Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[1over137]

Hey, you are IT? And there are some more ITs here. (Well, actually I was physicist and still am by heart, just nit my official occupation) I am now software engineer mainly C++)

I need to gotta go, wedding preparation and all that stuff. I propose we meet in the other thread where I today responded to you.

Cheers.

[Mallz]

1 Corinthians 13:
If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Kurieuo]

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.

Again, atheism does not make any claims, as it is merely a label for a person who does not believe in god(s). Please, quit ignorantly bashing atheists, because you do not understand the term. If you would like to talk to someone about the nature of reality, who does not happen to believe in god, I'm willing to talk with you. Is there anything else I must not believe in to meet your qualifications?

Hi Lunalle,

My original post was really one long argument -- not a bunch of smaller arguments. To split them apart and respond to them in pieces completely misses my point. I'm not arguing for someone rising from the dead. To respond to what you perceive as being soundbite arguments, means you're not dealing with the fuller intention of my original post. Rather, I'm criticising a lack of substance to Atheists when it comes to discussing what ultimately underpins reality. You know, metaphysical questions -- those questions about reality beyond physics and materialism.

The purpose of those questions posed in my original post was not to seek a response, but rather their purpose was in passing to help highlight an intellectual issue that I have with Atheists. In any case, your taking those questions at face value to produce a response, well... your responses just support my whole original post that Atheists love to duck questions on the nature of reality rather than put forward some options. Ironically, as Jac humorously pointed out, you responded much the same as I predicted. This lends support to maybe the intellectual issue I have being bored with Atheists when discussing such matters is perhaps not my own issue at all.

Isn't it odd that for someone who doesn't understand Atheists, or "Atheism", that I predicted responses to such questions quite well? This isn't based on me just knowing Atheism means literally means "without belief in God". Yet, I find it telling that in your own posts I've read on this board, that you actually have a set of beliefs that tend to go with your own "Atheism" however basic you wish to define it. However, I don't want to discuss definitions. Define Atheism on Flew's terms if you like it really doesn't matter. That isn't the original topic under discussion here.

You identify as an Atheist, right? Are you able to tell me something about the nature of reality? It doesn't have to be too complicated. Maybe let's re-focus upon my first question and go from there. That is, what caused the universe? Don't worry, I'm not going to request you lay out the evidence and prove your assertions. I'm mainly interested in what you think as an Atheist.

Let's frame the question even better... do you believe "Intelligence" existed prior to our universe, or perhaps some other type of universe devoid of intelligence? You don't have to answer if you feel it is unfair of me to probe you about such metaphysics, given a cause isn't well supported by physical sciences (how can it be when such appears wrapped up in our universe). But, refusing to budge and even think a little on possibilities, well... this just shows why I find such discussions boring with Atheists.

Sorry, I don't mean that to be offensive, and apologise if you are offended, but well... the lack of wanting on the Atheist's part to want to deal with the underpinnings of reality is for me comparable to looking at a white-washed wall all day. Only, a white wall I don't think would criticise and get all offended, flustered and annoyed with me when I tell it my own thoughts about what I believe makes the most sense of reality as I know it. Beliefs that I have come to after much deliberation, which it seems an Atheist suddenly has a whole lot to say about once stated. Kind of like... well, a lot of what you've had to say in some of your own posts on this message board. Just look at the lengths of your posts... for someone like yourself, being an Atheist who doesn't claim much if anything, you sure do appear to have a lot to say on such matters in order to try set people's beliefs about reality right!

Please don't take me wrong. I am stirring you -- but only because I'd like to try and encourage you to discuss the nature of reality. I don't much like your original responses. So tell me... intelligence first, or unintelligent inanimate matter, or perhaps even something else? Why or why not? Second to that, do you think the laws of our universe could be other than what they are? There are opinions of Atheists on both sides (the somewhat more interesting Atheists I suppose ) to that second question. I'm interested in your response as an Atheist though.

[Rubberneck]

Perhaps the thread starter could first define what they mean by "Reality".

[B. W.]

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...
-
-
-

[Rubberneck]

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.

[Jac3510]

Why? What it means in the OP is what is relevant to this thread.

So you introduce yourself by saying that you think you see some misunderstanding of atheism and you want to offer corrections, and then, refuse to demonstrate the fact that you have any grasp whatsoever on what the OP is actually saying?

You do realize that when you accuse someone of misunderstanding something, you are presuming that you understand both their position and the position they are critiquing well enough to call out incongruence between the two, right? In that case, it seems evident that the OP should not have to define "reality." Your initial critique entails that you understand his definition. If you think there is a problem with his view, you would do far better to state his view as you understand it and then offer your critique to see if, in fact, you are not the one who has misunderstood his position.

Unless, of course, you don't understand his position at all, in which case, you would do better to ask rather than to propose to teach.

I would suggest you answer BWs question.

[Rubberneck]

Why? What it means in the OP is what is relevant to this thread.

So you introduce yourself by saying that you think you see some misunderstanding of atheism and you want to offer corrections, and then, refuse to demonstrate the fact that you have any grasp whatsoever on what the OP is actually saying?

You do realize that when you accuse someone of misunderstanding something, you are presuming that you understand both their position and the position they are critiquing well enough to call out incongruence between the two, right? In that case, it seems evident that the OP should not have to define "reality." Your initial critique entails that you understand his definition. If you think there is a problem with his view, you would do far better to state his view as you understand it and then offer your critique to see if, in fact, you are not the one who has misunderstood his position.

Unless, of course, you don't understand his position at all, in which case, you would do better to ask rather than to propose to teach.

I would suggest you answer BWs question.

What I actually said in my introduction was that I wanted to increase the understanding of atheism, which is in no way related to me asking for a clarification of what "Reality" means to the thread starter. You are conflating this with the topic of this OP, which renders the "critique" of your post as void.

I understand several meanings of "Reality", so I require what it specifically means here, otherwise I run the risk of building a straw-man. Nowhere am I saying there is a misunderstanding of "Reality" - that would be your straw-man.... and I also haven't made a critique, merely asked for a clarification. Sorry if that isn't to your liking.

[Jac3510]

What I actually said in my introduction was that I wanted to increase the understanding of atheism, which is in no way related to me asking for a clarification of what "Reality" means to the thread starter. You are conflating this with the topic of this OP, which renders the "critique" of your post as void.

I understand several meanings of "Reality", so I require what it specifically means here, otherwise I run the risk of building a straw-man. Nowhere am I saying there is a misunderstanding of "Reality" - that would be your straw-man.... and I also haven't made a critique, merely asked for a clarification. Sorry if that isn't to your liking.

Your opening words are very relevant. I'll quote them here again to highlight that relevance:

It was through browsing the Questioning Non-belief section that I decided to sign up to the forum, because through reading it I found that the atheist position is vastly misrepresented and is strewn with generalisations and straw-men, so I thought I could perhaps clear some things up and increase understanding where there currently is none

So, as I said, you accuse us of misunderstanding atheism. Those are your words. You see generalizations and straw men. Those are your words. You want to come to this particular forum--the Questioning Unbelief forum--and "increase understanding where there currently is none" (again, your words).

So, you've read this thread, decided that it is full of straw men and generalizations. You understand it well enough to know that it misrepresents atheism and that it lacks any and all understanding. You claim you understand it well enough regardless of any particular definition. So supply the definition you understand K to be using. Feel free to show how that definition fits in the range of all the options you have. Come now, you've already judged the thread--indeed, the forum--as wanting, so let's see your evidence. Just don't come here being more patronizing than you already have been and start asking these absurd questions. You've made a strong claim. Do what you atheists always refuse to do and back it up, or do what you atheists always actually do and prove K exactly correct. I'm sorry if that is not to your liking.

Let's see it. Get to work.

[Rubberneck]

What I actually said in my introduction was that I wanted to increase the understanding of atheism, which is in no way related to me asking for a clarification of what "Reality" means to the thread starter. You are conflating this with the topic of this OP, which renders the "critique" of your post as void.

I understand several meanings of "Reality", so I require what it specifically means here, otherwise I run the risk of building a straw-man. Nowhere am I saying there is a misunderstanding of "Reality" - that would be your straw-man.... and I also haven't made a critique, merely asked for a clarification. Sorry if that isn't to your liking.

Your opening words are very relevant. I'll quote them here again to highlight that relevance:

It was through browsing the Questioning Non-belief section that I decided to sign up to the forum, because through reading it I found that the atheist position is vastly misrepresented and is strewn with generalisations and straw-men, so I thought I could perhaps clear some things up and increase understanding where there currently is none

It's not relevant to this thread or my request for clarification. Perhaps you should start a new thread where you can make it relevant if you wish.

So, as I said, you accuse us of misunderstanding atheism. Those are your words. You see generalizations and straw men. Those are your words. You want to come to this particular forum--the Questioning Unbelief forum--and "increase understanding where there currently is none" (again, your words).

So, you've read this thread, decided that it is full of straw men and generalizations. You understand it well enough to know that it misrepresents atheism and that it lacks any and all understanding. You claim you understand it well enough regardless of any particular definition. So supply the definition you understand K to be using. Feel free to show how that definition fits in the range of all the options you have. Come now, you've already judged the thread--indeed, the forum--as wanting, so let's see your evidence. Just don't come here being more patronizing than you already have been and start asking these absurd questions. You've made a strong claim. Do what you atheists always refuse to do and back it up, or do what you atheists always actually do and prove K exactly correct. I'm sorry if that is not to your liking.

Let's see it. Get to work.

I'm happy to do that on a separate thread. On this one I'm just asking for a clarification.

You seem a tad fraught, by the way. I hope you didn't just see that I'm an atheist and use that as an excuse to jump down my throat. I may get to work when you (deleted by moderator).

Rubberneck, please don't use acronyms with that kind of language

[Jac3510]

It's not relevant to this thread or my request for clarification. Perhaps you should start a new thread where you can make it relevant if you wish.

A person who has declared that there is no understanding doesn't need clarifications. You've already judged. If you don't want people to take seriously what you say, then you shouldn't say it.

You seem a tad fraught, by the way. I hope you didn't just see that I'm an atheist and use that as an excuse to jump down my throat. I may get to work when you (deleted by moderator).

Rubberneck, please don't use acronyms with that kind of language

No. I see a patronizing introduction insisting that there is no understanding, and then I see patronizing questions asking for clarification on something that is already eminently clear.

So why don't you get to your point rather than continuing to play your dishonest game?

[Rubberneck]

It's not relevant to this thread or my request for clarification. Perhaps you should start a new thread where you can make it relevant if you wish.

A person who has declared that there is no understanding doesn't need clarifications. You've already judged. If you don't want people to take seriously what you say, then you shouldn't say it.

I've said I wanted to increase understanding where there currently is none. That is not the same as saying there is no understanding at all. Please, I'm not here for some silly point scoring one-upmanship game, so can you stop with your lazy misrepresentation of me.

You seem a tad fraught, by the way. I hope you didn't just see that I'm an atheist and use that as an excuse to jump down my throat. I may get to work when you (deleted by moderator).

Rubberneck, please don't use acronyms with that kind of language

No. I see a patronizing introduction insisting that there is no understanding, and then I see patronizing questions asking for clarification on something that is already eminently clear.

So why don't you get to your point rather than continuing to play your dishonest game?

Then that's your prerogative to see me as patronising, but it's also your problem. In my intro, I was only stating what I have observed. I'm not forcing you or suggesting that you agree, you know. If you want to discuss my intro further, do it on the relevant thread/s.

And please, less of the accusations of dishonesty. It's unfounded, rude and, well, wrong. It was a serious, honest request that, in the end, isn't for you to answer anyway.

Really, I was hoping for a more earnest start to posting here, but so far, with you anyway, it's been snarly and vitriolic. Perhaps we are off on the wrong foot, perhaps my atheism is getting in the way.... but I do love Metallica too as it goes.

[Jac3510]

It's a pretty easy problem to fix. Answer BW's question. Make whatever point you came here to make. Increase understanding where there is none. I say again, if you can claim there's no understanding, then you've understood our position well enough to critique it. If you think it's vitriolic to ask you to make your point, then fine. In the meantime, I'll go back to watching you atheists act like you always do and exactly as K said you always do.

[Rubberneck]

Atheism =/= Reality

Repeat until sinks in.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I think you guys need to take a chill pill, remember we are to love each other and be kind toward another.

Proverbs 16:24

Proverbs 15:1

and lets not forget Proverbs 21:19

Peace brothers.