Question for atheists.

[The Sum of Awe]

Here is my more in depth response. If we mean "real" in the sense that the perception of supernatural agency is an accurate reflection of objective truth, then it makes no difference what people think or believe. Objective reality is entirely unconcerned with our opinion of it. We are almost always wrong, too. Would you believe people used to think the earth was flat?

If you are going down that road of saying "exists in the mind" or "real in the understanding" I'm tired of it after all those ontological argument threads, and I'm not going with you. I think that sort of thing is an abuse of the English language.

It's not the ontological argument

I'm merely saying, our perception makes a difference of the reality WE live. Objective reality, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing and we hardly live in it anyways, so what does that matter?

 

[Alceste]

It's not the ontological argument

I'm merely saying, our perception makes a difference of the reality WE live. Objective reality, on the other hand, is an entirely different thing and we hardly live in it anyways, so what does that matter?

I'm not saying it is the ontological argument, I'm saying the abuse of language ("real in your mind") is similar and I'm completely fed up with it because of those threads.

As I see it, all you're doing is changing the definition of "real". There is a real world, and it is possible for us to conquer our various cognitive deficiencies and limitations to learn a few things about it. At this moment, we are only able to communicate with one another due to the efforts of people who believe in a real world, do their utmost learn about it and put their knowledge to practical use, giving us electricity, computers and the internet.

If their is a "reality" that exists only in the mind, I have no interest in learning anything about it.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm not saying it is the ontological argument, I'm saying the abuse of language ("real in your mind") is similar and I'm completely fed up with it because of those threads.

As I see it, all you're doing is changing the definition of "real". There is a real world, and it is possible for us to conquer our various cognitive deficiencies and limitations to learn a few things about it. At this moment, we are only able to communicate with one another due to the efforts of people who believe in a real world, do their utmost learn about it and put their knowledge to practical use, giving us electricity, computers and the internet.

If their is a "reality" that exists only in the mind, I have no interest in learning anything about it.

I'm not changing the definition of anything; just questioning how people perceive the definition itself.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not changing the definition of anything; just questioning how people perceive the definition itself.

OK, go for it.

I perceive the definition of "real" to refer exclusively to things that actually, objectively exist.

The correct word for things that exist only in the mind, or only in our perception, is "imaginary".

 

[Willamena]

OK, go for it.

I perceive the definition of "real" to refer exclusively to things that actually, objectively exist.

The correct word for things that exist only in the mind, or only in our perception, is "imaginary".

So, what about something like sorrow. Are you prepared to defend the position that sorrow isn't real?

 

[Alceste]

So, what about something like sorrow. Are you prepared to defend the position that sorrow isn't real?

Category error. Sorrow - and all other emotions - can be authentic, but not "real".

 

[Willamena]

Category error. Sorrow - and all other emotions - can be authentic, but not "real".

Perhaps that is a category error: reassigning something out of reality (and into a euphamism) in order to support materialism.

 

[Alceste]

Perhaps that is a category error: reassigning something out of reality (and into a euphamism) in order to support materialism.

This is one area in which it is reasonable to trust the dictionary.

re·al, real

/ˈrē(&#601l/, /rāˈäl/

Adjective

Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

 

[atanu]

To be honest, I find this to be a pretty BS answer. You have a general understanding of what the word God means, and I don't understand what so many people on this forum get out of pretending that they don't.

Fearing that Anselm will make a fool out of them.

 

[Willamena]

This is one area in which it is reasonable to trust the dictionary.

re·al, real

/ˈrē(&#601l/, /rāˈäl/

Adjective

Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person".

I'm good with that.

Definition of authentic in Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)


adjective

• of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine:the letter is now accepted as an authentic document
• made or done in the traditional or original way, or in a way that faithfully resembles an original:the restaurant serves authentic Italian meals every detail of the film was totally authentic
• based on facts; accurate or reliable:an authentic depiction of the situation
• (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting an emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life.

 

[Willamena]

Sure: let's rely on dictionaries that were made since Anselm helped us define what is real.

 

[atanu]

But because God lives in the mind, then doesn't it also exist beyond it?
The mind influences our behavior objectively, and influences our reality subjectively. If one believes in the God of Christianity for example, then God exists because they believe in it. We create these Gods, sure, they may not have a physical existence, sure, but they do still interfere with reality via our minds, isn't that enough to make any God "real"?

Yes. A dream time frolic may cause loss of sperm. :yes: The dream was real or the wet bed is?

What is 'real' and what is 'unreal' is not so easy to fix, mainly because the definitions of real and unreal are not clear, especially, when talked in reference to the BEING, the transcendent and immanent God.

Eastern way of understanding real (sat) is that which is existent, in contrast to 'non-existent' (asat). It is clearly understood that the existent never becomes non-existent and the non-existent never can become existent. So, the changing names-forms are not considered ultimately real. Drilling down, one finds that only the un-born, un-formed, and un-created is considered the real-the sat.

But the problem is that this 'sat' is unborn and thus will not come within the scope of the dictionary definition that Alceste provided.

There is a real chasm at the root, in secular definitions and the eastern spiritual understanding. Often times, the Abrahamic religions have borrowed eastern philosophy but have failed to clarify the meanings.

 

[Alceste]

Sure: let's rely on dictionaries that were made since Anselm helped us define what is real.

That's quite a claim. I would not have found "I thought of it, therefore it is" convincing even as a child, and no doubt would not have found it convincing in Anselm's day, given my nature.

 

[atanu]

That's quite a claim. I would not have found "I thought of it, therefore it is" convincing even as a child, and no doubt would not have found it convincing in Anselm's day, given my nature.

Can you kindly explain what you mean?

 

[Alceste]

Can you kindly explain what you mean?

Ontological arguments in general, including Anselm's, can be assumed up as saying "if I can think of something, that means it is real".

Of course that's ridiculous, so they cram masses and masses of words in to confuse the reader into not noticing how ridiculous it is.

The claim that Anselm helped us define what is real is what I am referring to. The argument that thinking of something makes it exist was just as ridiculous back then.

 

[atanu]

Ontological arguments in general, including Anselm's, can be assumed up as saying "if I can think of something, that means it is real".---

I guessed this mis-understanding. Please read the following:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3254257-post58.html

Anselm does not say "if I can think of something, that means it is real". That is your interpreation.

Be gentle to me please. :cover:

 

[Alceste]

I guessed this mis-understanding. Please read the following:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3254257-post58.html

Anselm does not say "if I can think of something, that means it is real". That is your interpreation.

Be gentle to me please. :cover:

I have read the argument. The exact wording of it is not relevant to me - I see all such arguments in the same category: if I (or the fool) can think of it (or understand the definition of it), then (some convoluted rigmarole about existence being superior to non-existence and much butchery of language) it exists.

Except that it doesn't. I have still not received one single delivery of poutine and fireball, despite holding in my mind a very firm notion that it would be even greater than the greatest conceivable thing.

 

[Willamena]

That's quite a claim. I would not have found "I thought of it, therefore it is" convincing even as a child, and no doubt would not have found it convincing in Anselm's day, given my nature.

I doubt anyone would.

So, are you prepred to defend to someone claiming their sorrow is real that they are mistaken and utilizing a category error?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Ontological arguments in general, including Anselm's, can be assumed up as saying "if I can think of something, that means it is real".

Of course that's ridiculous, so they cram masses and masses of words in to confuse the reader into not noticing how ridiculous it is.

The claim that Anselm helped us define what is real is what I am referring to. The argument that thinking of something makes it exist was just as ridiculous back then.

I think it may seem ridiculous to those who don't understand it. It's totally not "if I can think of something, it is real", it is way more complex than that.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, that what is called God.

Just that my version incorporates these little guys...... " ".

Why you stopped i don't know.

No point in resuming upon realising the gist of the whole god thing. IMC things settled nicely there.