Do atheists need some faith?

[Selliedjoup]

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='314304' dateline='1343028933']
Yes I understand the difference. To compare something you don't know (what reality is) to something physically understood (the human body) is a pointless exercise, as these are too different for any comparison to be drawn. As you're proposing reality is measurable it seems you're equating the human body and reality to each other based on our ability to understand them. As you've luckily assumed reality is measurable you're in the position to equate, as comparing worth be pointless.

But we all do know what reality is. And I have neither said nor assumed that it is "measurable". In fact, what I have repeatedly said is that the concept of measurement is not applicable to it.

How do you know all of what reality is? Does reality exist in the same way for every living thing in the universe? How did you come to know what reality is without knowing measurable?

Feel free to whimsically dismiss whatever you like, just don't expect any agreememt from me. So as you're stating that as you don't know how big reality is, the question itself isn't relevant? or are you saying you do know how big reality and on this basis it isn't relevant?

I personally would like to know how big reality is, or rather know of everything that exists, whether it's just in our universe, is it solely material etc?

Do you simply not understand the language or are you really that rationally stunted? The question of "how big" applies to things that can be measured. For something to be measured you'd need a standard that exists independently from the object being measured. Since all existing standards are, and by their very nature, would be a part of reality, they cannot exist independently of reality and therefore cannot be used to measure it. The question isn't irrelevant, it is simply nonsensical.

All your circular talk says is we measure reality, and all of reality is what we have measured.

Perhaps you could tell me how you propose science can prove this? Burden of proof and all that jazz. I find it funny that many atheists assume this is to be the case which requires no explanation. It's like theists assuming that they don't need to account for the problem of suffering.

Given that science has pointed out many things that it places beyond its limits, I'd say that the proposition is already established.

What did 'science' say?

You failed to comprehend what I wrote. I was not addressing what value scientists assign to discoveries, but rather what YOU have assigned to scientific discoveries, or the lack of. Believing science to be the only logical way to address this question, is a belief, not a scientific fact. You seem to be confused by this.

Please point out where I said that.

It's implied in things you say. If you don't believe it to be true, I'd be happy to be corrected by you pointing out what you use to address this question. I don't see how you can dodge your belief in science's ability to answer this question, but I'll be interested to see you try.