Atheists and Theists: how do you pick and choose what to believe?

[1137]

What arguments are worse than those for theism? They're mostly arguments from incredulity, which are fallacies. Some people just can't see how a godless universe can exist.. That's most of the case for theism.

Most arguments for materialism are worse than certain Theistic arguments, such as the contingency argument, platonic argumrnts, etc.

No science hurts atheism.

Maybe not atheism, but materialism.

Atheism goes back many generations and I no of no material monists, or anything like that.

You don't know a single atheist who believes the physical/material world is all that exists? Believes that things like the mind, math, and logic, reduce to the physical world? I'm sorry but I don't believe that

Horse pucky! I ask for the same sort of evidence in all cases. Theism has no evidence, leaving atheism (as in "no theism") as the default.
It is a hard road to defend the indefensible when you have no evidence to back your claims and when you attempt to present evidence and it is so easily falsified.

Theists present evidence literally all the time, atheists just don't seem to have the ability to address it, instead preferring to wave it off and pretend it doesn't exist. Theism has highly plausible arguments like contingency and fine tuning (I accept neither), whereas a position like materialism has some correlation and that's it.

example?

Many atheists, especially antitheists, reject the idea that religious beliefs and practices can be objectively beneficial. Many atheists pretend that the mind has no effect on the brain, to not the brain on the mind. Most atheists I talk to reject the existence of things like life fields.

there is no battle when viewed from the atheist perspective. There is no objective evidence to support extraordinary theistic claims. The entire suite of arguments against atheism can be broken down into a list of logical fallacies. What more need be said?

Explained above.

I did not choose to disbelieve in god(s). Rather, when I allowed my mind to reason properly in relation to reality, the theistic veil that had been placed over my mind through religious teachings was simply swept away by logic.

So.with proper reasoning Atheism is the only conclusion?

Material monism is a Presocratic belief which provides an explanation of the physical world by saying that all of the world's objects are composed of a single element. I know of no atheist that believes there is only one element. Maybe there are a few.....have you met one?

Edit: I think maybe they meant one of several elements (air, fire, earth, water). Either way, I don't think your accusation holds water.

Material monism is that one substance exists (monism), and that it is the material world (material/materialism).

 

[Windwalker]

How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

Its usefulness.

 

[Grandliseur]

verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving.

Without touching the individual topics in your question, but instead addressing the question about what to do, the matter is a simple - do what you are told. Next, the question to determine is - what are we told.

Here a great many get lost in the very simple matters of testaments. The Mosaic Law is for ancient Israel, not for Christians. We have a New Covenant.

So there is an Old Covenant and a New Covenant. The New Covenant is also called the Law of Faith - in other words, it has laws, many of these laws are from the Old Covenant, just not all. All that God didn't think necessary for a New Covenant people consisting of both Gentile and Jew - were not transferred into the New Covenant.

So, simply put, if the law is in the New Covenant, we should obey it. If it isn't - then it matters not. (without giving specific laws)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you."

Could this all simply point to the idea that all things spiritual and philosophical are subjective in nature? That there are no known absolutes, even as most of us like to pretend that there are? Whatever anyone asserts without evidence is borderline inconsequential until it can be demonstrated otherwise. That goes for you, for me, for everyone. Don't like it? What difference do you feel your dislike will make?

 

[Revoltingest]

I did not choose to disbelieve in god(s). Rather, when I allowed my mind to reason properly in relation to reality, the theistic veil that had been placed over my mind through religious teachings was simply swept away by logic.

Since so many have already more eloquently
said what I'd have said, I'll offer this comment....
Your avatar looks a lot like Lucius Malfoy.

 

[David T]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

My art is there lens, they simply disagree on the details. As I write this my art encapsulates every post on this forum and in this thread. What is my art? I could possibly be wrong there may be a posting that my art does not encapsulate the post but that would be rare indeed. What is my art? Since my art is the lens through normalcy looks through what is normalcy looking at, as it looks through the lens of my art? My art is very powerful it creates an illusion of understanding. As the creator of my art I do not encapsulate myself in my art. I am in this art but I am most certainly not of this art. What is my art? There once was a fellow artist, who was not encapsulated by his art. He broke the spells our art creates, only to have people be prefer the clarity of what they perceive our art to be over the truth of what the art is. He speaks the truth, and it falls on deaf ears. Everyone prefers the art over substance. That's just normal.

 

[QuestioningMind]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

"Material monism is a Presocratic belief which provides an explanation of the physical world by saying that all of the world's objects are composed of a single element."

I'm an atheist and I've never ever heard of the ridiculous notion, let alone accept it. I certainly don't know any atheists who proscribe to this idea, so I'm not sure why you believe that there are any who do. Of course, just because someone doesn't think there are any gods doesn't mean that they can't accept all sorts of other preposterous claims.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm an atheist. I believe in everything I can't disprove that is internally consistent.

 

[QuestioningMind]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

"... but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted."

Please provide an example of any genuine science that DOES 'hurt' or contradict atheism.

 

[1137]

"Material monism is a Presocratic belief which provides an explanation of the physical world by saying that all of the world's objects are composed of a single element."

I'm an atheist and I've never ever heard of the ridiculous notion, let alone accept it. I certainly don't know any atheists who proscribe to this idea, so I'm not sure why you believe that there are any who do. Of course, just because someone doesn't think there are any gods doesn't mean that they can't accept all sorts of other preposterous claims.

You don't believe all reduces to matter/energy? That's actually very unique for an atheist.

 

[1137]

"... but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted."

Please provide an example of any genuine science that DOES 'hurt' or contradict atheism.

Such as life field science and psychological science.

 

[Jumi]

You don't believe all reduces to matter/energy? That's actually very unique for an atheist.

Not that rare, as many discussions have shown.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You don't believe all reduces to matter/energy? That's actually very unique for an atheist.

All matter falls into one of three categories: elements, compounds or mixtures. Just because I believe that all evidence thus far suggests that everything can be reduced to matter is NOT the same as claiming that everything can be reduced to a SINGLE element. Those are two entirely different claims.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Such as life field science and psychological science.

Please explain how you think that the psychological sciences contradict the concept that there are no gods. And what the heck is 'life field science'? Google doesn't recognize it as a valid term.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

A common problem I see in mainstream theism (as in statistically popular forms of theism) is that people kind of pick and choose what to believe. For example someone might greatly enforce a biblical verse that condemns premarital sex, while at the same time not caring about verses against tattoos or shaving. Or with monotheism: many monotheists fully accept their own personal experience and that of their peers, but then when someone experiences a different god it suddenly is not valid evidence for that God. How do you decide what rules to follow and when?

Same with atheism. For example, most atheists will say one of the reasons they don't believe in gods is a lack of convincing evidence. Yet those same atheists may be totally fine turning around and accepting something like material monism, which also lacks convincing evidence (and is honestly worse than many arguments/evidences for theism). On one hand they need the utmost airtight evidence (theism), and on the other they accept something without really any evidence or logical support (material monism). Or how Theists are expected to argue and defend their position, yet atheists just have to stand there and say "nah, I don't believe you." Perhaps worse is when certain scientific info is rejected despite being well supported, but any science that doesn't hurt atheism is openly accepted. How do you decided what you will accept and what you won't?

I'm a materialist. . . It's a philosophical position. You continue to obsess over this point all over the Internet like it's some kind of checkmate.

You base your entire belief system on the philosophical position of dualism. . . guess what, you can't prove that either.

Honestly, neuroscience backs materialism more and more each year (not ray it matters - it can't be proven), but instead of staying current on that reality, you want to go pseudoscience and research "fields." Think about it.

No one's even trying to "prove" materialism. . . Stop the strawman argument here and now and just move on for your own sanity.

 

[1137]

Not that rare, as many discussions have shown.

Imo experience at least most atheists accept reductionism. It's cool to meet one who does not!

All matter falls into one of three categories: elements, compounds or mixtures. Just because I believe that all evidence thus far suggests that everything can be reduced to matter is NOT the same as claiming that everything can be reduced to a SINGLE element. Those are two entirely different claims.

And that's what I'm talking about, that all things reduce to matter (materialism) and only matter (monism).

Please explain how you think that the psychological sciences contradict the concept that there are no gods. And what the heck is 'life field science'? Google doesn't recognize it as a valid term.

Thanks to psychology we know the human mind can actively and willfully work against the natural order, it is somewhat separate from nature. This requires a god separate from nature per platonic Polytheism, v which I accept.

I'm a materialist. . . It's a philosophical position. You continue to obsess over this point all over the Internet like it's some kind of checkmate.

I always like how attacking atheism gets called obsessing or other insults, but never the endless garbage debates against gods. Picking and choosing...

You base your entire belief system on the philosophical position of dualism. . . guess what, you can't prove that either.

Well no, I believe in more than Dualism. But Dualism is supported by both reason and empirical evidence, what more could you want?

Honestly, neuroscience backs materialism more and more each year (not ray it matters - it can't be proven), but instead of staying current on that reality, you want to go pseudoscience and research "fields." Think about it.

See, perfect example thank you! Life fields are literally confirmed by thousands of repeated experiments, and yet you don't accept them. To quote from a writing of mine:

"Unfortunately for Dr. Burr and Dr. Ravitz, the study of L-Fields highly supported the idea that the mind and body are two separate things, something that cannot stand within a materialist philosophy (Kastrup, 2013). Unfortunately, many scientists believe that science can entirely replace philosophy, while simultaneously being viewed as the intellectual elite (p. 12). Due to this fact, many simply ignore the philosophical question and simply “accept” that if science cannot give us a full answer on something, that thing must be fabricated. In this case, since L-Fields feed into a dualist philosophy rather than a materialist one, it’s simply assumed to be pseud-science since science cannot fully explain dualism. Kastrup states that science cannot give us understanding into the underlying aspects of reality, similar to how a video game player does not need to understand the programming behind the game to play it (p.13).

One of the other big problems for Dr. Burr was that he believed a blueprint required a creator, and so was a rather religious man. There is, of course, no room made for religion in modern science as is well known. Even the mere idea that his science may suggest a divine creator of some sort was more than enough to outcast Dr. Burr and his work. As was stated in “Mindstar” by Lt. Colonel Dr. Michael A. Aquino (ret), while religious heretics in old times were tortured and executed, modern scientific/academic heretics will simply find themselves outcasted, unpublished, and without a job (2016).”

No one's even trying to "prove" materialism. . . Stop the strawman argument here and now and just move on for your own sanity.

And why is it,exactly, that nobody can even try to defend materialism?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Imo experience at least most atheists accept reductionism. It's cool to meet one who does not!



And that's what I'm talking about, that all things reduce to matter (materialism) and only matter (monism).



Thanks to psychology we know the human mind can actively and willfully work against the natural order, it is somewhat separate from nature. This requires a god separate from nature per platonic Polytheism, v which I accept.



I always like how attacking atheism gets called obsessing or other insults, but never the endless garbage debates against gods. Picking and choosing...



Well no, I believe in more than Dualism. But Dualism is supported by both reason and empirical evidence, what more could you want?



See, perfect example thank you! Life fields are literally confirmed by thousands of repeated experiments, and yet you don't accept them. To quote from a writing of mine:

"Unfortunately for Dr. Burr and Dr. Ravitz, the study of L-Fields highly supported the idea that the mind and body are two separate things, something that cannot stand within a materialist philosophy (Kastrup, 2013). Unfortunately, many scientists believe that science can entirely replace philosophy, while simultaneously being viewed as the intellectual elite (p. 12). Due to this fact, many simply ignore the philosophical question and simply “accept” that if science cannot give us a full answer on something, that thing must be fabricated. In this case, since L-Fields feed into a dualist philosophy rather than a materialist one, it’s simply assumed to be pseud-science since science cannot fully explain dualism. Kastrup states that science cannot give us understanding into the underlying aspects of reality, similar to how a video game player does not need to understand the programming behind the game to play it (p.13).

One of the other big problems for Dr. Burr was that he believed a blueprint required a creator, and so was a rather religious man. There is, of course, no room made for religion in modern science as is well known. Even the mere idea that his science may suggest a divine creator of some sort was more than enough to outcast Dr. Burr and his work. As was stated in “Mindstar” by Lt. Colonel Dr. Michael A. Aquino (ret), while religious heretics in old times were tortured and executed, modern scientific/academic heretics will simply find themselves outcasted, unpublished, and without a job (2016).”



And why is it,exactly, that nobody can even try to defend materialism?

"And that's what I'm talking about, that all things reduce to matter (materialism) and only matter (monism)."

First off, stating that everything can be reduced to a single element and claiming that everything can be reduced to matter are two completely different claims. Second, thus far the evidence provided by the scientific method suggests that everything CAN be reduced to matter, so I'm baffled as to how you can say that people reach this conclusion without evidence.

"Thanks to psychology we know the human mind can actively and willfully work against the natural order, it is somewhat separate from nature. This requires a god separate from nature per platonic Polytheism, v which I accept."

Please explain how psychology has indicated that the human mind can actively and willfully work against the 'natural order'? You'll also need to define what you mean by 'natural order'. How are you concluding that the human mind is in any way 'separate from nature'?

 

[Mister Silver]

Since so many have already more eloquently
said what I'd have said, I'll offer this comment....
Your avatar looks a lot like Lucius Malfoy.

I suppose that's better than being compared to Angelica Huston.

 

[Revoltingest]

I suppose that's better than being compared to Angelica Huston.

She is certainly another good way that humans can look.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Imo experience at least most atheists accept reductionism. It's cool to meet one who does not!



And that's what I'm talking about, that all things reduce to matter (materialism) and only matter (monism).



Thanks to psychology we know the human mind can actively and willfully work against the natural order, it is somewhat separate from nature. This requires a god separate from nature per platonic Polytheism, v which I accept.



I always like how attacking atheism gets called obsessing or other insults, but never the endless garbage debates against gods. Picking and choosing...



Well no, I believe in more than Dualism. But Dualism is supported by both reason and empirical evidence, what more could you want?



See, perfect example thank you! Life fields are literally confirmed by thousands of repeated experiments, and yet you don't accept them. To quote from a writing of mine:

"Unfortunately for Dr. Burr and Dr. Ravitz, the study of L-Fields highly supported the idea that the mind and body are two separate things, something that cannot stand within a materialist philosophy (Kastrup, 2013). Unfortunately, many scientists believe that science can entirely replace philosophy, while simultaneously being viewed as the intellectual elite (p. 12). Due to this fact, many simply ignore the philosophical question and simply “accept” that if science cannot give us a full answer on something, that thing must be fabricated. In this case, since L-Fields feed into a dualist philosophy rather than a materialist one, it’s simply assumed to be pseud-science since science cannot fully explain dualism. Kastrup states that science cannot give us understanding into the underlying aspects of reality, similar to how a video game player does not need to understand the programming behind the game to play it (p.13).

One of the other big problems for Dr. Burr was that he believed a blueprint required a creator, and so was a rather religious man. There is, of course, no room made for religion in modern science as is well known. Even the mere idea that his science may suggest a divine creator of some sort was more than enough to outcast Dr. Burr and his work. As was stated in “Mindstar” by Lt. Colonel Dr. Michael A. Aquino (ret), while religious heretics in old times were tortured and executed, modern scientific/academic heretics will simply find themselves outcasted, unpublished, and without a job (2016).”



And why is it,exactly, that nobody can even try to defend materialism?

I can defend materialism with evidence, but I cannot prove it. But I've seen you pick and choose exactly who and what to respond to in countless conversations on Reddit regarding this subject, so I know it does no good. You've decided.

Your scientific evidence is a quote from a paper of yours. Typical. And I suppose you have successfully done your due diligence in the field of neuroscience to explain all the scientific evidence suggesting that materialism is true? It's rather overwhelming and materialism explains it. Talk about picking and choosing.

Also, for me, the "endless" debates about the existence of a god or god's stop when faith-based political action stops in my country. I know you aren't advocating for this, but you brought it up.