Anti-Materialism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have noticed there are quite a few people who self-identify as anti-theists, expressing a strong hatred for theists and religion in general. So, I thought why not self-identify as an anti-materialist, expressing my strong hatred for the view that all is just matter. That mind and consciousness is just the product of the brain, or for those materialists who like to play semantic games, "dependent on and arising from material processes" They do not generally believe in the survival of mind and consciousness after the death of the body, life after death, souls, gods, heaven and hell, moral law or that there is real purpose to life.

I reject this worldview on several grounds

1. It is illogical. How does matter having no mental properties originate mental properties i.e. hard problem of consciousness. How can and why would any arrangement of matter suddenly become self-aware? If this is not a fairy tale like Pinocchio coming alive, then I don't know what is​

2. It is narrow minded and self-contradictory: Materialists only accept as a valid epistemology sense perception or extensions to the senses like telescopes as their way of knowing reality, ignoring that we have other ways of knowing reality, through inference(those things which cannot be sensed or cannot currently be sensed, we can know through inferring from their effects.) And those materialists who accept inferences, like for atoms and gravity etc, then are selective about which inferences they select so that it does not breach their materialist paradigm e.g inferences to establish God, soul, reincarnation, other realms and PSI they reject.​

They also deny other means of knowledge like intuition, revelation, psychic perception. Hence, they are myopic.​

3. It is amoral. Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do.​

4. It is nihilistic. There is no real purpose in life, life is just an accident of material processes, of atoms colliding with one another. Hence, they make up whatever purpose they want, with only subjective meaning and no objective meaning. If one decides their purpose is to help as many people as they can, another purpose can be to hurt as many people as they can. If one wants to dress up as a cow and graze in the field, another can be to do scientific research. They are both equally valid interpretations. They are after all are accident of matter and what purpose does an accident have? Their individuals lives have as much meaning as a cow grazing a field i.e., no meaning.

5. It is dark depressing. In the end they all believe in the same outcome: they will die and cease to exist. How they get to that final outcome each carries equal justification by natural causes, by an accident, by suicide or by murder. Some die before conception, some a few years after, some in their childhood, some in teens, some early adult years, some midlife, some elderly. They behave like death is not going to come anc go about pursuing all sort of things as if they have any real importance at all, and then either they are in the wrong place and time and they get gunned down or stabbed to death, get hit a bus or have a sudden heart attack. In fact they are already dead, just a bunch of skeletons walking about covered with flesh. If you had x-ray vision all you would see are skeletons walking about.

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Some are born with diseases, like paralysis, and are severely limited in what they can do in life. Diseases can strike at point in life, but by the age of 30-40 the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases attack the body increasing discomfort and pain in life and limiting ones ability to enjoy it.

Inequality is another depressing fact of life. Life sucks, it is unfair. It is unfair from the very start some are born weak, some strong; some stupid, some intelligent; some with rich parents and some with poor parents; some in developed countries and some in developing countries. Then it is unfair through life as we see from school itself, how certain fortunate kids get popular and other unfortunate kids are bullied, some to the point of suicide. Then we see unfairness in society at every level at the work place, in government and in law. We see criminals get away with crimes and innocent people punished. We read in history of the horrible things humans do to each other(slavery, genocide) and are still doing to each other(Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria etc)

If this is the only world that exists, then it is depressing.​

Overall: The materialist worldview is illogical, narrow minded, self contradictory, amoral/cold and dark and depressing. It disenchants life.

Who else here would consider themselves an anti-materialist and those who consider themselves materialists how do you plead to the above allegations?

You really ought to have figured out what materialism is before you decided you disagreed with it.

 

[Windwalker]

So, admittedly, your work revolves around the Materialistic world, it's just that you aren't a materialist personally, right?

Anything discovered in Science is, necessarily, based on the study of the world as seen materialistically... Anything that you've ever researched, or produced, or uncovered, or questioned, or refuted, as a scientist, was done through the lens of materialism.

You may very well reject ideas of materialism in your personal philosophies, but the Science that you participate in does not - it's founded upon it.

Don't make the mistake of conflating reductionism as a methodology with reductionism as a philosophy. In the context of this thread the materialism being spoken of is philosophical. Not all scientists embrace that philosophy and yet practice valid science following its prescribed methods.

 

[loverofhumanity]

While I most certainly do not consider myself a reductionist/materialist, I'll take some exception to the conclusions that are being reaching here and the basis for them. I have criticisms of my own of materialism, but I won't make all these conclusions. I'll take these points below as examples:


All the world's problems? The world has done a fine job of creating problems long before materialism came along in the last 300 years. The materialism which is being referred to is a philosophical conclusion that all that is real can be reduced down to matter. It has nothing to do with "greed". But greed actually could be cited as the root of much evil.


This is not true at all. Secular humanism is just that: Humanism. It is all about bettering others, while it either does not include or rejects the ideas of a God or an afterlife. They conclude all there is is this life, so we need to make it as beautiful and loving as we can in the time we have here.

On the opposite side, I know more than a lion's share of Christians who are in fact, because they believe all this world is going to be vaporized by Jesus Christ in a fitful vengeance against sinners, do not live life for the betterment of others, but simply wait to be whisked away into the sky in the Rapture, and taken to their golden homes that await them in heaven. They are the most self-serving of all, and they are that way because they believe in an afterlife. This life does not matter to them, because heaven is their home, not this world. They have songs they sing that say this:

This world is not my home I'm just a passing through
My treasures are laid up somewhere beyond the blue
The angels beckon me from heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore
Oh lord you know I have no friend like you
If heaven's not my home then lord what will I do
The angels beckon me from heaven's open door
And I can't feel at home in this world anymore​

Read those lyrics and you tell me if this sounds healthy to you? Does it? To me, this is selfishness on parade being celebrated in song. It turns their back on this world. Narcissism. Period.

Honestly, not too many atheists I know are in fact nihilists, nor are they dog-eat-dog selfish, amoral people. In fact, I'd say for them realizing there is no God and no afterlife is what is responsible for making them more moral, not less. These are the facts on the ground, so such conclusions otherwise are proven unsound.


Yes, read those lyrics above and who is it wanting to leave this world to its own ends? It's not the humanists.


Do you want to know the reality of this? When people come to the conclusion there is no God, it has the opposite effect. It makes them more loving. And here's why. When they are living their lives imaging a God in the sky is watching them and keeping record of their doings, to which they will owe an accounting of themselves in the day of judgement, it makes the focus about themselves! They live life worried they won't measure up to the "Big Guy in the Sky's" measuring stick of them. The focus is on saving their own skin.

As a result of this inherent self-facing relationship to God and the afterlife, they end up not moving beyond themselves in truly loving another. How can you see and have empathy for another while your eyes are on yourself? But, if you remove that threat, then they are freed and begin to be able to see beyond themselves and open to empathy. I think removing the threat of judgment of an afterlife is a good thing.

I'll give one simple example that may help you. You tell small children they will be punished if they disobey you. And so the small child learns the rules of conduct for their own safety. But while they are learning this, they are not yet in the place where they can truly love another. They are immature, still needing to learn what they need to for themselves. Their focus is on themselves, and it needs to be for their development. But when then grown up, the threats of a parent's scoldings are removed, and then they begin to see others and develop love and empathy.

Why would this threat need to continue with adults? How is that helping anyone? Do you see why atheists actually can be more moral than many theists? This is why.


A lot of people who have moved beyond religion feel the same way, that they wish they could go back and be more loving than they were as religionists. In reality, it all has its place in our development. But it's good for people to understand the reality of what this looks like.


This is good, but believing in the afterlife or God is not a prerequisite for this.

By materialsm I mean excessive self centredness. Always only thinking about number one. The word materialism can be defined by different people different ways but I mean by it not caring about humanity and only living for self gratification.

We have billions of so called religious people in our world yet we have world starvation! How is that possible unless it is in name only?

So it's the spirit of selfishness and greed and self centredness that is what is the problem not any particular group

It reflects badly on all humanity that we still have wars and starvation and poverty. We can do much better than that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Philosophical materialists do certainly exist Luis. I've known many people to say they are philosophically materialist.

Do they show any indications of the lack of moral references that is being offered as "inevitable"?

 

[Nakosis]

1. It is illogical.​

2. It is narrow minded and self-contradictory:​

​

Can't respond to these. I question materialism as much as spiritualism.

3. It is amoral. Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do.​

​

That's why we have civil law. As a society, the majority agrees on what is acceptable behavior and enforces it.

Everyone has their own morality. Religious folks just have an additional religious code they adhere to. Some societies enforce a religious code as their civil code. Morals are based on your feelings which a lot of it is genetic. Civil code, religious code, pretty much the same. Religious code, a few people claim to speak for God. You want to trust this folks you don't even know to tell you how you should live your life. Up to you I suppose. Me I'd rather use reason and logic to persuade folks on what is good behavior.

4. It is nihilistic. There is no real purpose in life, life is just an accident of material processes, of atoms colliding with one another. Hence, they make up whatever purpose they want, with only subjective meaning and no objective meaning. If one decides their purpose is to help as many people as they can, another purpose can be to hurt as many people as they can. If one wants to dress up as a cow and graze in the field, another can be to do scientific research. They are both equally valid interpretations. They are after all are accident of matter and what purpose does an accident have? Their individuals lives have as much meaning as a cow grazing a field i.e., no meaning.​

​

I see this as being able to choice for yourself meaning rather then having some other folks claiming to speak for God telling what life should mean.

5. It is dark depressing. In the end they all believe in the same outcome: they will die and cease to exist. How they get to that final outcome each carries equal justification by natural causes, by an accident, by suicide or by murder. Some die before conception, some a few years after, some in their childhood, some in teens, some early adult years, some midlife, some elderly. They behave like death is not going to come anc go about pursuing all sort of things as if they have any real importance at all, and then either they are in the wrong place and time and they get gunned down or stabbed to death, get hit a bus or have a sudden heart attack. In fact they are already dead, just a bunch of skeletons walking about covered with flesh. If you had x-ray vision all you would see are skeletons walking about.

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Some are born with diseases, like paralysis, and are severely limited in what they can do in life. Diseases can strike at point in life, but by the age of 30-40 the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases attack the body increasing discomfort and pain in life and limiting ones ability to enjoy it.

Inequality is another depressing fact of life. Life sucks, it is unfair. It is unfair from the very start some are born weak, some strong; some stupid, some intelligent; some with rich parents and some with poor parents; some in developed countries and some in developing countries. Then it is unfair through life as we see from school itself, how certain fortunate kids get popular and other unfortunate kids are bullied, some to the point of suicide. Then we see unfairness in society at every level at the work place, in government and in law. We see criminals get away with crimes and innocent people punished. We read in history of the horrible things humans do to each other(slavery, genocide) and are still doing to each other(Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria etc)

If this is the only world that exists, then it is depressing.​

​

You want everything handed to you. You can make, create this life to be anything you want. You can do your part to make it a better world. Instead of sitting around hoping for a better life in the next?

Your view is so pessimistic, no wonder you find this life depressing. I can help people, I can support family/friends. I can work to improve myself. I can try to overcome my own challenges even though the odds seem against me. When you succeed it's even more fulfilling.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

1. It is illogical. How does matter having no mental properties originate mental properties i.e. hard problem of consciousness. How can and why would any arrangement of matter suddenly become self-aware?

Here's where I believe your mindset on this all goes wrong... one word you included above gives you away: "suddenly". In my opinion this one word betrays that you can't or refuse to comprehend the incremental change or accretion of process or ability proposed in a process like evolution. Do all animals have the same level of consciousness that we experience? Do insects? How about bacteria? How do you account for all of these various levels and "strengths" of consciousness? I believe that a base level of consciousness arose because the ability to "be mindful" (to, at first, an infinitesimal degree) was proven to significantly increase the likelihood of survival of the organism. In the end, I also believe that consciousness is in place to support and prolong the life of the community of cells that have come together to form the body... and not the other way around. Think about it... single-celled organisms come together, and at that level the mixing of DNA is a matter of one "virus'" or "host's" strand of DNA supplanting some part of the other, and they are changed from that moment forward... even fused. As the "cluster" of cells grows, changes, and more varied capabilities are introduced, there needed to be something to "take the helm" if any of it was to survive at all. Rudimentary "consciousness" was likely started as the main/majority organism asserted dominance by leading the others as it went about it's business trying selfishly to survive. At some point the task of "leadership" was outsourced to a main functioning body of cells (a "brain"). Necessary because all of the other cells involved in the livelihood of the organism needed to go about their business of gathering oxygen and nutrients, running resources about the place, fighting off invaders, etc., and they needed to do so without thwarting one another in the process. So, after that whole mess of text, the point being, the consciousness of the brain was "hired" by the community of cells to do the job of leading - to help keep them ALL alive.

2. It is narrow minded and self-contradictory: Those materialists who accept inferences, like for atoms and gravity etc, then are selective about which inferences they select so that it does not breach their materialist paradigm e.g inferences to establish God, soul, reincarnation, other realms and PSI they reject.

However, even your "open-mindedness" extends only so far (do you believe in unicorns, for instance?), and you are also selective. Do you believe that anything I wrote above about the communities of cells is possible? If not, you have closed your mind to it - while I remain open to the possibility. Examining the evidences and theories, the above is what I have inferred. So you go on and on about all sorts of things for which there is very little or completely insufficient evidence and claim that everyone who doesn't believe as you do about those vaguely supported ideas is "closed-minded".

3. It is amoral. Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do.

I'm sorry, but everything you said here is garbage. Ever hear of the "golden rule?" Do you believe that it requires God (or fairies, ghosts, individuals with psychic powers, genies, unicorns, etc.) to be valid?

4. It is nihilistic. There is no real purpose in life, life is just an accident of material processes, of atoms colliding with one another. Hence, they make up whatever purpose they want, with only subjective meaning and no objective meaning. If one decides their purpose is to help as many people as they can, another purpose can be to hurt as many people as they can. If one wants to dress up as a cow and graze in the field, another can be to do scientific research. They are both equally valid interpretations. They are after all are accident of matter and what purpose does an accident have? Their individuals lives have as much meaning as a cow grazing a field i.e., no meaning.

I admit to this - and so what? Obviously someone who has decided their purpose is to hurt as many people as possible is going to run into trouble trying to exercise that purpose on the others in the world. So they are stopped, put down, locked up, etc. And? What ends up being the ultimate problem with being able to write your own ticket in terms of "purpose"?

5. It is dark and depressing. In the end they all believe in the same outcome: they will die and cease to exist. In fact they are already dead, just a bunch of skeletons walking about covered with flesh. If you had x-ray vision all you would see are skeletons walking about.

And..... you're back to being wrong again. It is not depressing in the slightest... in fact, I feel it has freed me in quite a number of ways in which I know I would feel shackled were I to take up the mantle of any particular belief system. The big one being that there is no need to fear death whatsoever. No judgment to face, no pain, no ability to regret - in fact, anything you could possibly attribute to "death" is non-existent. What is there to fear? There is nothing... literally! And why would this ever make me "dead" while alive? Do you think I don't cherish the time I have? Knowing that it is THE ONLY time I will ever have? If anything, I would bet I have a greater reverence for life than a great number of "believers".

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Inequality is another depressing fact of life.

Another little tidbit I am entirely freed from - thinking that anything is "unfair". I don't... ever. What happens happens... what will be, will be - unless I have the ability to change or fight it. I guarantee that I accept ill-fitting circumstances thrust upon myself far better than the vast majority of believers. Never a moment of "woe is me" thinking - and I am being 100% honest. I never have to question "why is this happening to ME?", or suffer through all of the conceit that is involved in such a question.

It disenchants life.

And in your final statements, another tell... you feel that you are entitled to "be enchanted". How quaint.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Science works with the material. That doesn't come with any philosophy.

And I'm arguing otherwise.

As a method for discerning factual statements about reality, it is necessarily Materialistic. Science, as an entity, works strictly with the material assumption of reality. It can make no claim outside of that realm - you must know this.

We have the freedom to assume non-materialistic versions of said reality. Science does not.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not all scientists embrace that philosophy and yet practice valid science following its prescribed methods.

And, like I've said, I have no problem with that. But it does nothing to address the materialistic "limitations" of Science itself. Science only operates under the material philosophical assumption.

 

[Skwim]

I have noticed there are quite a few people who self-identify as anti-theists, expressing a strong hatred for theists and religion in general.

Ouch! It appears your thin skin has steered you to exaggeration. Might want to take a more detached and sober look at these "quite a few people."

.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Exactly. If religion did have the high road on this point, theoretically, we should all be living in Nirvana by now. That we are not simply underscores that the religious are as blind as everyone else. The difference is that many in the religious camp think that they see -- perfectly... Materialists, on the other hand, do not generally suffer from this condition.

I think it's minority in both groups that claim to "see perfectly".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not conflating them. I believe Kirran is, however.

I take issue with Kirran's original claim that Science=/=Materialism because he(she) is a scientist but not a materialist...

The conflation comes from joining the professional methodology of Kirran's science with his(her) personal philosophies regarding the nature of reality. Science is Materialist. There's no two ways about it. Kirran even admitted that point and we are in agreement, obviously. I'll even accept and concur that Kirran is personally (Philosophically) not a materialist. But to argue that Science does not equal materialism because not all scientists are philosophical materialists is absurd.

(I've been so wrong on assuming people's gender's before that I'm just hedging my bets here... sorry, dude, or dudette...)

I'm a guy. I thought that was pretty obvious. Lol.

 

[Windwalker]

By materialsm I mean excessive self centredness. Always only thinking about number one. The word materialism can be defined by different people different ways but I mean by it not caring about humanity and only living for self gratification.

Not the way the OP presented it. It does not mean consumerism. It does not mean self-centeredness. This is materialism in the context of this thread: Materialism - Wikipedia

"Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are results of material interactions."
​

If you reread the OP, you'll see this is exactly what he was talking about.

We have billions of so called religious people in our world yet we have world starvation! How is that possible unless it is in name only?

That's not materialism. That just a lack of development, stunted at narcissistic stages.

So it's the spirit of selfishness and greed and self centredness that is what is the problem not any particular group

Well, if a particular group doesn't do well to promote people becoming other-centered, then yes that is a problem of the group.

It reflects badly on all humanity that we still have wars and starvation and poverty. We can do much better than that.

Of course, but there are very complex reasons why we are stunted this way. One of them is the predominant religious systems which are stuck at either egocentric or ethnocentric stages. If the systems get fixed, then they can aid in helping people and society grow.

 

[Kirran]

I too believe this because reality is physical energy/space. Material is only our perception of it.
There is a fuzzy line beyond which materialism and philosophy/religion loose their separate individualities.

Read 'material' to mean physical energy/space then, in my usage.

Do they show any indications of the lack of moral references that is being offered as "inevitable"?

Oh, no.

And I'm arguing otherwise.

As a method for discerning factual statements about reality, it is necessarily Materialistic. Science, as an entity, works strictly with the material assumption of reality. It can make no claim outside of that realm - you must know this.

We have the freedom to assume non-materialistic versions of said reality. Science does not.

Science, which isn't really an entity, works with material phenomena. It can make no claim outside of them. Science, as a process and methodological system for establishing knowledge about material phenomena, does not have the freedom to assume any "version" of reality. It is not philosophy.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Science, which isn't really an entity, works with material phenomena. It can make no claim outside of them. Science, as a process and methodological system for establishing knowledge about material phenomena, does not have the freedom to assume any "version" of reality. It is not philosophy.

So we are in agreement on about 90% of this.

 

[Windwalker]

And, like I've said, I have no problem with that. But it does nothing to address the materialistic "limitations" of Science itself. Science only operates under the material philosophical assumption.

The Empiric-analytic sciences do, yes. Then you get into the other sciences such as systems theory, and the like and they don't take the reductionist approach looking just at the component bits. In this sense, reductionist science can't answer everything, though hugely successful in answering what they can. But a large part of that success is due to not trying to answer something it cannot, so it's a bit of a colorized success. I think most scientists understand this themselves and have no issue saying so.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The Empiric-analytic sciences do, yes. Then you get into the other sciences such as systems theory, and the like and they don't take the reductionist approach looking just at the component bits. In this sense, reductionist science can't answer everything, though hugely successful in answering what they can. But a large part of that success is due to not trying to answer something it cannot, so it's a bit of a colorized success. I think most scientists understand this themselves and have no issue saying so.

Yes. I agree with this.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I can confirm I am talking about philosophical materialism, materialism as a worldview.

And no, science and materialism are not the same thing; materialism is a metaphysics/ontology and science is an epistemology.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

So it seems to me that relativists are only really relativists insofar as it is philosophically convenient. In my view you'd have to be a sociopath to be a truly consistent moral relativist. (Or rather moral subjectivist).

I absolutely agree with this. The moral relativist ends up becoming a hypocrite, but nobody can be a consistent moral relativist. There are few moral relativists, as you said, that would agree with Nazism.

The same problem is with a subjectivist. If a subjectivist has the right to decide what is moral, then that right applies to others as well. If they decide doing charity is a good moral for them, then by the same logic, another can decide stealing is a good for them and they become morally equivalent claims.

Without a belief in any real and objective moral law and one that enforces the moral law, a materialist cannot settle any moral disputes. If simply becomes their opinion vs another opinion.

My other charge against materialists is hypocrisy. Because they are their own moral arbiter, they can change the rules as per their convenience on what is moral and what isn't. If suppose they said at one time, "Causal sex is wrong, you need to first date the person and establish a connection" and the second time you see them have a one night stand they say "One night stands are not wrong, if you feel like you have a connection with that person" It can be equally hypocritical when it used as a double standard to measures ones own morals against another.

The materialist can never settle any moral claims and will also run into problems like pointed out above, because they believe the universe is amoral, there are no material objects called "morals" morality is not a property of matter.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I've always thought that the reason not many would take the title anti-materialist is because hate is a material-based thing.

I think hate and dislike are just basically synonyms, but hate just has a stronger sense to it. I think it is fair to condemn the worldviews you do not agree with, rather than the people who believe those views. It should be condemned for some reasons cited above the implications of such a worldview and as loverofhumanity pointed out the possible serious consequences after life for leading so many people astray.

I don't think not enough people put up a fight against it, even though it modern times it is practically imposed on us and taken as a default worldview.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not identify as an antitheist and have, on several occasions, explained why. I do, however, have problems with this list.

1. It is illogical. How does matter having no mental properties originate mental properties i.e. hard problem of consciousness. How can and why would any arrangement of matter suddenly become self-aware? If this is not a fairy tale like Pinocchio coming alive, then I don't know what is

How is this any different from any argument from complexity? Complex systems which begin as simple components can and do happen. Molecules and cells which cannot see nevertheless developed over time, through gradual steps, to be an eye. There also seems to be weasel words like 'suddenly' As if any materialist believes there were no graduated forms of self-awareness that developed over time.

2. It is narrow minded and self-contradictory: Materialists only accept as a valid epistemology sense perception or extensions to the senses like telescopes as their way of knowing reality, ignoring that we have other ways of knowing reality, through inference(those things which cannot be sensed or cannot currently be sensed, we can know through inferring from their effects.) And those materialists who accept inferences, like for atoms and gravity etc, then are selective about which inferences they select so that it does not breach their materialist paradigm e.g inferences to establish God, soul, reincarnation, other realms and PSI they reject.
They also deny other means of knowledge like intuition, revelation, psychic perception. Hence, they are myopic

What inferences do you believe suggest gods or souls? I can't accept your intuition for my conclusions, nor something in tangibly demonstrated like psychic perception. That's not myopic, that's understanding the limitations of something like intuition as a demonstrative argument. Of course your intuition won't be convincing to someone not you.

3. It is amoral. Materialists do not believe in a moral law and/or an enforcer of moral law. Hence, they are free to do whatever they want. They can do good things, but they can do equally bad thing i.e., they are forced to moral relativism or morality as a purely subjective interpretation. Sure, the majority of them have some sense of "conscience" but there is nothing stopping a materialist from being selfish, hedonistic and cruel. They are not morally accountable to anything outside of them. They are themselves the police, the judge, the jury and the accused. As such, they can constantly justify everything they do.

There's a number of normative ethics systems available to materialists, including utilitarian consequentialist, which is how I identify. Personally I find it to be more honest and more upright than morality by revelation, due to the unreliability of scriptures, interpretation of scriptures, or implicitly trusting an authority to make all the reasonable moral judgements for you, while you do not analytical work yourself. Even if I weren't a materialist, I would reject authoritarianism as basis for moral behavior.

4. It is nihilistic. There is no real purpose in life, life is just an accident of material processes, of atoms colliding with one another. Hence, they make up whatever purpose they want, with only subjective meaning and no objective meaning. If one decides their purpose is to help as many people as they can, another purpose can be to hurt as many people as they can. If one wants to dress up as a cow and graze in the field, another can be to do scientific research. They are both equally valid interpretations. They are after all are accident of matter and what purpose does an accident have? Their individuals lives have as much meaning as a cow grazing a field i.e., no meaning.

Neverminding that one must guess at their purpose based on their subjective interpretation of unproven scripture, and neverminding that the 'camera in the sky' method has not dissuaded many religious people from hurting people, I don't view a chosen purpose as any more inherently negative than a chosen profession, over one you feel like you're 'born into.'

5. It is dark depressing. In the end they all believe in the same outcome: they will die and cease to exist. How they get to that final outcome each carries equal justification by natural causes, by an accident, by suicide or by murder. Some die before conception, some a few years after, some in their childhood, some in teens, some early adult years, some midlife, some elderly. They behave like death is not going to come anc go about pursuing all sort of things as if they have any real importance at all, and then either they are in the wrong place and time and they get gunned down or stabbed to death, get hit a bus or have a sudden heart attack. In fact they are already dead, just a bunch of skeletons walking about covered with flesh. If you had x-ray vision all you would see are skeletons walking about.

Disease is another depressing fact of life. Some are born with diseases, like paralysis, and are severely limited in what they can do in life. Diseases can strike at point in life, but by the age of 30-40 the body goes into accelerated decay and a host of diseases attack the body increasing discomfort and pain in life and limiting ones ability to enjoy it.

Inequality is another depressing fact of life. Life sucks, it is unfair. It is unfair from the very start some are born weak, some strong; some stupid, some intelligent; some with rich parents and some with poor parents; some in developed countries and some in developing countries. Then it is unfair through life as we see from school itself, how certain fortunate kids get popular and other unfortunate kids are bullied, some to the point of suicide. Then we see unfairness in society at every level at the work place, in government and in law. We see criminals get away with crimes and innocent people punished. We read in history of the horrible things humans do to each other(slavery, genocide) and are still doing to each other(Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria etc)

If this is the only world that exists, then it is depressing.

Plenty of non-materialists believe everyone will be in the same destination and don't feel depressed about it. I certainly don't find it depressing. In fact, it motivates me to appreciate what I have, appreciate life for its brevity, not to procrastinate, not to leave correcting injustices for someone beyond the grave, and generally not treat my life as a weigh-station for the next.