Do atheists need some faith?

[genkaus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[fr0d0]

@ the op

Faith being the assurance of things you cannot see, or the ability to conclude using reasoning alone, is a pretty essential human ability, yes

[Selliedjoup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ma1X9EH2A

[genkaus]

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?

I don't have to know what all of reality is to know what reality is, the same way I don't have to know all of science to know what science is. I know what reality is because I went to high-school where I learned English.

Yes, reality does exist the same way for every living thing because it exists independently from them.

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

Then you are incapable of understanding plain language because all I've been saying here is that the concept of measurement does not apply to reality.

What did 'science' say?

About what?

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.

I use logic and reasoning skills. Science is one of the ways to do that.

---

@ the op

Faith being the assurance of things you cannot see, or the ability to conclude using reasoning alone, is a pretty essential human ability, yes

Faith being the assurance of things you cannot see, or the ability to conclude without reasoning.

Corrected that.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ma1X9EH2A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iyNVd2EU...h_response

[Selliedjoup]

[quote='Selliedjoup' pid='315063' dateline='1343190788']
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?

I don't have to know what all of reality is to know what reality is, the same way I don't have to know all of science to know what science is. I know what reality is because I went to high-school where I learned English.

If you don't know all of what reality is or how it began, you're not in a position to make assessments about what it is not.

Your comparisons really need work to be effective. Science is science, reality and what it is is heavily debated.

Maybe wikipedia will help you learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Yes, reality does exist the same way for every living thing because it exists independently from them.

I'm unsure if you purposely miss the point or not. My point is whether the 'reality' each living sees is perceived in the same way, and if so, how do you know this to be actual reality as opposed to a limitation of the observer?

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

Then you are incapable of understanding plain language because all I've been saying here is that the concept of measurement does not apply to reality.

I understand the statement, just not the logic or explanation provided.

What did 'science' say?

About what?

You said:
"Given that science has pointed out many things that it places beyond its limits, I'd say that the proposition is already established. as you struggled to scroll up.

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.

I use logic and reasoning skills. Science is one of the ways to do that.

That was terrible. You didn't deny, justify, you may as well not have said anything.

[genkaus]

If you don't know all of what reality is or how it began, you're not in a position to make assessments about what it is not.

Your comparisons really need work to be effective. Science is science, reality and what it is is heavily debated.

Maybe wikipedia will help you learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

How ironic. After making a statement about the need for knowing all of reality to assess what it is and what it is not, you link to an article that assesses what it is and what it is not without knowing all of it. Talk about a self-defeating proposition.

I'm unsure if you purposely miss the point or not. My point is whether the 'reality' each living sees is perceived in the same way, and if so, how do you know this to be actual reality as opposed to a limitation of the observer?

No, actually, I made the point. The perception of reality and reality itself are two different things and you are trying to conflate them. Every living thing does not necessarily see reality in the same way - nevertheless, they would be seeing the same reality. And even if they see it differently, the fact that they are all seeing the same reality gives them a common ground to eliminate subjective biases.

I understand the statement, just not the logic or explanation provided.

If you understood the statement, you wouldn't be talking about "measuring" reality.

You said:
"Given that science has pointed out many things that it places beyond its limits, I'd say that the proposition is already established. as you struggled to scroll up.

What exactly are you asking here?

That was terrible. You didn't deny, justify, you may as well not have said anything.

I've already denied making or implying the statement you accuse me of. I cannot justify something I did not say or intended. And I stated what I actually do say.

[5thHorseman]

9 pages in, I feel the need to contribute.

What a dumbass thread.

No one needs faith, ger back on mumma's tit, or cuddle a blanket if you need something.

[Selliedjoup]

If you don't know all of what reality is or how it began, you're not in a position to make assessments about what it is not.

Your comparisons really need work to be effective. Science is science, reality and what it is is heavily debated.

Maybe wikipedia will help you learn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

How ironic. After making a statement about the need for knowing all of reality to assess what it is and what it is not, you link to an article that assesses what it is and what it is not without knowing all of it. Talk about a self-defeating proposition.

How you got that is beyond me.

I'm unsure if you purposely miss the point or not. My point is whether the 'reality' each living sees is perceived in the same way, and if so, how do you know this to be actual reality as opposed to a limitation of the observer?

No, actually, I made the point. The perception of reality and reality itself are two different things and you are trying to conflate them. Every living thing does not necessarily see reality in the same way - nevertheless, they would be seeing the same reality. And even if they see it differently, the fact that they are all seeing the same reality gives them a common ground to eliminate subjective biases.

I never realised this was only about the points you were making.

I understand the statement, just not the logic or explanation provided.

If you understood the statement, you wouldn't be talking about "measuring" reality.

If you claim that only science can determine what reality is, and science measures, then....

That was terrible. You didn't deny, justify, you may as well not have said anything.

I've already denied making or implying the statement you accuse me of. I cannot justify something I did not say or intended. And I stated what I actually do say.

I asked you to outline what you think, if I got it wrong. You didn't do it, just reiterating that I got it wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh christ, I get tired of this -necessity of the totality of knowledge- bullshit. You do not have to know every particular about an apple to conclude that it is not an orange. End of.

This garbage is so irritating. It's the ultimate "you can't explain therefore" The goalposts on this one come with wheels equipped as a standard feature. It only exists to provide endless opportunities to argue about anything other than what the user is hoping to establish.