Page 4 of 18

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:29 pm
by Kurieuo
Rubberneck wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Rubberneck wrote:Perhaps the thread starter could first define what they mean by "Reality".
Well, I would suggest that you begin here with your definition of "Reality" in order to begin...
-
-
-
Why? What it means in the OP is what is relevant to this thread.
I'm happy with this third-person definition:

Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This definition does not cover the first-person reality of subjective experience, but I think generally describes "reality" as I'd intend it.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:36 pm
by Kurieuo
Furthermore, where I write in my OP: "They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs."

I'm here talking about a subset of reality that is our physical universe as we each experience including time, space, energy, matter + life, our self and humanity.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:55 am
by Rubberneck
Kurieuo wrote:
Rubberneck wrote:
B. W. wrote:
Rubberneck wrote:Perhaps the thread starter could first define what they mean by "Reality".
Well, I would suggest that you begin here with your definition of "Reality" in order to begin...
-
-
-
Why? What it means in the OP is what is relevant to this thread.
I'm happy with this third-person definition:

Reality: the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This definition does not cover the first-person reality of subjective experience, but I think generally describes "reality" as I'd intend it.
Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it.

I don't see how we are supposed to evaluate the third-person definition so that we can conclude what actually exists, when we are stuck in the first-person and unable to evaluate it without it being tarnished by subjective experience. You've started this thread with the assumption that what we perceive actually exists externally to that perception, and I see no reason why I should hypothetically accept this, except for the sake of argument.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:30 am
by Kurieuo
In my original post, I don't see that I've said that reality must be one way or another, but rather made a call out to Atheists to put forward their own views. In fact, I've made no real argument in my original post.

However, notice that I was the one who placed something on the table? Notice that you happily critiqued it without really providing your own position? Typical. ;)

This is exactly what my original post was driving at with the way Atheists behave intellectually. It bores me. It's like playing poker with someone who claims to win each hand without ever showing their own. It seems you're still holding your cards closely, and yet happy to critique a dictionary definition view on reality that I'd endorse.

What I think reality is comprised of, is irrelevant to what an Atheist like yourself might think -- and that was the purpose of my post. To get Atheists to put something on the table.

You seem to have perhaps added something, but your position seems a little ambiguous. It seem that reality to you is then a form of idealism? Something subjectively projected perhaps devoid of an objective reality? Can you elaborate on your beliefs here place your own definition of reality on the table?

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 2:02 am
by Rubberneck
I was merely trying to ascertain what you mean by "reality", so not to build a straw-man. What you really want is for atheists to put someting on the table with regards to the nature of reality, yet they must provide their own definition of reality? So off the bat, there's potential that we're not even singing from the same hymn sheet.

I understand that you have taken a dictionary definition of "reality", but the question still remains on how we evaluate what actually exists. I won't be working on the assumption that what appears to exist through my experience, actually does exist independently of that experience. That's all. I thought it would be beneficial for discussion for terms and meanings to be nailed down first, before any of us goes charging in.

I'm happy to return the favour and explain reality as I see it, so please don't jump the gun in order to fit in with the point you are trying to make. Simply, I see "reality" as a label for that which appears to exist externally to experience. I don't believe that what appears to exist does actually exist external to experience, but I also don't believe that what appears to exist doesn't actually exist external to experience. I have no way of making an evaluation to conclude either way - objectivity is unobtainable.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:46 am
by Kurieuo
Rubberneck wrote:I was merely trying to ascertain what you mean by "reality", so not to build a straw-man. What you really want is for atheists to put someting on the table with regards to the nature of reality, yet they must provide their own definition of reality? So off the bat, there's potential that we're not even singing from the same hymn sheet.
Yeah, ok.
Rubberneck wrote:I understand that you have taken a dictionary definition of "reality", but the question still remains on how we evaluate what actually exists. I won't be working on the assumption that what appears to exist through my experience, actually does exist independently of that experience. That's all. I thought it would be beneficial for discussion for terms and meanings to be nailed down first, before any of us goes charging in.
I'm really not asking too much.
Rubberneck wrote:I'm happy to return the favour and explain reality as I see it, so please don't jump the gun in order to fit in with the point you are trying to make.
Perhaps that is the issue right there. You think I'm trying to make some point, but the point I made was already done in my first post.

I'm not going to jump on anything, and go "a-huh, got you!". I openly put one definition on the table, because I don't care... I'd prefer to not have a discussion full of a lot of dodging for fear of the other making some point. Such doesn't really profit anything but ego.
Rubberneck wrote:Simply, I see "reality" as a label for that which appears to exist externally to experience. I don't believe that what appears to exist does actually exist external to experience, but I also don't believe that what appears to exist doesn't actually exist external to experience. I have no way of making an evaluation to conclude either way - objectivity is unobtainable.
You're not going to get 100% certainty. So?
Nihilism is a good place to be (not really), but... somehow I feel you're not being entirely forthcoming.

You don't strike me as the nihilistic type to be posting on boards such as this, and claiming some things I've said are wrong (straw men) and that I've made mistaken generalisations.

Nonetheless, one needs a solution to the predicament of uncertainty. Otherwise they'll go insane in circular reasoning not believing A or ~A on anything, effectively become dysfunctional and a rambling mess. What can be logically proven won't get you certainty, for you must even first prove the logic that you use. But, what is logically most practical based on what appears most obvious, intuitive or probable will help you to be certain about many things. It's a resolution I had to come to myself.

If you're not going to embrace and concept of reality because you can't be logically prove 100% anything to do with reality, then while Nihilism a position you can take... I'm sure as you live your life that you nonetheless embrace some things as true. If not, then our discussion must come to an end for there's nothing really to discuss. This discussion perhaps isn't even happening.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:21 am
by Rubberneck
Kurieuo wrote:
Rubberneck wrote:I was merely trying to ascertain what you mean by "reality", so not to build a straw-man. What you really want is for atheists to put someting on the table with regards to the nature of reality, yet they must provide their own definition of reality? So off the bat, there's potential that we're not even singing from the same hymn sheet.
Yeah, ok.
Rubberneck wrote:I understand that you have taken a dictionary definition of "reality", but the question still remains on how we evaluate what actually exists. I won't be working on the assumption that what appears to exist through my experience, actually does exist independently of that experience. That's all. I thought it would be beneficial for discussion for terms and meanings to be nailed down first, before any of us goes charging in.
I'm really not asking too much.
Rubberneck wrote:I'm happy to return the favour and explain reality as I see it, so please don't jump the gun in order to fit in with the point you are trying to make.
Perhaps that is the issue right there. You think I'm trying to make some point, but the point I made was already done in my first post.

I'm not going to jump on anything, and go "a-huh, got you!". I openly put one definition on the table, because I don't care... I'd prefer to not have a discussion full of a lot of dodging for fear of the other making some point. Such doesn't really profit anything but ego.
Rubberneck wrote:Simply, I see "reality" as a label for that which appears to exist externally to experience. I don't believe that what appears to exist does actually exist external to experience, but I also don't believe that what appears to exist doesn't actually exist external to experience. I have no way of making an evaluation to conclude either way - objectivity is unobtainable.
You're not going to get 100% certainty. So?
Nihilism is a good place to be (not really), but... somehow I feel you're not being entirely forthcoming.

You don't strike me as the nihilistic type to be posting on boards such as this, and claiming some things I've said are wrong (straw men) and that I've made mistaken generalisations.

Nonetheless, one needs a solution to the predicament of uncertainty. Otherwise they'll go insane in circular reasoning not believing A or ~A on anything, effectively become dysfunctional and a rambling mess. What can be logically proven won't get you certainty, for you must even first prove the logic that you use. But, what is logically most practical based on what appears most obvious, intuitive or probable will help you to be certain about many things. It's a resolution I had to come to myself.

If you're not going to embrace and concept of reality because you can't be logically prove 100% anything to do with reality, then while Nihilism a position you can take... I'm sure as you live your life that you nonetheless embrace some things as true. If not, then our discussion must come to an end for there's nothing really to discuss. This discussion perhaps isn't even happening.
I don't disagree with you here. I'm just pointing out that the actuality of the existence of things is unobtainable, and I won't assume that reality actually exists. You seem to acknoweldge this as you say, we need a solution to traverse uncertainty, and that is to bascially work with what you've got. Yes, that's what I do on a day to day basis, paying no thought or ponderance as to wondering whether my bowl of Frosties really does exist or not. Such mental masturbation will, to mirror what you say slightly, drive you insane.

I, like you, am just acknowledging this nihilism, rather than adopting it as some sort of get out clause to jump away from any explanation or discussion. This has been a long-winded and somewhat strangulated start, but if it gets us to understand the others positions a bit better, then perhaps it can lead to more productive discussions.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:03 am
by Kurieuo
Don't get me wrong, I don't embrace an ontological nihilism... but do understand the issues.

One just has to come to grips with the issue that we just can't prove anything 100%. But, that doesn't mean we can't hit upon true knowledge, or figure out what is most probably the case as long as we can accept some foundational a priori knowledge.

I find many Atheists because of this seem to fear committing to anything, and even fall back upon this uncertainty when it comes to putting their own position on the table. For example, "I can't prove what occurred before the singularity, so I'll live with the uncertainty of not knowing. Christians on the other hand feel a need to knuckle everything down and claim to know that God did it."

What has happened here in such a statement? The Atheist has pretended to assume some "noble" position, by refusing to place anything on the table because they can't be certain. Although I'm sure they're certain about lots of things. Then having done so, they next criticise those (i.e., Christians) who in fact offer some strong philsophical arguments that an entity such as God creating our universe seems to be the most plausible conclusion -- certainly a whole lot more plausible than "nothing".

Really, the main point I'm getting at in my OP if it hasn't been apparent. Is if you're an Atheist and you're not going to place anything on the table while criticising those who do when it comes to what underpins the reality of the world we experience then just get buggered. If you meet those two criteria then you're the kind of person that I don't really want a discussion with. And in my experience, many Atheists who love to debate will just put nothing on the table while criticising.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:45 am
by Rubberneck
Kurieuo wrote:Don't get me wrong, I don't embrace an ontological nihilism... but do understand the issues.

One just has to come to grips with the issue that we just can't prove anything 100%. But, that doesn't mean we can't hit upon true knowledge, or figure out what is most probably the case as long as we can accept some foundational a priori knowledge.
Agreed, although I'd say an a priori assumption rather than knowledge.
I find many Atheists because of this seem to fear committing to anything, and even fall back upon this uncertainty when it comes to putting their own position on the table. For example, "I can't prove what occurred before the singularity, so I'll live with the uncertainty of not knowing. Christians on the other hand feel a need to knuckle everything down and claim to know that God did it."
I think saying that atheists "fear" committing to anything is a misnomer. It's simply an acknowledgement that resorting back to the nihilism we were speaking of, is an unavoidable impasse if the claim of the actual existence of a God being is put forward. That goes for anything though, not just God, like the bowl of Frosties or this conversation. Yes, we want to figure out what is most probable, but (and this is probably for a separate discussion), until there is a method for falsifiying supernatural claims, God claims are void of any way of discerning probability.

Personally, the statement "before the singularity" is a meaningless piece of nothingness. Really - "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". You're talking of a state before the existence of time, which is contradictory. We simply do not have the means to communicate this in a logical manner.
What has happened here in such a statement? The Atheist has pretended to assume some "noble" position, by refusing to place anything on the table because they can't be certain. Although I'm sure they're certain about lots of things. Then having done so, they next criticise those (i.e., Christians) who in fact offer some strong philsophical arguments that an entity such as God creating our universe seems to be the most plausible conclusion -- certainly a whole lot more plausible than "nothing".
This is what I mean about generalisations and straw-men. You're just popping labels hither and thither to describe how atheists feel about their position. It's wrong because none of this is in any way intrinsic to being an atheist. Perhaps you've never come across a panentheist who pretends to assume this "noble" position.
There'll be atheists sure about lots of things, and there'll be atheists who are sure of a minimal amount of things, and there'll be atheists who are certain about nothing, and there'll be atheists who hold provisional positions which can shift according to further evidence. You may even get some atheists who grow moustaches and don't collect stamps.
Really, the main point I'm getting at in my OP if it hasn't been apparent. Is if you're an Atheist and you're not going to place anything on the table while criticising those who do when it comes to what underpins the reality of the world we experience then just get buggered. If you meet those two criteria then you're the kind of person that I don't really want a discussion with. And in my experience, many Atheists who love to debate will just put nothing on the table while criticising.
I don't see why anyone (whether atheist, theist, deist, pantheist, Buddhist or French), should have to put an alternative explanation on the table before they can criticise another. If someone has no explanation, or don't find anything compelling enough to make a decision either way, then that's that. I don't know what you expect people to do. I dunno, I get the impression that you feel that you're at least making some kind of effort and not sitting on the sidelines, picking holes and heckling. You seem to be angry towards atheists as a whole, and it clouds your judgement so that you paint them all with one brush. If you can't get passed that, then perhaps atheists should just go and get buggered.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:17 pm
by Kurieuo
Rubberneck wrote:
K wrote:I find many Atheists because of this seem to fear committing to anything, and even fall back upon this uncertainty when it comes to putting their own position on the table. For example, "I can't prove what occurred before the singularity, so I'll live with the uncertainty of not knowing. Christians on the other hand feel a need to knuckle everything down and claim to know that God did it."
I think saying that atheists "fear" committing to anything is a misnomer. It's simply an acknowledgement that resorting back to the nihilism we were speaking of, is an unavoidable impasse if the claim of the actual existence of a God being is put forward. That goes for anything though, not just God, like the bowl of Frosties or this conversation. Yes, we want to figure out what is most probable, but (and this is probably for a separate discussion), until there is a method for falsifiying supernatural claims, God claims are void of any way of discerning probability.
It's an acknowledgement that they don't want to personally offer their opinions since:

a) they embrace other things with quite certainty rather than reverting to a nihilistic position on knowledge, and
b) they criticise other people's arguments for their beliefs. For example, God creating based upon fine-tuning arguments, kalam cosmological (particularly WLC's), evidence in physical creation that leads us to conclude a beginning) -- in doing so presume to know better and yet don't really offer up any substantial alternative.

When pressed for something, they recede into a position of agnosticism -- that we can't be certain about anything... Well, if anyone of any position is going to be so deadset critical and opinionative against others beliefs -- then at least offer your own opinion of the matter. People have opinions without knuckling down certainty -- as you yourself acknowledge.

Some more honest Atheists will put forward a multiverse scenario, but then quickly avoid any metaphysical critiques to quickly revert to a "I don't know". Yet, surely the logical consistency of possible positions can be evaluated, even if they may not in fact be actual. So the person who does this is just being a bad sport.
Rubberneck wrote:Personally, the statement "before the singularity" is a meaningless piece of nothingness. Really - "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". You're talking of a state before the existence of time, which is contradictory. We simply do not have the means to communicate this in a logical manner.
Re: first sentence, thanks for validating the type of response to expect from an Atheist in my original post.

How convenient in your first sentence here that you avoid offering anything. Yet, in the next sentence you leap out of such uncertainty to declare with certainty something that is very arguably wrong. Please provide how time existing before time is contradictory? Such may be illusory, but certainly I see nothing contradictory about there being a state of timelessness and then time.

Of course, if you look at the issue retrospectively -- at a point in time looking backward -- we indeed may say a time now existed before time. But, this perspective is based upon time's existence. Without having time the statement doesn't hold. Since none of us really questions that we live within time, the statement holds but only in virtue of time's existence.

To restate matter. In actuality, the reality of the matter is there would have just been a changeless state "without time" (atemporality) and then a change to a state with time (temporality). A cause cannot retro-cause itself, so this is ultimately an illusion of time, since without the existence of time there really was no before/after.

Perhaps if you actually thought about was before the singularity, and entertained different ideas (as very few more interesting Atheists do)... then you'd be able to offer more sophisticated responses rather than retreating into Agnoticism (it really isn't retreating into Nihilism since you accept many things as true with some certainty -- Nihilism strictly speaking in an ontological sense will say nothing can be known).
Rubberneck wrote:
What has happened here in such a statement? The Atheist has pretended to assume some "noble" position, by refusing to place anything on the table because they can't be certain. Although I'm sure they're certain about lots of things. Then having done so, they next criticise those (i.e., Christians) who in fact offer some strong philsophical arguments that an entity such as God creating our universe seems to be the most plausible conclusion -- certainly a whole lot more plausible than "nothing".
This is what I mean about generalisations and straw-men. You're just popping labels hither and thither to describe how atheists feel about their position. It's wrong because none of this is in any way intrinsic to being an atheist. Perhaps you've never come across a panentheist who pretends to assume this "noble" position.
There'll be atheists sure about lots of things, and there'll be atheists who are sure of a minimal amount of things, and there'll be atheists who are certain about nothing, and there'll be atheists who hold provisional positions which can shift according to further evidence. You may even get some atheists who grow moustaches and don't collect stamps.
You're talking against my many years of experience debating and entering into discussions with self-identifying strong/weak Atheists.

"Atheists" can and are often inconsistent with their "Atheism" (as I have argued elsewhere). Further, I do not describe "how atheists feel about their position" but rather "how I feel about their common rhetoric". While I willingly admit that its wrong to categorise ALL Atheists in one broad stroke, by the same token it is my experience that Atheists generally seem to have a lot of beliefs, perspectives and behaviours in common.

The one commonality I highlight in many Atheists I've experienced, is that they love to criticise the positions of others on reality while offering none of their own. Yet, in order for criticisms to really be valid, the "Atheist" needs to assume some higher and more logical position on reality. So the Atheist who criticises other views that attempt to explain reality, is ultimately claiming to know something about reality which he continues to hide his cards on by offering up nothing.

At least those of other positions, like Theists, Deists, Buddhists put something on the table in intellectual fairness from which they can criticise.

As for any generalisations I may have made, re-read my original post. After I describe what seems to be almost prophetic now of the way an Atheist would respond to each of my four questions... I nonetheless write:
  • Kurieuo: Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
So I'm not sure what it is you are trying to exactly argue re: generalisations and straw men that I already didn't admit to? Nonetheless, generalisations often arise due to observing many shared commonalities within the group being generalised. In this instance, I've generalised Atheists. But heck, I've left it open to any Atheist who disagrees to show themselves different!

Now, I feel in your case that you've had much time to provide something substantial. To provide your opinion and prove me wrong, or at least place yourself in the 1% of Atheist who in my experience are intellectually honest.

Yet, you start off wanting me to place something on the table re: reality -- a definition of reality. Which you rightly (in my opinion) receive criticism for, as your silence in offering up anything appears to just be proving points made in my original post. But, I spend my time responding to provide you with an opportunity to prove yourself different to those Atheists generally identified in my original post. So, I jump through your hoop and offer up a definition of reality. What do you do next? Oh, it really is predictable as I'm sure everyone who previously criticised you would have been expecting. You dive into criticising my definition of reality without even offering your own definition!

Come on. This isn't even something to do with what existed before or caused our universe. It really goes to justify what I say about your typical Atheist in my OP. But, we're not done yet. I still decide to give you a chance to explain your definition of reality by offering up another invitation. Finally, after criticising my definition a little bit more, you provide a position of reality that seems quite Nihilistic when it comes to knowing anything.

But then, after continuing with you further, you reject Nihilism to embrace certain a priori assumptions as being true. And then you criticise me further for generalisations and straw men, though you have lacked presenting your opinion on anything substantial to a discussion on "reality" opting instead to hide behind some "nihilistic uncertainty".

While you remain dismissive of my experiences with Atheists revealing I suppose what is more accurately a lack of intellectual honesty... Lunelle and you have just supported the full thrust of what I was getting at in the original post of this thread.

I've wasted enough time responding. I wish I could take my time back. But in any case, thought I'd open myself up to try a find another Atheist that may fall in that 1%.

I'll hand over now to let you respond however you like, and any one else here can feel free to jump in, but I'm done wasting my time further with you here.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:53 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
Kurieuo wrote:I'll hand over now to let you respond however you like, and any one else here can feel free to jump in, but I'm done wasting my time further with you here.
Is anything ever really a waste of time, I know I found this conversation to be very informative and interesting and maybe Rubberneck may have learn't something also or possibly someone who was lurking may have learn't also. I found this exchange to illustrate very well your original points, much more so than the exchange with Lunalle, well at least it was easier to follow from my lower intellectual stand point.

From my Christian perspective if this makes even one person closer to finding truth or coming into a relationship with God, it was definitely not a waste of time especially when we are created as eternal beings, one small moment could have an effect for all eternity.

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:09 pm
by Kurieuo
Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:I'll hand over now to let you respond however you like, and any one else here can feel free to jump in, but I'm done wasting my time further with you here.
Is anything ever really a waste of time, I know I found this conversation to be very informative and interesting and maybe Rubberneck may have learn't something also or possibly someone who was lurking may have learn't also. I found this exchange to illustrate very well your original points, much more so than the exchange with Lunalle, well at least it was easier to follow from my lower intellectual stand point.

From my Christian perspective if this makes even one person closer to finding truth or coming into a relationship with God, it was definitely not a waste of time especially when we are created as eternal beings, one small moment could have an effect for all eternity.
Yes, well... I suppose in you're kind of right.

It is encouraging to know others have nonetheless benefited.

When I have other things to do though, like help with the kids... family... work... it's a matter of where should I have spent my time. And that can depress me if I feel I've neglected my responsibility to other things for a foolish discussion.

Time has become an extremely valuable to me... with three kids now... but you're right, it's not really a waste of time.

Appreciate your encouragement!

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:38 pm
by Danieltwotwenty
Kurieuo wrote:When I have other things to do though, like help with the kids... family... work... it's a matter of where should I have spent my time. And that can depress me if I feel I've neglected my responsibility to other things for a foolish discussion.

Time has become an extremely valuable to me... with three kids now... but you're right, it's not really a waste of time.
I hear ya mate, I have two boys and we are trying for a third (girl God willing y[-o< ), time management is definitely difficult. Mine is spread between God, Family, Church, work, music, friends and sport and the first 4 take most of my time the others are the luxuries. Luckily my work is slow and I have loads of time to spend on the internet. :eugeek:

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:15 am
by Neha
Kurieuo. I find your original post quite troubling and I don't think the point you are trying to get across is actually getting across no matter how clever you think your position is. For me atheism is very natural, even as a child I was not totally sold on biblical stories. And I have since found many of them to be problematic. For me, I may not be able to answer all that entails time and beginning of things, I doubt you have those answers, and I am not bothered with the idea of a God at all. My proposition is simple I have not seen anything in my life which merits a God. You may tell me why God is needed to justify the philosophical implication of etc and etc. But what am I to do with a God he does not resonate with me on any level? When I look at how twisted this world is, I genuinely question the existence of a God. How can I tell a raped Girl, "God loves you", "God knew what was going to happen but sorry he can't do anything about it but he still is omnipotent you know." What good is God then for if I can't trust him with my life, or safety?

I am an atheist because I have never seen anything which hints a God, I haven't felt what you have had, so either God loves you more or he doesn't exist. And if he does he doesn't want me to know him. He won't allow me to be the doubting thomas. How unfair!

Q: What caused the "big bang" that brought our universe (time, space, energy, matter) into existence?
A: I don't know for sure, do you?

Q: How do you know what you experience is true?
A: By knowing what is untrue. By being logical.

Q: How do the physical laws hold together?
A: No, I am a simple girl, please tell me of the laws which hold these laws of physics together. And I hope you won't turn to divine mystery as the answer.

Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?
A: You tell me.
An Atheist thinks its absurd to be skeptical of Atheism and this just shows they don't like putting anything on the table
Because there is no atheist creed I follow. There is nothing to put on the table to begin with.
At least with Christianity, Christians back a view of reality that is placed on the table to be scrutinised and picked apart. As a Christian I might be wrong, but at least I had the guts to back something.
And how that supports your position? So you are saying atheists are cowards, I am a coward?
Atheists are boring. They're predictable. They don't like to be wrong. And yet, their trust to only accept what can be known beyond a doubt as complete truth via our physical senses which would never lie to us except in someone delusional (nevermind the question that all of the reality we experience might be delusional) --- to the Atheist reading --- Come on! At least change and put some ideas on the table that discuss the nature of reality.
:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:
They refuse to answer any questions about the underpinnings of reality, and yet love taking the micky out of anyone elses beliefs. No wonder so many Atheists in online discussions seem so arrogant and confident -- they don't place anything on the table and criticise anyone who does whether Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhism or the like. How easy is that!?
I understand your frustration if you happened to run into some people who fit that description. But how does that make everyone the same? Would you like the same argument made for christians, as if christianity is singular or monolithic in structure...but worse atheists don't even have that. We don't have a book and we are also people, like you, we always don't know all the answers.
If you're an Atheist reading this and have been offended, then please, break out of your mould and ponder questions regarding the nature of reality. Put something on the table and stop criticising everyone else.
or else you are here to offend us with stereotypes and strawmen? right!

Re: Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 4:52 am
by Rubberneck
It's an acknowledgement that they don't want to personally offer their opinions since:
But this is you presuming that they hold a specific opinion, when actually an opinion may not exist, only the acknowledgement that there are possibilities out there that currently try to explain, but they haven’t committed to believe any of them yet.
a) they embrace other things with quite certainty rather than reverting to a nihilistic position on knowledge, and
So what? Do you commit an opinion on absolutely everything and never hold off until further information is available? You never scrutinise concepts that are aimed to convince you but fail, even when you don’t hold on alternative?
b) they criticise other people's arguments for their beliefs. For example, God creating based upon fine-tuning arguments, kalam cosmological (particularly WLC's), evidence in physical creation that leads us to conclude a beginning) -- in doing so presume to know better and yet don't really offer up any substantial alternative.
And you don’t do this in any other walk of life? Theists offer the arguments – if you don’t want them criticised then don’t offer them and sit in your protective bubble. Atheists, like anyone else where theism/religion is irrelevant, will criticise arguments put forward for a variety of things without offering an alternative, yet you seem to think theistic claims should be offered some special dispensation where alternatives must be offered before you’ll even entertain their criticism? How precious.
When pressed for something, they recede into a position of agnosticism -- that we can't be certain about anything... Well, if anyone of any position is going to be so deadset critical and opinionative against others beliefs -- then at least offer your own opinion of the matter. People have opinions without knuckling down certainty -- as you yourself acknowledge.
So actually, your quibble isn’t against atheism, it’s against agnosticism, or more specifically agnostic atheism. Why should people, or even how are people supposed to offer an opinion when they don’t currently hold one? Would you prefer these people to lie and make something up for which they don’t believe? You can knock yourself out in an exercise where you critique an opinion someone doesn’t actually hold if you wish, but you may find that even more boring and less worthwhile than discussing with someone who honestly holds no opinion, yet is willing to discuss your opinion.
Some more honest Atheists will put forward a multiverse scenario, but then quickly avoid any metaphysical critiques to quickly revert to a "I don't know". Yet, surely the logical consistency of possible positions can be evaluated, even if they may not in fact be actual. So the person who does this is just being a bad sport.
And I, presumably like you, would criticise the multiverse theory for probably the same reasons you do. Of course, to some of those who believe in a multiverse, they’ll brush someone like me aside as boring because I give them no alternative.
To me, a multiverse scenario is on a level playing field with a God scenario – but I could lie and say that I like the sound of the multiverse scenario because it’s rather “atheistic”, so my opinion is that I find the multiverse scenario more probable, and then we can spar, criticising and scrutinising the contrasting opinions we hold. Now that really would be productive….
Re: first sentence, thanks for validating the type of response to expect from an Atheist in my original post.
I’m sure you’ll receive rapturous applause and pats on the back aplenty from the theist rafters. If I present myself so that I remain unconvinced by any proposition, be it God, multiverse or whatever, and that fits in with your boredom, so be it. I prefer to approach you honestly than make something up.
How convenient in your first sentence here that you avoid offering anything.
There’s nothing “convenient” about it, it’s just honest. I keep repeating this sentiment, but would you really prefer me to lie and present an alternative opinion that I don’t actually hold?
Yet, in the next sentence you leap out of such uncertainty to declare with certainty something that is very arguably wrong.
I’m not declaring certainty. My response is based on the provisional knowledge I hold. I’m open to the possibility that it can be explained in such a manner that it doesn’t pander to naturalism, but I currently see no way in which that can be achieved.
Please provide how time existing before time is contradictory?
Please provide where I have stated that time existing before time is contradictory, or remove the straw-man.
Such may be illusory, but certainly I see nothing contradictory about there being a state of timelessness and then time.
There is no point in a state void of a continuum where time would begin. A temporal state born from an atemporal state is as eternal as the atemporal state, either that or time doesn’t exist.
Of course, if you look at the issue retrospectively -- at a point in time looking backward -- we indeed may say a time now existed before time. But, this perspective is based upon time's existence. Without having time the statement doesn't hold. Since none of us really questions that we live within time, the statement holds but only in virtue of time's existence.
You’re making more of the point for me. Statements don’t hold without the virtue of time’s existence, yet you are making statements regarding an atermporal state, ergo the statement doesn’t hold.
To restate matter. In actuality, the reality of the matter is there would have just been a changeless state "without time" (atemporality) and then a change to a state with time (temporality). A cause cannot retro-cause itself, so this is ultimately an illusion of time, since without the existence of time there really was no before/after.
So you understand that either there was no change from atemporal to temporal or that there was no change because time doesn’t exist. Sorted.
Perhaps if you actually thought about was before the singularity, and entertained different ideas (as very few more interesting Atheists do)... then you'd be able to offer more sophisticated responses rather than retreating into Agnoticism (it really isn't retreating into Nihilism since you accept many things as true with some certainty -- Nihilism strictly speaking in an ontological sense will say nothing can be known).
First off, I’m not trying to appease or live up to your standard of “sophisticated”. Secondly, I have thought about it, realised that such a concept doesn’t hold grammatically because of the limitation of our language, so that any talk of “before” is meaningless. Thirdly, I have entertained different ideas, whether it’s God, an eternal universe and so on. I’m also aware that the model used for things like the KCA is merely just one model, a model of an inflationary universe, where certain theorems, theories and hypotheses circulate. To “retreat” into agnosticism is to admit that my knowledge on such issues is found wanting, and I won’t be taking a punt either way until further evidence is provided…. or I could just lie and make up a belief to get you to engage.
You're talking against my many years of experience debating and entering into discussions with self-identifying strong/weak Atheists.
Any statement I made previous didn’t take into account your many years of experience debating and entering into discussions with self-identifying atheists, for the obvious reason that I’m oblivious to it. I don’t know how you expected me to factor that in.
"Atheists" can and are often inconsistent with their "Atheism" (as I have argued elsewhere).
The only way one can become inconsistent with their atheism is to flit between being atheist and theist.
Further, I do not describe "how atheists feel about their position" but rather "how I feel about their common rhetoric".
Ok, fair point.
While I willingly admit that its wrong to categorise ALL Atheists in one broad stroke, by the same token it is my experience that Atheists generally seem to have a lot of beliefs, perspectives and behaviours in common.
And peel away at every individual atheist and you’ll probably find that they have a lot of beliefs, perspectives and behaviours in common with you. So what? Perhaps it would be better if you approached every individual on their own merits, instead of categorising and dividing people up into neat little boxes.
The one commonality I highlight in many Atheists I've experienced, is that they love to criticise the positions of others on reality while offering none of their own. Yet, in order for criticisms to really be valid, the "Atheist" needs to assume some higher and more logical position on reality. So the Atheist who criticises other views that attempt to explain reality, is ultimately claiming to know something about reality which he continues to hide his cards on by offering up nothing.
The only card you’re playing here is your persecution one.
I cannot comment on what you have experienced. All I can say is that you seem to want to paint most atheists in a certain light, as if that somehow makes their stance invalid. All you’re really doing is having a moan.
At least those of other positions, like Theists, Deists, Buddhists put something on the table in intellectual fairness from which they can criticise.
Aww, diddums. Are the atheists not playing fair? Grow up. This has nothing to do with playing fair. No-one is obliged to offer alternatives before they can criticise a concept or opinion in any walk of life. Oh, and there a plenty of atheist Buddhists.
As for any generalisations I may have made, re-read my original post. After I describe what seems to be almost prophetic now of the way an Atheist would respond to each of my four questions... I nonetheless write:
Kurieuo: Ok, so I improvised on the responses and likely setup some strawmen. But, my experience in discussions with Atheists is that the typical response is to ignore questions about reality and just accept everything at face value. They don't like to dig and probe into questions, or consider how something might be possible. They hate metaphysical questions -- asking why questions about reality and thinking about possible answers.
So I'm not sure what it is you are trying to exactly argue re: generalisations and straw men that I already didn't admit to? Nonetheless, generalisations often arise due to observing many shared commonalities within the group being generalised. In this instance, I've generalised Atheists. But heck, I've left it open to any Atheist who disagrees to show themselves different!
I’ve never said that I’d be highlighting generalisations and straw-men that hadn’t already been admitted to. I merely stated that I had observed some, and you’re happy to admit that you’ve made some. That would make me correct in my observations.
Again, I cannot comment on what you have experienced. All I can say is that it doesn’t match mine. Just out of curiosity, do you hold theists who match these criteria as intellectually unfair and boring, or is it just atheists?
Now, I feel in your case that you've had much time to provide something substantial. To provide your opinion and prove me wrong, or at least place yourself in the 1% of Atheist who in my experience are intellectually honest.
I’m not being dishonest, and I ask that you please retract the slur that I am not being honest. It’s not for me to provide something for which I don’t have in order to prove you wrong. I’m not stating that you are wrong, for one. And I’m not interested in sycophantically pandering to “K’s 1% of Atheist” club, as if it’s wrong not to be if you’re an atheist. Can I join you on that pedestal or will you come down to humility level?
Yet, you start off wanting me to place something on the table re: reality -- a definition of reality. Which you rightly (in my opinion) receive criticism for, as your silence in offering up anything appears to just be proving points made in my original post. But, I spend my time responding to provide you with an opportunity to prove yourself different to those Atheists generally identified in my original post. So, I jump through your hoop and offer up a definition of reality. What do you do next? Oh, it really is predictable as I'm sure everyone who previously criticised you would have been expecting. You dive into criticising my definition of reality without even offering your own definition!
Stop their while I fetch my violin from my matchbox.
I made it specifically clear that I wanted to make sure we understood each other with the term, and in the end we came to an understanding about the nihilistic approach. You’re too quick play your persecution card. We came to an understanding. That was meant to be a good thing wasn’t it?
Come on. This isn't even something to do with what existed before or caused our universe. It really goes to justify what I say about your typical Atheist in my OP. But, we're not done yet. I still decide to give you a chance to explain your definition of reality by offering up another invitation. Finally, after criticising my definition a little bit more, you provide a position of reality that seems quite Nihilistic when it comes to knowing anything.
Oh the “typical atheist” routine. Yawn. You’re good at relaying the structure of how a discussion has gone, I’ll give you that. Carry on….
But then, after continuing with you further, you reject Nihilism to embrace certain a priori assumptions as being true. And then you criticise me further for generalisations and straw men, though you have lacked presenting your opinion on anything substantial to a discussion on "reality" opting instead to hide behind some "nihilistic uncertainty".
Start a discussion on something else then, other than reality, which you acknowledge requires you to make a priori assumptions about it existing (not that it is true that it exists). We can work with whether the God you believe exists, exists within the reality you believe I also occupy if you wish.
While you remain dismissive of my experiences with Atheists revealing I suppose what is more accurately a lack of intellectual honesty... Lunelle and you have just supported the full thrust of what I was getting at in the original post of this thread.
I’m not dismissive of your experiences – I’m oblivious to them! While I can’t comment on them, I can say that you are making presumptuous accusations of intellectual dishonesty that you have failed to demonstrate. If you can’t handle people criticising, scrutinising and questioning your theistic claims without offering alternatives then that’s your problem, yet your way of dealing with it is to accuse them (and me) of dishonesty. It’s pathetic.
I've wasted enough time responding. I wish I could take my time back. But in any case, thought I'd open myself up to try a find another Atheist that may fall in that 1%.
Perhaps you should’ve thought about that before you started responding.
Alas, I don’t fall into the K’s notorious 1% club. I’m devastated. Really I am. I really wish I could live up to your standards….
I'll hand over now to let you respond however you like, and any one else here can feel free to jump in, but I'm done wasting my time further with you here.
A shame, and I say that minus the sarcasm, that you should adopt the Dunning-Kruger effect. "Typical" Christian…. ;)