Atheist Realism?

Pete said:
Both Sam and I proceed as if our perceptions match some objective reality - we both operate on the axiom that objective reality exists.
Click to expand...
From what S.A.M. you cannot infer that she believe in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
 
Cris said:
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.
Click to expand...

But at least agree that atheist who believe in the existence of a reality (which is defined as the somewhere from which arise what we perceive are in fact the same as the theist who believe in a ineffable encompassing god from which the world of appearance (perceptions) arise.

In a another thread, I don't remember which one, you said that you share the feeling that a reality must exist because something cannot cone from nothing.

I don't think there is many atheists who say that there is no reality behind our sense and that the only reality is the mind. It is basically a idealism.
 
Pete said:
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.
Click to expand...

It does not challenge your view because you talk about a reality behind the senses but for me (you differ about that) S.A.M. did not talk about a reality behind the sense,she said that the reality is her inference, not what from which she get the inference.

Your view is similar to mine, I believe in a ineffable encompassing reality/god behind our perception. We cannot describe it.
 
ronan said:
of course not! but that makes the reality unknowable by induction !!
Click to expand...
Reality can't be "known" with absolute certainty by any means. It can only be inferred, like Sam said. And the only possible method of inference through perception is by induction.

ronan said:
From what S.A.M. said you cannot infer that she believes in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
Click to expand...
Neither can you infer that I believe in the existence of objective reality from what I said.
However, it is clear that we both behave as if it exists. Everybody does. There's no other way to behave.

ronan said:
Your view is similar to mine, I believe in a ineffable encompassing reality/god behind our perception. We cannot describe it.
Click to expand...
We can certainly describe reality, if our inductive inferences from our perceptions are reasonably reliable match with reality. If that is the case (and in a general way, it's useless to suppose anything else), then describing our inferences describes reality (with due acknowledgement of the fallibility of both perception and inference, which may be trumped by better perception and/or inference).

Calling reality "god" does not appear to be useful, unless you are attempting to attach god-like attributes (consciousness, for a start) to reality.
 
Last edited:
ronan said:
It comes from reality/god :)
It has to
by definition, reality is from where all our experience come from
Click to expand...

Well, yes I can see what you mean with consciousness coming from reality.
But 'reality/God' does not compute in any way. Not to me at least.
Are you saying God equals reality ?
 
ronan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Does not compute with your earlier statement that objective reality cannot be accurately perceived.
Or are you applying different meanings of the word 'reality' simultaneously ?
May I suggest using objective reality and subjective reality ?
 
Enmos said:
Does not compute with your earlier statement that objective reality cannot be accurately perceived.
Or are you applying different meanings of the word 'reality' simultaneously ?
May I suggest using objective reality and subjective reality ?
Click to expand...

Thats an assumption that objective reality does exist. If it cannot be perceived, does it exist?

ronan said:
From what S.A.M. you cannot infer that she believe in the existence of an objective reality, at least it is not clear enough. S.A.M. do you believe in the existence of an objective reality?
Click to expand...

Of course, if I had decided that only that which I perceive can exist, that would limit the scope of my expectations and explorations. My ideology is that if only that which I can perceive can be proved to exist, then indeed, I must figure out ways to expand the scope of my perceptions. Which requires I believe it is possible that which I cannot perceive must also exist.
 
did you follow the discussion
Click to expand...

Certainly. What I am, (obviously unsuccessfully), trying to point out to you is that the discussion is completely meaningless. Let me restate it:

You believe in UFO's. I call UFO's 'god'.. that means you believe in god. The two words used describe something with the exact same properties. Where is the merit in such discussion? Why would I not just call a UFO a UFO and done with it - why call it 'god' which will do nothing but confuse the mass majority of humans on this planet?

"The universe" works well enough. There is too much cultural baggage associated with "God" - Spidergoat

"the word god carries with it vast baggage of implications" - Cris

I am saying the same thing and further stating that I see no worthwhile point within your post. So one guy calls it football and another guy calls it soccer while both describing the exact same thing.. so what? You are seemingly attempting an incredibly daft argument to try and get an atheist to say "yes, I believe in god", (this 'god' having identical properties to something else with a given word). Frankly I find it idiotic and a waste of kilobytes.

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)
Click to expand...

Fine, and when I go to France I will have to make a comparison between what 'chien' relates to in my language - but 'god' and 'reality' are both part of my language. If a French man says 'god' and points at a steaming pile of chien poo, I will consider it a hilarious coincidence, or the man barking! mad because of the defining characteristics, or baggage, of 'god'.

However, next time someone asks me if I believe in god I shall say yes and point at the UFO in the sky. Let's just hope they follow your understanding. :bugeye:
 
Pete said:
If reality can't be "known" with absolute certainty by any means. It can only be inferred, like Sam said. And the only possible method of inference through perception is by induction.
Click to expand...

But that is not a perfect method so you have to conclude that you cannot know the reality by this method.

Pete said:
Neither can you infer that I believe in the existence of objective reality from what I said.
Click to expand...
I only read you :p you said that for you there is an objective reality

Pete said:
We can certainly describe reality, if our inductive inferences from our perceptions are reasonably reliable match with reality. If that is the case (and in a general way, it's useless to suppose anything else), then describing our inferences describes reality (with due acknowledgement of the fallibility of both perception and inference, which may be trumped by better perception and/or inference).
Click to expand...
Induction seem to be reliable about phenomenal reality(the perceptions) because it makes prediction about it but you cannot know it is reliable for reality behind our senses
Remember you are maybe dreaming

Pete said:
Calling reality "god" does not appear to be useful, unless you are attempting to attach god-like attributes (consciousness, for a start) to reality.
Click to expand...

It is not just calling reality god, It is showing that "god" is for some people (some theist) what for other (some atheist) "reality" is

it is like showing that "dog" for some people (english speaker) is "chien" for other (french speaker)
 
Enmos said:
Yes, what else would your senses be receiving stimuli from ?
What do you mean with that first bit ?
Click to expand...

You cannot, remember?:bugeye:

We believe objective reality exists because as we come up with tools that test the limits of our perception, we realise that there are many things which exist beyond our ability to perceive them. Hence we realise we are limited in our perceptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top