Reality vs Atheism?

[questfortruth]

Science does not know all, but something. This something includes: lost of Reality:

That's on the table:
1) to lose trust in Reality,
2) to lose trust in Science,
3) to lose trust in Atheism,
4) to say "blah-blah":

 

[Debater Slayer]

I kinda think this thread should be titled "Reality vs. thinking people will watch four videos without any summary of an argument in the OP."

 

[suncowiam]

Good introduction, followed up by solid irrefutable arguments all supporting an infallible conclusion.

Nice job!

 

[Phantasman]

We know that material infinity is a paradox. Decay is inevitable.

Is material real and spiritual illusion? Or is spiritual real and material an illusion?

Only the mind determines what is real.

 

[Father Heathen]

For the record, even if atheism was proven false, that still wouldn't prove any religions right.
Let's say you have two people in an argument. One claims that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist, and the other claims that he did exist, and boiled kittens alive. Would proving that he did exist validate the claim that he boiled kittens alive?

 

[Brickjectivity]

For the record, even if atheism was proven false, that still wouldn't prove any religions right.

Nor do religions need to be proven right. They just are. The evidence that they are right is that there are people who think so. Similarly atheists are evidence that atheism is right.

Let's say you have two people in an argument. One claims that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist, and the other claims that he did exist, and boiled kittens alive. Would proving that he did exist validate the claim that he boiled kittens alive?

If you found evidence of it that people believed then for them yes, but for others no. Abraham Lincoln's opinion would be unchanged however.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Nor do religions need to be proven right. They just are. The evidence that they are right is that there are people who think so. Similarly atheists are evidence that atheism is right.

So, David Berkowitz was right ... His dog DID tell him to go kill people.

We need to go back to bleeding sick people, too. That's what was "believed" -- that removing "bad blood" from people helped them get healthier (which, of course, has the adverse affect). But because people believed it en mass ... that made it right!

Just believing in a certain thing, no matter how many or how few do, does nothing at all to prove a given thing to be "right".

 

[Father Heathen]

Nor do religions need to be proven right. They just are. The evidence that they are right is that there are people who think so. Similarly atheists are evidence that atheism is right.
If you found evidence of it that people believed then for them yes, but for others no. Abraham Lincoln's opinion would be unchanged however.

If some downed a vial of poison believing that it was a health tonic, their "opinion" wouldn't mean ****, now would it?

 

[Nakosis]

That's on the table:
1) to lose trust in Reality,
2) to lose trust in Science,
3) to lose trust in Atheism,
4) to say "blah-blah":

Atheism in my case is just the position that "God" is an unnecessary part of the equation for reality. Not not really proof the position is true, it's just a position held until proven false.

There are some things about reality we don't know. Other things we don't have answers for. However we can all come up with theories, right?

An Atheist IMO just doesn't accept God as a possible explanation for any theory about reality.

Until the fact of God can be proven, we can't really know exactly how God fits into the explanation of reality anyway. Nothing is known about God in the sense of knowing what possible effects such a being would have on reality. So any theories involving God are just wild-*** guesses.

Sure. I have wild-*** theories about reality too, based on what seems to me plausible. To me, none of the religious ideas about God seem plausible. Usually they are self contradicting. In other cases I suppose I see no value in a God or creator whose morality doesn't meet with my expectations.

 

[Phantasman]

Nor do religions need to be proven right. They just are. The evidence that they are right is that there are people who think so. Similarly atheists are evidence that atheism is right.
If you found evidence of it that people believed then for them yes, but for others no. Abraham Lincoln's opinion would be unchanged however.

It's not about religion. It's about spirituality. If it was proven, it wouldn't be based on faith (believing in things unseen).

Just because something is not seen (or understood) doesn't mean it isn't real or exists. Thinking something is right doesn't make it right. Some think executions are right. Others don't.

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.- Philip

Those who say that there is "one way" has never found it nor will they ever. They just find "their" way. And others who agree with them as well as disagree them. Perfect from imperfect, is unachievable.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, David Berkowitz was right ... His dog DID tell him to go kill people.

We need to go back to bleeding sick people, too. That's what was "believed" -- that removing "bad blood" from people helped them get healthier (which, of course, has the adverse affect). But because people believed it en mass ... that made it right!

Just believing in a certain thing, no matter how many or how few do, does nothing at all to prove a given thing to be "right".

I see, so because David Berkowitz killed people that means that its not ok to disagree? That seems to be what you are saying. It can't be right for two people to believe different things?

If some downed a vial of poison believing that it was a health tonic, their "opinion" wouldn't mean ****, now would it?

You are suggesting that because someone made a mistake that its not OK to believe differently than you and further only one point of view can be correct. Is that not what you are implying?

 

[Brickjectivity]

It's not about religion. It's about spirituality. If it was proven, it wouldn't be based on faith (believing in things unseen).

Just because something is not seen (or understood) doesn't mean it isn't real or exists. Thinking something is right doesn't make it right. Some think executions are right. Others don't.

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.- Philip

Those who say that there is "one way" has never found it nor will they ever. They just find "their" way. And others who agree with them as well as disagree them. Perfect from imperfect, is unachievable.

That's a lot of very complicated stuff. I think that last paragraph I agree with sometimes. There seem to be times when there is only one safe way to behave, such as not jumping out of trees or not jumping into vats of sharks or not drinking poison. I mean, it really does seem like drinking poison is a bad idea no matter what you believe you are drinking.

 

[Phantasman]

That's a lot of very complicated stuff. I think that last paragraph I agree with sometimes. There seem to be times when there is only one safe way to behave, such as not jumping out of trees or not jumping into vats of sharks or not drinking poison. I mean, it really does seem like drinking poison is a bad idea no matter what you believe you are drinking.

Perception comes from the knowledge one obtains. For decades I followed "one way", because those before me said that only "one" existed. Since they showed me that their way led to destruction, I started seeking life.

You cannot achieve life unless you embrace death. And death frightens those who see "one way". I no longer fear death, because those who fear death have no faith in life.

And I answered and said to him: "Lord, do not mention to us the cross and the death, for they are far from you."
The Lord answered and said: "Truly I say to you, none will be saved unless they believe in my cross. But those who have believed in my cross, theirs is the Kingdom of God. Therefore, become seekers for death, just as the dead who seek for life, for that which they seek is revealed to them. And what is there to concern them? When you turn yourselves towards death, it will make known to you election. In truth I say to you, none of those who are afraid of death will be saved. For the Kingdom of God belongs to those whoe have put themselves to death. Become better than I; make yourselves like the son of the Holy Spirit."- Secret James

Jesus was the son of the Holy Spirit. Shhh.....it's a secret, and the orthodox church wants you to think it is Mary. She's dead.

 

[Father Heathen]

You are suggesting that because someone made a mistake that its not OK to believe differently than you and further only one point of view can be correct. Is that not what you are implying?

You seemed to have implied that beliefs shape reality, or that every belief is equally "true". I was pointing out that no, they do not.

 

[Valjean]

That's on the table:
1) to lose trust in Reality,
2) to lose trust in Science,
3) to lose trust in Atheism,
4) to say "blah-blah":

How do these questions relate to the subject in the OP?
Reality vs Atheism? I don't understand the question. How are these related? What does physics' inability to explain a great deal about reality and the universe have to do with atheism or theism?

I don't see anything new here. Reality is weird and spooky. It's counterintuitive and bears little resemblance to our everyday, sensory experience of reality.
There's a lot physics can not yet explain. There's always been a lot physics couldn't explain. Nothing new here.

Atheism v theology? How would theology answer any of these questions? When has magic poofing ever explained anything?
Theology posits an agent, not a mechanism. At best it attributes. It doesn't explain anything or answer any of these cosmological questions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You seemed to have implied that beliefs shape reality, or that every belief is equally "true". I was pointing out that no, they do not.

Ah. I only meant to imply that there could be more than one reality. Also that human beings are so internally dishonest that knowing what reality is can be tricky. For example experiments show that people will sometimes believe what they are expected to, rather than what they see before them. They can be coerced into believing and can be swept up in the beliefs of others. Consider for example the Asch Conformity Experiment and Belief Perseverance or other social psychology experiments.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's on the table:
1) to lose trust in Reality,
2) to lose trust in Science,
3) to lose trust in Atheism,
4) to say "blah-blah":

Without watching the videos, I can safely say that atheism comports with reality quite well.
Have you found any conflicts which I'm not aware of?

 

[LuisDantas]

How can it be that so many people are at once scandalized about atheism and badly misinformed about what it is?

It is not like it is a very difficult, exotic or sophisticated concept.

 

[questfortruth]

......
There are some things about reality we don't know. Other things we don't have answers for. However we can all come up with theories, right? ......

Science does not know all, but something. This something includes: lost of Reality.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism is not a theory of metaphysics, ontology or cosmology. It's not a world-view or philosophy. It's just a specific lack of belief.
What does atheism have to do with the question of "Reality?" The comparison makes no sense.