Einstein said something like "atheism is no belief at all" but I disagree, it is a belief in the non existence of God. — TWI

No, it's not-belief - or non-belief - in the existence of God. Derail here - sorry! :yikes: - but the difference is important. Not being persuaded of the existence of X, and being persuaded of the non-existence of X are very different things. The former is agnostic; the second draws a firm conclusion.

There is a vast difference between being real, and being the ultimate reality. To be real, something need only be able o act in some way -- any way -- to be ultimate is to be the end of the line in some relevant sense, as God is.

But, back to my question:

If it constrains our existence and choices, if it forms the very fabric of the lived world, then how, precisely, does it differ from reality? If there is no discernible, experiential, difference between A and B, then what does it mean to say A is not B -- that this so-called "dream" is not reality? — Dfpolis

I like this version of an agnostic:
"Someone who finds his life meaningful enough to pursue; without admitting or dismissing a God, and tolerant enough to respect either ways as a possible answer.

But I prefer this one:

"A person who is sensible enough to admit that they have no fu*#i*g clue what is going on in the universe.
Contrary to both a Theist (someone who sits in Church thinking they have shit figured out) and an Atheist (someone who sits at Starbucks thinking they have shit figured out)"

But nouns aside, trying to describe what we imagine ultimate reality might or might not be we can't rely on oral or written words, they are just labels after all. But to me anyone being persuaded of anything is believing the persuader.

As to your question I don't know, everything is on shifting sands so there is no solid vantage point to make a firm decision.

As to reality I'll quote Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:

"... the objective world exists, it is not an illusion. It is real not in being ultimate but in being a form or or expression of the ultimate"

That puts it much better than I can.

"A person who is sensible enough to admit that they have no fu*#i*g clue what is going on in the universe.
Contrary to both a Theist (someone who sits in Church thinking they have shit figured out) and an Atheist (someone who sits at Starbucks thinking they have shit figured out)" — TWI

Yes, that's a good one. :smile: And, just for clarity, that puts me in a Church, which I find a little uncomfortable. I could go with a druid grove, if such are available options? :wink:

Since the the time of the Greeks, people have recognized invariant principles explaining changing phenomena. I think that is what Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan:was saying in your quotation.

What he was saying is that the world is not ultimately real. In the rest of his statement which I left out he said that viewing the world as ultimately real is delusion!

Reality is that which is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. The fact that someone had a particular dream is real, but the events within that dream itself are not real - they depend entirely on that one person's thoughts. The existence of Hamlet (the play) is real, but the existence of Hamlet (the person) is not real - it depends entirely on Shakespeare's thoughts as written down in the play.

How can you offer an argument from authority, when you do not even believe the authority is real?

We have an idea <reality> which we form as a result of our experience. That idea signifies what it is that we encounter in experience. So, to say what we experience is not real is to say that what we experience is not what we experience -- it is an oxymoron and a contradiction in terms. It uses the term "real" in a sentence without thinking what it really means. That is why I asked you to define real.

I don't believe in authority but I'm saying that I believe he (Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan) is real, but not ultimately real.

'Real' is like saying a computer game is real, but not ultimately real

'Real' is like saying a computer game is real, but not ultimately real — TWI

Please, define "ultimately real." If you are talking about God as the ultimate reality, then I would agree..

Yes I would say ultimate reality is God/Allah/Brahman/Creator etc etc, use any label you like. The only thing that really exists, every 'thing' else is just God etc pretending to be everything, the real You/Us/I is just the one, no here and there, this and that, then and now.

The mind cannot experience reality (what is) because it takes time for the cognitive mind to function, therefore the mind only experiences 'what was'. And as J. Krishnamurti claimed:- "what was is the death of what is". — Dennis Balson

I think to an extent that depends on a false view of time that sees it as some sort of real abstract that's infinitesimally divisible. Given that time is instead simply (the ontological process of) motion/change, and seeing it as infinitesimally divisible is only a mental abstraction, it's more plausible that we do in fact experience the present. There's not some tiny "slice" of motion/change that's "the (preferred) present," against which all other motion/change occurs.

If we watch a sunset and think it is beautiful (or whatever) then that is an experience of 'what was' which is the mechanistic mind functioning, but if experience it with our senses then that suggests the mind is dualistic because sensing is caused by different brain cells (protoconsciousness}.