Do atheists need some faith?

[genkaus]

How do you know we're capable of understanding reality, when we don't even know how big reality is? You're making a sweeping claim about an arena we can't define in even the most basic way.

We are capable of understanding reality because if we weren't we wouldn't be able to use and manipulate it to our purposes like we do every day.

We don't know if we are qualified to analyze all of reality or not, given that we don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

"All of reality" could be just a bit more of what we already know about.

Since we don't know of any part of reality we are not qualified to analyze and since we have shown ourselves to be capable of analyzing every part of reality we have discovered, that is a reasonable conclusion.

Or....

"All of reality" could be 4,987 billion trillion times bigger than what we already know about, and most of what we don't know about could be fundamentally different than what we do know about. It could be that too. We have no idea, none at all.

But, despite not having a clue about what the phrase "all of reality" actually refers to, many of us, theist and atheist alike, are perfectly content to make sweeping claims about this arena which we can't define in even the most basic way.

And this is the species that is supposedly qualified to know what does or doesn't exist in all of reality.

You are the one making the sweeping claim when you say that we are not qualified to know. Your argument is "we do not know everything, so we are not qualified to know anything". Here's a quote that is very much relevant to that:

"Do not say that you’re afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience—that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible—that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error."

[Felasco]

We are capable of understanding reality because if we weren't we wouldn't be able to use and manipulate it to our purposes like we do every day.

It's entirely true we have an understanding of some of reality. This does not automatically equal being capable of understanding ALL of reality.

The god proposal and the anti-god proposal are both statements about the fundamental nature of reality. One proposes the fundamental nature of reality is intelligence, the other proposes the fundamental nature of reality is non-intelligence. Both parties, making claims, about an arena they can not define.

Since we don't know of any part of reality we are not qualified to analyze and since we have shown ourselves to be capable of analyzing every part of reality we have discovered, that is a reasonable conclusion.

Apologies, no idea what you're saying here. Try again?

You are the one making the sweeping claim when you say that we are not qualified to know.

My claim is that we currently have no way of knowing if we are qualified to know or not. If anyone feels that we do have the ability to know what does or doesn't exist in an arena that we can't define, please make your case.

Your argument is "we do not know everything, so we are not qualified to know anything".

I actually said no such thing. You are arguing with statements of your own invention here.

[genkaus]

It's entirely true we have an understanding of some of reality. This does not automatically equal being capable of understanding ALL of reality.

And the rationale behind your supposition that we aren't is...?

The god proposal and the anti-god proposal are both statements about the fundamental nature of reality.

How do you know that? You said it yourself that you don't know anything about the fundamental nature of reality (or if there is a fundamental nature of reality) to know whether god has anything to do with it.

One proposes the fundamental nature of reality is intelligence, the other proposes the fundamental nature of reality is non-intelligence. Both parties, making claims, about an arena they can not define.

Really? Because both philosophy and science have been studying and defining that one since the very beginning. Its called metaphysics. Look it up.

Apologies, no idea what you're saying here. Try again?

We know something - therefore we can know something.
We know of nothing that is beyond our knowledge.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anything is beyond our knowledge.

My claim is that we currently have no way of knowing if we are qualified to know or not. If anyone feels that we do have the ability to know what does or doesn't exist in an arena that we can't define, please make your case.

And that claim is refuted by the fact that we do know thereby proving that we are qualified to know. That is how we know that we know. The arena is defined. It has been studied and continues to be studied.

[Felasco]

And the rationale behind your supposition that we aren't is...?

We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

How do you know that? You said it yourself that you don't know anything about the fundamental nature of reality (or if there is a fundamental nature of reality) to know whether god has anything to do with it.

This challenge is completely unrelated to the statement you are referencing. Try again please.

Really? Because both philosophy and science have been studying and defining that one since the very beginning. Its called metaphysics. Look it up.

How big is reality? Please give us it's dimensions, and we can go from there.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that anything is beyond our knowledge.

When will science end? If you answer hundreds or thousands of years, or never, then it follows we currently know pretty close to nothing. Very little in any case.

And that claim is refuted by the fact that we do know thereby proving that we are qualified to know. That is how we know that we know. The arena is defined. It has been studied and continues to be studied.

How big is reality please. This would seem to be a very basic question about reality. If you don't know how big reality is, then you don't know how big your sample size is either. That is, we don't know what the relationship is between the known and the unknown. The known might be a meaningful sample of the unknown, or it might be a completely meaningless sample.

Why is it reason to come to a sweeping firm conclusion based on an unknown sample size?

[Polaris]

Some atheists don't even have faith (or whatever word you choose to use) in humanity and acting like a human being.

[jonb]

Some atheists don't even have faith (or whatever word you choose to use) in humanity and acting like a human being.

True I have no faith at all. The concept the word represents is meaningless.

[genkaus]

We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

A doctor doesn't know every detail about "all of human body" either. That doesn't mean he is not qualified to practice medicine.

This challenge is completely unrelated to the statement you are referencing. Try again please.

The challenge of epistemological nature regarding the statement's epistemological nature is very very much related to it. Try a better excuse.

How big is reality? Please give us it's dimensions, and we can go from there.

What makes you think that question is even valid? That reality is something that can be measured in dimensions?

When will science end? If you answer hundreds or thousands of years, or never, then it follows we currently know pretty close to nothing. Very little in any case.

Irrelevant. It still doesn't show that anything is beyond its scope.

How big is reality please. This would seem to be a very basic question about reality. If you don't know how big reality is, then you don't know how big your sample size is either. That is, we don't know what the relationship is between the known and the unknown. The known might be a meaningful sample of the unknown, or it might be a completely meaningless sample.

Why is it reason to come to a sweeping firm conclusion based on an unknown sample size?

What, in your deluded mind, makes you think that that is even a valid question? Do scientists ask the questions "what color is the universe" or "how bid is human mind"? Do they study these things anyway? Do you see declarations of size of the sample or the "size of the gamma rays"? Does that make the study meaningless? I think you better study language before you tackle metaphysics.

[Selliedjoup]

We don't even know what the phrase "all of reality" refers to.

A doctor doesn't know every detail about "all of human body" either. That doesn't mean he is not qualified to practice medicine.

So you're equating reality to a known physical object? Why?

How big is reality? Please give us it's dimensions, and we can go from there.

What makes you think that question is even valid? That reality is something that can be measured in dimensions?

The point is if you don't know how big reality is, or what it is, you're choosing to determine what it is based on what you know.

When will science end? If you answer hundreds or thousands of years, or never, then it follows we currently know pretty close to nothing. Very little in any case.

Irrelevant. It still doesn't show that anything is beyond its scope.

You're looking for science to prove what is beyond science?

How big is reality please. This would seem to be a very basic question about reality. If you don't know how big reality is, then you don't know how big your sample size is either. That is, we don't know what the relationship is between the known and the unknown. The known might be a meaningful sample of the unknown, or it might be a completely meaningless sample.

Why is it reason to come to a sweeping firm conclusion based on an unknown sample size?

What, in your deluded mind, makes you think that that is even a valid question? Do scientists ask the questions "what color is the universe" or "how bid is human mind"? Do they study these things anyway? Do you see declarations of size of the sample or the "size of the gamma rays"? Does that make the study meaningless? I think you better study language before you tackle metaphysics.

The question does not apply to what scientists look to establish, but the value you assign to what they have, or seek to, establish. Try not to portray your position as a scientific one.

[genkaus]

So you're equating reality to a known physical object? Why?

No equating, comparing. You understand the difference, don't you?

The point is if you don't know how big reality is, or what it is, you're choosing to determine what it is based on what you know.

There is a big difference between "how big" and "what". The question of "how big" isn't even applicable here.

You're looking for science to prove what is beyond science?

You have a reason to think it can't?

The question does not apply to what scientists look to establish, but the value you assign to what they have, or seek to, establish. Try not to portray your position as a scientific one.

Mistaken again. Scientists do not establish everything in terms of value.

[Selliedjoup]

So you're equating reality to a known physical object? Why?

No equating, comparing. You understand the difference, don't you?

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.

The point is if you don't know how big reality is, or what it is, you're choosing to determine what it is based on what you know.

There is a big difference between "how big" and "what". The question of "how big" isn't even applicable here.

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?

You're looking for science to prove what is beyond science?

You have a reason to think it can't?

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.

The question does not apply to what scientists look to establish, but the value you assign to what they have, or seek to, establish. Try not to portray your position as a scientific one.

Mistaken again. Scientists do not establish everything in terms of value.

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.