(January 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm)amkerman Wrote: What I want to know is whether atheists believe in reality as I have defined it using the dictionary.
Hold on; so we've decided to accept the dictionary definitions now? Okay, I'll go along with this line, at least provisionally. From the same source you cited:
Quote:Definition of REALITY
1: the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality>
b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
Then it goes on about reality TV about which the less said the batter. Anyway. I would be quite happy to accept that as a definition of reality: basically everything that doesn't cease to exist as a result of my falling asleep. Ah, but you earlier insisted that reality is synonymous with God (capitalised).
Quote:Definition of GOD
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler
Oh dear; looks like the dictionary doesn't agree with your definition. So if you are trying to assert that either atheists reject reality or believe in God (both assertions, remember, based on a conflation derived from your own personal definition which is not supported by the dictionary you yourself cited) then the answer is that this particular atheist does the precise opposite.
Incidentally and while I have your attention, I want to take issue with your mangling of the quote from Romeo & Juliet:
"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;"
What the Bard was saying here is that the naming of something, in this case the flower, is something agreed upon by consensus of usage. If everyone had decided to call it a cowpat instead, the flower would continue to be the same flower with complete disinterest. Your garbled version ("A rose by another name would still be a rose") suggests that the name 'rose' in somehow intrinsic to the flower; everyone might indeed have decided to call it a cowpat but they stupidly didn't know it was really a rose.
In other words, basically what we've been trying to tell you all through this thread.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
