Reality concrete or not?

[Illusion]

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

I don't necessarily assume that there is nothing more to reality than, well um reality. OK, maybe I do. Is there more to reality than what is real?
Anyway, it is not an assumption on my part, I am willing to entertain any evidence to the contrary. But metaphors and theology are a long way away from evidence.

[Goat]

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

I don't necessarily assume that there is nothing more to reality than, well um reality. OK, maybe I do. Is there more to reality than what is real?
Anyway, it is not an assumption on my part, I am willing to entertain any evidence to the contrary. But metaphors and theology are a long way away from evidence.

What you are doing is the logical fallacy known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. Since no god has been proven to exist, you can't really ask people to disprove something that there is no evidence FOR.

All the atheist has to point out , court wise, that there is no evidence FOR any deity. That suffices.

[McCulloch]

What are you asking? Is reality real? Is there any reason to believe that there is something real beyond reality? I'm not sure that I can make any sense of this.

[C-Nub]

First off, I don't see any sort of content being generated here by the thread's originator? Shouldn't there be a little more than someone else's quotes to address as an 'original' topic?

Secondly, I think that the idea that atheists aren't somehow open to there being more than what we currently believe to be the 'whole' of reality to be, well, false.

As one example, String Theory suggests that there are 11 dimensions of space and time, despite the fact that we can only percieve four. That hasn't been proven, but it's not something that atheists in general are willing to dismiss right now.

Atheists over the years have accepted the existance of non-visible light, as well as ultra-sonic sound we ourselves can't detect. We are also open to parallel universe theory, although again, it is something we're investigating as opposed to embracing on forceful and numerous assertions.

The idea that there is something 'spiritual' to reality that we can't yet percieve is of course a possibility, but in order to accept it, we need the same sort of mathmatical and laboratory evidence that was required in the listed cases. The suggestion that we should accept that there is more to reality than we can see, measure or chart the effects of is lacking even the barest evidence to explain its alleged existance. The idea does't hold water yet because it is without form or justification of any kind.

[Furrowed Brow]

Atheists assume that there is nothing more to reality than that which is material, concrete, and/or objectively provable and verifiable; that nothing else exists, and any claims referring to anything outside of that concrete reality are meaningless and/or nonsensical.

I’d say some atheists take the stance that it is pretty much meaningless to believe in anything that cannot be proved or verified (and has the potential to be falsified). However we are quite able to accept the philosophical problems that go along with realism, or the role of the observer in quantum theory. However whilst quantum theory may shake one’s faith in any naïve conception of a concrete reality, the theory is still verifiable and falsifiable, and therefore a meaningful way of describing the world.

For these and closely associated reasons this atheist finds the religious stance infinitely weak. It's not hat I assume there is not more to reality, its just that the religioius stance has nothing meaningful to say on the subject.

[Thought Criminal]

I’d say some atheists take the stance that it is pretty much meaningless to believe in anything that cannot be proved or verified (and has the potential to be falsified). However we are quite able to accept the philosophical problems that go along with realism, or the role of the observer in quantum theory. However whilst quantum theory may shake one’s faith in any naïve conception of a concrete reality, the theory is still verifiable and falsifiable, and therefore a meaningful way of describing the world.

For these and closely associated reasons this atheist finds the religious stance infinitely weak. It's not hat I assume there is not more to reality, its just that the religioius stance has nothing meaningful to say on the subject.

Indeed. I would add that the view of QM he's proposing is a known fallacy. It sounds a bit like the Copenhagen interpretation but is really just "consciousness causes collapse". Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_my ... s_collapse

TC

[Jura]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Lacan)

Finally, the Real is the object of anxiety in that it lacks any possible mediation, and is "the essential object which is not an object any longer, but this something faced with which all words cease and all categories fail, the object of anxiety par excellence."