Atheist Realism?

[S.A.M.]

I'm being sarcastic.

 

[ronan]

I'm being sarcastic.

Ok but you were still right
sarcasm and truth can go together and they should be together to have more effect

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ok so at least for now on you cannot tell us about reality.

Of course I can (and I did). I can only tell you about what I have visibility into (which was done) and I can explain what I don't have visibility into (which was done).

if you talk about the symbols "1"and "2" the background is the blank backgroudn of your screen

I am not talking about symbols. I am talking about difference. A unit of 1 is different than a unit of 2 regardless of whether or not there are humans to symbolize it.

if you talk about numbers as such, it is interesting but I think you need at least to define the rules of number before being able to know the difference between 1 and 2 (it is a matter of your axioms and definition, in other words with your mathematical background)

Why would I need to define rules? Difference is an inequality.

going back to your description of reality, you mean that difference are difference that are in the mind (mathematical numbers) ?

No. Differences are mind independent.

 

[ronan]

Of course I can (and I did). I can only tell you about what I have visibility into (which was done) and I can explain what I don't have visibility into (which was done).

So you also agree with a kantian view (at least until you find the answer )

No. Differences are mind independent.

Can you say that number as concept are mind independent ?

and if you talk about the numbers of apple, or the numbers of electron, then you have a background for counting.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So you also agree with a kantian view (at least until you find the answer )

No idea, I don't know what a kantian view is.

Can you say that number as concept are mind independent ?

Any concept requires a mind. Quantity on the other hand doesn't require a mind.

and if you talk about the numbers of apple, or the numbers of electron, then you have a background for counting.

Which would be irrelevant becuase those objects exist whether or not I count them.

 

[ronan]

No idea, I don't know what a kantian view is.

educate your self and read again the thread, maybe the questions I am asking you will become more clear.

Any concept requires a mind. Quantity on the other hand doesn't require a mind.

you mean quantity is not a concept?

Which would be irrelevant becuase those objects exist whether or not I count them.

So you want to say that apple and electron exist in the reality?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

educate your self and read again the thread, maybe the questions I am asking you will become more clear.

Nowhere does this article or any other web resource describe what a Kantian view is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

You're going to have to show what it is.

you mean quantity is not a concept?

It is a concept that corresponds to mind-independent reality and reality exists whether or not there are humans to conceive it.

So you want to say that apple and electron exist in the reality?

If you wanted to be technical a more correct statement are that some cross sections of reality yield differences that humans label apple and electron.

 

[ronan]

Nowhere does this article or any other web resource describe what a Kantian view is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

You're going to have to show what it is.

Be independent, you did not understand what I was asking you:
educate yourself about Kant and then come back to read the thread again!

It is a concept that corresponds to mind-independent reality and reality exists whether or not there are humans to conceive it.

That is your view but how you prove that ?
Kant and Hume would say that we cannot

If you wanted to be technical a more correct statement are that some cross sections of reality yield differences that humans label apple and electron.

Ok so you are saying that information is reality but we interpret as being electron and apple because of our human mind: this is basically Kant's view and all what I said in this thread is about that. (I am not refereeing to all Kantian view, but the particular one about reality behind our experience)

We cannot know what this reality/information/god is but we assume(BELIEVE) that it exist.

 

[Pete]

I'm not an atheist but I'd like to put forth my notions of reality.

Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.

I agree with SAM. (Are you going to challenge that, ronan ?)

Note the subjective nature - we can only draw inferences about "reality" based on some axioms:
- There exists some things external to our perceptions, with an existence independent of our own. (ie objective reality exists)
- At least some properties of real things are consistently perceivable.
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds

 

[ronan]

Why atheists specifically?
Do you think that all atheists think the same thing about the nature of reality?
Why not challenge everyone on what they think about the nature of reality?


You want to challenge something you don't yet know about?
Perhaps you think you already know what all atheists think about the nature of reality?

Pete, did you read the whole threads before posting?
I said that it was not my intention to generate fear from atheist.

I do not believe that atheist share the same view and that I know what is this view. This is basically why I created the thread: to know

From now on, most atheist who talked share a (in some extent I agree) Kantian view about reality which is in some sense (but not completely) mine as well

What is your view of reality?

Theist are welcome also but the thread is created for the view of atheist to keep the thread better ordered. You can create a thread on theist view if you want. It is a good idea.

 

[Pete]

Sorry, ronan. I deleted that post after I saw that it had been addressed.

 

[ronan]

I'm not an atheist but I'd like to put forth my notions of reality.

Reality to me is inference. Perception is data, my senses and experience are the tools I use to interpret the data. The result is reality, my inference of the data accessible to my senses and interpreted by my knowledge and experience.

for S.A.M.reality is what we see and interpret. It is for Kant, the phenomenal reality and for Hume what we can only know.

My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?
in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?

I agree with SAM. (Are you going to challenge that, ronan ?)

Note the subjective nature - we can only draw inferences about "reality" based on some axioms:
- There exists some things external to our perceptions, with an existence independent of our own. (ie objective reality exists)
- At least some properties of real things are consistently perceivable.
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds

You seem to differ in some points with S.A.M.
She does not talk about objective reality
She talk only about reality which is according to her the inference from the perception (data), sense and experience (tools)

You seem to say that there is a reality behind, this is Kant's noumena
When you talk about "real thing", do you want to say that they exist in the objective reality? How do you prove it?
induction is not enough!
It is not because you know the data:
1 2 3
that the laws behind is
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+1
it could be many other things such as
f(-1)=1
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+f(n-1)
You will only know that after you discover that in fact it continue this way:
1 2 3 5 8 13 ...

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?

Implying that everything must come from somewhere, which is an invalid conclusion. There is a far more compeling explanation that there is no need for an origin.

in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?

Which is a contrived notion to condition the audience to conclude everything must come from somewhere to which of course your answer is a god and is necessary.

Once you realize that an origin is not a necessity then all arguments that lean on that requirement to support a god concept simply become vacuous.

 

[Pete]

You seem to differ in some points with S.A.M.
She does not talk about objective reality
She talk only about reality which is according to her the inference from the perception (data), sense and experience (tools)

You seem to say that there is a reality behind, this is Kant's noumena
When you talk about "real thing", do you want to say that they exist in the objective reality? How do you prove it?

Both Sam and I proceed as if our perceptions match some objective reality - we both operate on the axiom that objective reality exists.
The actual truth of that axiom (whether objective reality really does exist or not) is unknown and fundamentally unknowable.
We have a choice - we can choose to believe that objective reality exists, or we can choose to believe that it doesn't. Choosing to believe that there is no objective reality would be useless - it gives no functional guidance. That leaves only one option; the option that every sentient being takes, which is to behave as if the outside world is not just a figment of your imagination.

induction is not enough!

Induction is a necessary axiom.
If induction doesn't hold, it is impossible to draw any inferences about reality... which makes the whole exercise meaningless.
If reality exists and it is possible to know anything about it, then the principle of induction must hold.

It is not because you know the data:
1 2 3
that the laws behind is
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+1
it could be many other things such as
f(-1)=1
f(0)=1
f(n+1)=f(n)+f(n-1)
You will only know that after you discover that in fact it continue this way:
1 2 3 5 8 13 ...

Correct... you can only make inferences based on the data you have. If more data demonstrates a conflict with past inferences, you change your inferences. Does that change reality?

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

we should not call this guys atheist:
Einstein, ....

Even though he is on record saying 'to a jesuit priest I am an atheist"?

 

[Pete]

My challenge for this is: From where does it come from?
in other word: Can something (phenomeanl reality) can come from nothing ?

How is that a challenge of my view of reality? It appears to be two separate questions. Separate from my view of reality, and separate from each other.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

What if reality is defined as something inefable (as spidergoat, an atheist pointed out)? would god be a good word as the word reality is?

No, since the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications.

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.

Perhaps because you cannot conceive of a scenario where your god is unnecessary. You seem to have created a personal notion for yourself of a necessary dependent reality, when no such dependency is a necessity.

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))

A tortuous path where many philosophers fundamentally disagree with Kant, and others offer contradictory definitions. It is also a concept where most have enormous difficulty understanding.

 

[SnakeLord]

That was all my point: many atheist believe that they are atheist but in fact all atheist that are realists have in fact the same belief of many theist who believe in the god I described

You are merely swapping one given word with another word and then saying "look, everyone believes in it". You might as well just say that an apple is god and thus - as pretty much every atheist believes an apple exists they actually believe god exists which means all atheists are theists. It's a retarded argument.

All these atheists are atheists - they don't have belief in gods. If you want to assert that 'reality' or 'dog turd' are god and thus those atheists really do, you'll have to define entirely what you mean by god because you're confusing the word. If what you mean by 'god' is simply reality or dog turd with no distinguishing features then I suggest you just call it dog turd and done with it.

Snakelord you cannot say that god has a clearly defined meaning.
The variety of theists will prove you that.

Well, there are many different 'types' of god, but I doubt you'll get a warm reception if you just label any random thing as 'god' and think it is sufficient.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

No, since the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications.

Here we are talking about a particular kind of theists we believe in a particular kind of god, please read the thread, the discussion did not stop here.

Perhaps because you cannot conceive of a scenario where your god is unnecessary. You seem to have created a personal notion for yourself of a necessary dependent reality, when no such dependency is a necessity.

I am like many atheist, I have difficulties to imagine that something can come from nothing, in a other thread you also say that you share this feeling. And I also agree with the ineffability of this reality/god.

A tortuous path where many philosophers fundamentally disagree with Kant, and others offer contradictory definitions. It is also a concept where most have enormous difficulty understanding.

I am talking about the one we agree with Kant (not all his statements but his statements regarding the encompassing reality). And it is common to many atheists as it has been shown in this thread.

You are merely swapping one given word with another word and then saying "look, everyone believes in it". You might as well just say that an apple is god and thus - as pretty much every atheist believes an apple exists they actually believe god exists which means all atheists are theists. It's a retarded argument.

It is not merely a swapping of word, did you follow the discussion:
some atheist believe in Kantian view that there is an encompassign reality out there but that we cannot know what it is. (in part because we are part of it)

Some theist also believe in this kind of encompassing reality, they call it god.

All these atheists are atheists - they don't have belief in gods. If you want to assert that 'reality' or 'dog turd' are god and thus those atheists really do, you'll have to define entirely what you mean by god because you're confusing the word. If what you mean by 'god' is simply reality or dog turd with no distinguishing features then I suggest you just call it dog turd and done with it.

You are not part getting to my point, imagine people from two culture with a different language, at some point for living happilly together, they have to conclude that what they call dog is the same as what the other call "chien" (french word for dog)

I am not saying that all theist believe in this kind of god neither I am saying that all atheist believe in an inefable encompassing reality.

bvi
Well, there are many different 'types' of god, but I doubt you'll get a warm reception if you just label any random thing as 'god' and think it is sufficient.

It was not a random thing, please read the thread .
I am talking about the ineffabel encompassing reality that many atheist believe in it, similarly many theist believe in a inefable encompassing god

 

[ronan]

Does that change reality?

of course not! but that makes the reality unknowable by induction !!