Reality as Construct

[Uber Genius]

My argument has never been for Idealism as opposed to Realism. People are really misunderstanding me here. I sincerely apologise for that.

My argument is that even if the world exists, our perception of it, by what we have discovered, would remain in the form of abstracts. This is perhaps why so many philosophers supported some form of Idealism, and it is the de facto method how perception must occur, in some sense - whether what is perceived exists or not. This was why my OP went into so much neurophysiology, to explain this, and thereby to argue not for the primacy of the Idea, but that its validity requires external reality beyond the simply material, in some sense - either through a commonality of our perceptions of an actual reality, or from a shared one. Either way, if intersubjectivity exists, it suggests something up and beyond it, or otherwise solipsism or unverifiability. I hope I have cleared it up now.

Sorry if I misunderstood your OP. I will reread and ask questions from a realist construct given epistemically limits highlighted by modernist philosophy, and ask some clarifying questions once I think I more accurately understand your post. Sorry for the rabbit trail down skepticism's and idealism's shaky epistemic foundations.

 

[KCfromNC]

I am happy to accept people's definitions, but words are defined by how they are used. If the use of the word is at odds with its definition, then I shall call foul. If New Atheists say things like religion is debunked or fraud or such; this is markedly different from 'having insufficient evidence for', which is more defensible.

This hypothetical response to a hypothetical claim would be confusing religion with god. Hypothetically speaking, at least.

 

[apogee]

himself

Just recognising this was a bit of a lazy assumption

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am happy to accept people's definitions, but words are defined by how they are used. If the use of the word is at odds with its definition, then I shall call foul.

It is not used at odds with its definition by us. Perhaps by you.
Atheism is defined as the disbelief in deities.

That's it. That's all that is required to be labeled "atheist". To not believe something specific.

If New Atheists say things like religion is debunked or fraud or such; this is markedly different from 'having insufficient evidence for', which is more defensible.

"new" atheists, uhu.

Atheists make all kinds of claims as they come in all kinds of flavours.
Their claims, whatever they are, however, do not define their atheism.

Their atheism is only defined by disbelief in gods.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I was just referring to the general direction of the thread.



For what it's worth, I think unreasonable and cantankerous are pretty subjective words,

He said I was hostile and vitriolic. The subjective nature of those words does not act as a shield.

"Better" is subjective when it comes to taste tests. So why don't we just say that tar tastes better than chocolate, right?

He said something that simply is not true. I pointed directly to the thread, naming the exact posts which are time stamped. He refused to acknowledge the reality in front of his face. Instead he doubled down on his lies. Your inclination to defend him betrays your inability to be objective. You can't bring yourself to side with an atheist against a Christian. I simply side with reality, and if a Christian is in the right against an atheist, I'd side with the one who is correct.

This would have been over long ago if he had a shred of decency. At some point the mods will come in and drop a bomb here. That's probably what he's hoping for at this point. I'll take screen shots of all this.

that could equally be replaced with passionate and unyielding, it's almost entirely about perspective.

I'm not unyielding. I acknowledge when I'm in error. I showed this in great detail.

I can't evaluate honesty on the basis of what I've read, only that I think there is sufficient potential for misunderstanding.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding.

 

[apogee]

He said I was hostile and vitriolic. The subjective nature of those words does not act as a shield.

I wasn't actually saying this to defend him but rather to defend you.

He said something that simply is not true.

If I'm missing any intent to deceive I apologise in advance. Although I'm certainly not intentionally doing so. In general I tend to spend the larger part of my time, arguing with other Christians, occasionally alongside Atheists, with whom I generally have less to argue about, I don't find the labels that helpful.

Tell me what I am misunderstanding.

I was actually thinking more potential for his misunderstanding you, rather than the opposite.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I wasn't actually saying this to defend him but rather to defend you.

If I'm missing any intent to deceive I apologise in advance. Although I'm certainly not intentionally doing so. In general I tend to spend the larger part of my time, arguing with other Christians, occasionally alongside Atheists, with whom I generally have less to argue about, I don't find the labels that helpful.


I was actually thinking more potential for his misunderstanding you, rather than the opposite.

I don't see how you were defending me. You said he withdrew from the conversation due to my inane ramblings.

 

[apogee]

I don't see how you were defending me. You said he withdrew from the conversation due to my inane ramblings.

You're absolutely right, I basically had a bit of a change of heart when I started to realise you weren't just trolling the thread, so apologies for that.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're absolutely right, I basically had a bit of a change of heart when I started to realise you weren't just trolling the thread, so apologies for that.

Nope. @Nihilist Virus isn't a troll. Sometimes I wish he was, and then I could just really land into him. But, he's not, and he does sometimes brings legitimate material (and objections) to the table to think over.

And sometimes, if you're nice enough, he'll even bring chocolate-chip cookies!