Reality from the view point of theists

History does seem to play a critical role in reality. If you are not able to remember a second ago or you are not able to have long term memory, you will have much less to build your reality on.
Even when one is excellent in these areas does not mean they will be closer to truth.
When talking about the reality of anyone, you do have to consider factors such as environment and cognitive abilities.
We all seem to have down falls in these areas.
I think that the history of religion along with other sciences is useful to have a better understanding of reality but even having this will not change the brains in some Christians.
Here again I am not making fun of Christians because atheist have mental challenges as well.

Ancient history has nothing to do with whether or not reality is objective.

This new tangent is not something I want to explore. Please continue with the others. Sorry for my short interruption.

One does not "build" their reality...reality is what is.

This may be another of those annoying joke things, so I am bailing out. Thanks for a pleasant discussion...it was fun.

which has nothing to do with this thread , objective reality is a tangent to this thread



so you are not familar with Ancient History , I thought as much

Setanta, I agree. But such an "uncivility" is rare for Fresco. Let's let this one slide.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. It has been hilarious.

This is rather interesting, "what you are saying here is objective reality?
None of the things you do can have an affect on your reality?

...I would rather say that reality is the circumstance of what you do whether you conscious of it or not...

It's a matter of indifference to me whether or not anyone here is "civil." Fresco was using that as a dodge to justify what he has never done, which is directly address the criticisms of the position he maintains. It was a smoke screen, and no different than his remark to Frank, when refusing to discuss Frank's questioning him yet again about the illusory nature of saying the sun moves across the sky, when he said he had nothing further to say on the subject.

Your breathtaking ignorance of the history of geocentrism and heliocentrism could indeed be taken as evidence for your classification of yourself as "a fool". I merely ignored you, as I like many others on this forum, we find your belligerent style a pain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism

Hi Fresco I do appreciate all of what you and the others share here at a2k.
I do agree that Setanta can come across as a dick at times but for some crazy reason it does not seem to be the case this time.
I do think that we can all be guilty of getting reality wrong at times. kind of like the kid and the mud.
I will admit that things do not come easy for me and I probably have to study things much harder than the average person to get a good understanding.

I get a decent understanding of things that interest me but my ability to memorize is not as good as what you and Setanta seem to have.
My view on this whole discussion is that, I think frank gave a very good case for objective reality and if I do no misunderstand you, "that is a naive realist approach but I can not agree completely with that because frank is not trying to say what this absolute realty would look like because he realizes that it is beyond his comprehension.
Now as for the allusion of the sun across the sky I guess that would be determine by your strict definition of illusion. The same goes with reality and many of the words that have been used in this conversation.

This is nothing more than my view point.

I'm not ignorant of heliocentism, you jumped up academic fool. That's not the point, although it is evidence of your continuing inability to answer Frank's question. The question is not whether or not people believed it, the question is whether their belief had any effect on objective reality. The answer, of course, is that it did not.

I'm quoting Frank to point out to you, Fresco, that his point is that what people believed is not relevant to objective reality. Can you get that through your thick skull?

Here, i'll go really slowly for you Fresco, it appears that things don't sink in very quickly with you.

People once believed in geocentrism--but that was not an accuarate description of objective reality. Then they believed in heliocentrism, but that was also not an accurate description of objective reality. That people believe a thing doesn't make it real.

No. This question is about "reality from the point of view of theists". The fact that you take the layman's view that "an objective reality exists which has nothing to do with what we call belief" is merely another belief which you cannot substantiate! If you can't see that very elementary point you will continue to talk yourself into a hole, albeit a very shallow one.

No, the question which both Frank and i posed to you is whether or not an objective reality exists, asserting that it does. You have nothing but ex cathedra, ipse dixit statements and appeals to authority to support your claim. Neither Frank nor i claim to absolutely know what objective reality is, just that it exists. You have been unable to addequately address that, sitting there in your little academic puddle.

Well done, If you don't know exactly what "it" is, yet you claim "it exists ", that puts you exactly in the position of a theist ! Isn't belief wonderful !

“No”…meaning, what???

Setanta said several things…all correct as I see it…and you are saying “no” without referencing the specific for which you think, “No.”




Actually, the thread is titled that way…and originally WAS about that. But it has since departed from that original theme. Sentanta, you, and I have been discussing whether or not there is such a thing as Objective Reality. You claim there is no Objective Reality….Sentanta and I are on the other side of that claim.




Why do you suppose that assertion cannot be substantiated?

If a person “believes” that the reason the sun, moon, and stars appear to be circling the Earth is because the appearance actually is attributable to the sun, moon, and stars circling the Earth…IT CAN EASILY BE SUBSTANTIATED THAT IS NOT SO.

The appearance is attributable to the fact that the Earth rotates on its axis.

The apparent movement of the sun, moon, and stars are an illusion.

Why are you persisting in saying it is not…when it obviously is…and you know it is? What is that all about? You are an intelligent person…why are you doing this?



Good grief, Man. This is exactly what you are doing, Fresco. You are refusing to acknowledge a VERY ELEMENTARY POINT...and you are talking yourself into a hole. It makes no sense.

Go just to the illusion created by the Earth rotating on its axis, Fresco. Let’s just deal with that before moving on to the more difficult stuff.

Once and for all…acknowledge that the spinning of the Earth on its axis causes the illusion that the sun, moon, and stars are circling the Earth. It does not matter one whit what anyone "believes" about it, there is an objective reality about why the effect occurs.

Just do it. Stop stonewalling.

Frank,

I have answered all your questions several times, but you either don't accept or don't understand my answers, which is fine ! Unlike you, Setanta's unlikely to be here for the "philosophy". He does't like philosophy, and he doesn't like people such as me who do. Here's here for a bit of "fresco-baiting" because I occasionally give him back the abuse which gives to others. Don't let him fool you into thinking he is supporting your case. He is merely using you as a bit of cannon fodder.

If you truly are a teacher you should be able to convey "to a few of us" the understanding that you think you hold.