 AM #21
This is a discussion and debate forum.
Anyone posting here should expect that what they say will be challenged.
This is how discussions and debates can take place to begin with.
05-12-08, 11:31 AM #22
05-12-08, 12:13 PM #23
That said, if you are unable to defend your idea for fear of hostility, thats another, personal issue. One does not need to convince an ally as much as one needs to convince an opponent.
05-12-08, 12:34 PM #24
Reality and all the objects in it exists completely independent of the mind.
I call this objective reality.
No observer can perceive objective reality directly. Perception is necessarily colored by interpretation, expectation, etc.
We make up our own version of reality in our mind which is based on (part) of objective reality, let's refer to it as subjective reality.
Some people here have argued that it is impossible to know whether objective reality exists because of it's own premises. I disagree.
We know the senses aren't perfect. For instance, the eye can only sense a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
We also know that some animals can perceive more of the spectrum than we can.
The same goes for all the other senses: smell, hearing, touch and taste.
So we know, as an objective fact, that the senses can only sense a specific portion of objective reality.
When our brain is fed this data it interprets it based on:
- memory of previous experiences;
- character, which is the product of in part genetic but mostly environmental circumstances in our childhood;
- immediate environmental demands.
Then value is assigned to anything that is perceived according to above circumstances.
And so we end up with our own version of reality; subjective reality.
05-12-08, 01:09 PM #25
05-12-08, 02:01 PM #26
reality is what we experience.
there is no me (mind) that is separate from the world. there is only a world and this "i" is a part of it.
05-12-08, 02:02 PM #27
05-12-08, 02:40 PM #28
Does anyone had any luck defining what religion exactly is?
I actuealy heard a good one tonight but it also applied to superman and we didn't seem to get it to work
05-12-08, 02:44 PM #29
Well if the only reason you want to offer an opinion is to garner acceptance, clearly you need not offer it for defense.
The opening post implied neither.
05-12-08, 03:56 PM #30
I would like to know the belief of atheists on what consitute reality
what is reality for them?
What else atheists might consider reality will likely have an unlimited number of alternative and potentially conflicting perceptions and in many cases no perception at all. Since there is no atheist agenda outside of a disbelief in gods then having a multitude of perceptions is dubious.
For the theist their god is reality, or that reality is defined by that god. Nothing more need be said.
Outside of a theist paradigm reality could be defined many ways.
05-12-08, 04:50 PM #31
why is there an assumption from you (Ronan) that I must see reality in any way that's different from a theist? - its my perception of UNREALITY that's likely to differ - and even then only very slightly as I only beleive in 1 less unreal entity than you do
05-12-08, 09:25 PM #32
05-12-08, 11:05 PM #33
Spidergoat, I agree with you about the too many way that the word "god" have been used to refer to but what is the problem if someone say to you that reality (as you descibed) is for him what he call "god"?
It is in fact a common belief for theists. I would say that theists that belief in this kind of god would be equivalent (if not the same) as atheist who believe like you in a inefable reality.
Why not agree?
It does not imply that you are a theist more than implying than theist are atheist. It is just the same belief. (which personnaly I would agree too)
Note about the word: universe
It seems that this word refers to what we observe in other word to what we can describe (galaxies, electrons, molecules, dogs...), while reality as you defined is something we cannot express.
In this case I do not see why atheist refuse the theist claim that god has to exist (meaning: a reality (behind our false/partial perception) has to exist.
Please forgot the fight between atheist and theist (I agree that there are theists who believe in a external god but here I am talking about particular theist that believe in a god as a transcendental reality (Kant's noumena))
They are then the same, these kind of theist, atheist are both realist and not anti-realist.
The "a" of a-theist is then misleading (for this kind of atheist that believe in the existence of a inefable reality) because they are not "anti"- realist.
05-13-08, 12:35 AM #34
05-13-08, 12:54 AM #35
05-13-08, 01:46 AM #36
My perception of reality is a mental construct. This is how I perceive what is real. But, as to what "reality" really is? I don't know if I can truely know.
05-13-08, 04:39 AM #37
Atheist very simply means "without god" it carries no other baggage than that - it doesn't even necessarily mean that atheists don't beleive that there is a god - it merely mean that they choose to be without god. It certainly carries no baggage on the subject of being anti-realist.
Ineffable reality is an oxymoron - if something is ineffable it means that it is incomprehensible, or too vast to be communicated - if something is real (like reality) then by its nature it is comprehensible.
The atheist tendency to be a materialist / rationalist tends to exclude the ineffable.
I just can't see you going anywhere with this.
05-13-08, 06:41 AM #38
Kant view is shared by many sceintist and atheist such as spidergoat.
It is a belief in the existence of a reality that is unknowable.
The unkowability was put forward by Hume in the european tradition.
Many theist believe in an exisetnce of a god that is seen as the encompassing reality. Many of them believe in the inefability of god while many other say they never experienced god (reality as a whole) but believe in its existence.
but many will do not want because they say they do not believe in god. I understand this fear because of the two many usage the word "god" have been used to refer to. But here we defined "god" as refering to reality. So they should not worry.
The other consequence is that all theist that belive in this kind of god=reality are realists.
Reality can be impossible to express. It is not implied by the meaning of reality that it is not ineffable. You have to prove your claim if it is.
please note that by abuse of language what is real sometime refer to what you can touch, see, etc., but here the meaning of reality that we are refering to is the Kant's noumena, the transcendental reality that kant and hume suppose we have no direct access.
Let's move, I wanted to hear more of atheists,
is there some atheist that do not believe in an exisetnce of reality?
is there some atheist that believe in particular reality (composed of string, particles...)?
05-13-08, 07:19 AM #39
For example while I don't know if the colour green looks the same to everyone - I do know that if I ask someone what colour a jacket is and point to a green one, they'll tell me its green.
The emotional and physical responses to colour are similar too - for example we and many other animals have a hardwired instinct to view black and yellow animals as either poisonous, dangerous or distasteful (because they usually are).
In short, a shared and knowable reality that has nothing to do with cultural conditioning - its a result of natual selection - which in turn results from real physical and biological processes - nothing ineffable about that.
In contrast - the many thousands of different views and images of god vary massively throughout human culture, even sometimes within the same religion, and are apparently entirely absent from animal behaviour.
This suggests strongly that the concept of god is one that comes from a cultural filter / cultural conditioning and not from a shared and knowable reality.
Of course you could argue that if you distill away the cultural filters what you are left with is a kind of "god essence" - but then that would make you a pantheist or a deist - not a theist
So your "IF" god is real - is a massive and somewhat shaky IF
05-13-08, 07:41 AM #40
Anyway here we are arguing about word but I maintain that is a valid theist perspective because many theist that consider themeselves theist beleve in this kind fo god (words are defined in some part by usage, I do not deny that meaning sometime have to change as I was arguing earlier but not just by saying what you say, you have to explain.)
I said: "if god=reality" not: "if god is real"
What I said meaning: if we define god as reality
please do not transform my sayings
By S.A.M. in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 05-16-08, 02:49 AMReplies: 429
By S.A.M. in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 05-15-08, 10:17 AMReplies: 404
By BeHereNow in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 03-28-08, 06:03 AMReplies: 1
By coberst in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 02-14-08, 04:14 PMReplies: 1
By lightgigantic in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 12-13-07, 04:25 AMReplies: 393