The bait & switch on discussions of materialism

[Wildswanderer]

I say that too when my balance shows one kilogram more than expected.

Ciao

- viole

I've felt it to the point that I thought it was crushing my chest. Prayer is the only cure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope. I've felt it myself more than once.

In that case, the "spiritual" should be objectively detectable in reality as that would make it measurable.

So, how does one go about that?

Spiritual battles are common for literally millions of people and it's weird that you just ignore all the first person testimony, but believe the 4 percent who deny God.

1. Extremely dishonesty of you to lump all non-atheists together in your camp, as if they all agree with you. In reality, well over 90% of humans do NOT agree with you since they do not follow your particular brand of christianity at all, or christianity full stop. Even if we lump all christian denominations together, then we are still talking a minority among all humans.


2. I don't "believe" people who deny god. Instead, I just don't believe claims that have no evidence - and god claims are in that category.


3. yes, I happily ignore "first person testimony" if it's not backed up by any kind of rational evidence. Especially if those "testimonies" make extremely outlandish claims for which there are zero documented precedents.

For example, I will have no particular problem if your "testimony" is that you saw a netflix movie starring Jennifer Aniston last night while eating a pizza. I'ld probably accept that at face value just by itself. Aniston stars in plenty of movies, people eat pizza while watching movies and people watch movies all the time. Context however can alter my perception of your "testimony". Suppose you are in court being accused of a murder and your alibi is that watching that movie while eating pizza all by yourself. If there is evidence putting you at the crime scene instead... now evidence of your movie night becomes more important.

For example, we could look at your Netflix records to see if the Aniston movie idd was streamed on your account. The IP address could tell us if this was done in your home.
We could check the pizza place where you say you got your pizza, if they actually made a delivery to your house.
We could interview the pizza delivery dude to see if it was in fact you who opened to the door.

Now, let's go further. Suppose you expand your "testimony" with the following:

At some point, the movie froze. Aniston crawled out of the TV screen and made sweet love to me. Then she crawled back into the TV and the movie started playing again.

Do you think I would still simply accept your claim here?
Why not?

Do you think I would accept it if 1000 people claimed it? Would you?
Why not?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've felt it to the point that I thought it was crushing my chest. Prayer is the only cure.

Funny how such things only seem to happen to believers.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Funny how such things only seem to happen to believers.

Not even close to true. Do you know how many people go to a church or go to see whoever they think is a holy man because they have been attacked things they can't explain? Do you know that 68 percent of Americans believe in the devil, And it's not just the uneducated, as I'm sure you will try to claim. Over 50 percent of college graduates believe in hell for example.

 

[Bathos Logos]

In practice we are playing naive realism and reductionism. Only that which can be reduced to observation is real. The problem is that the bold is not an observation and thus not real. But you can't get them to understand that, because it is a dogma, that can't be doubted.
So they start with something immaterial and then declared based on that, that only the material is real.

I think your bold statement is a bit misleading. It isn't really that "only that which can be observed is real" (paraphrased), it is that only that which can be observed need matter at all, until it can be demonstrated that something that cannot be observed actually exists and then the reasons that is matters can actually possibly be discerned. So, prior to something having any sort of demonstration, it isn't really in the category of things that necessarily matter at all when we are answering the question "is it real?" It may as well not be real if it cannot be demonstrated nor observed to be part of reality. And I would argue that if it cannot be observed or demonstrated, then it's importance simply cannot be gauged.

There was an interesting show my wife and I were recently watching called "Outer Range", and they kept panning to a billboard that read: "America tells you that the only things worth knowing are those which can be known. America is wrong." I thought about it, and it is a rather absurd statement. If something literally cannot be known, then how can one even assess the worth of knowing it? So, for example, let's say that no such thing as a deity exists in the entirety of reality, and that is a fact of our universe, but it simply cannot be known for certain. As in, you can never actually identify this as being true. Therefore, you cannot know it. How is that piece of knowledge to be deemed useful, or worth anything if it literally cannot be known? You could only posit what it might be worth to you if you could actually know it, but in the end, you are admitting you cannot know. It's no more important than a hypothetical. And in fact, that is all the farther you could ever get with it, if it literally cannot be known.

Think if the sign said, instead: "America tells you that the only things worth believing, are those which can be believed." It becomes a completely different prospect at that point! As anything and everything can literally be believed! There is something telling in this difference.

 

[Wildswanderer]

1. Extremely dishonesty of you to lump all non-atheists together in your camp, as if they all agree with you. In reality, well over 90% of humans do NOT agree with you since they do not follow your particular brand of christianity at all, or christianity full stop. Even if we lump all christian denominations together, then we are still talking a minority among all humans.

They still believe in a spiritual reality. The fact that they get parts of it wrong doesn't change that. Voo-doo is a huge cult that has strong beliefs in the spirit world for example. Unfortunately, they approach spirits by trying to appease them, in many cases, instead of approaching them with the power of God. They try to cast out satan using Satan and he's more than happy to play along to deceive people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not even close to true. Do you know how many people go to a church or go to see whoever they think is a holy man because they have been attacked things they can't explain? Do you know that 68 percent of Americans believe in the devil, And it's not just the uneducated, as I'm sure you will try to claim. Over 50 percent of college graduates believe in hell for example.

Childhood indoctrination is a hell of a drug.

 

[Ponder This]

The question of materialism vs. immaterialism - if we go by dictionary and encyclopedia definitions - only focuses on question #2: materialists group all the things they believe in into one category, while immaterialists group things into two or more categories.

The question of the number of categories of things to believe in is better addressed through the concepts of monism and dualism.

Immaterialism lumps everything into one category: the belief that material things have no objective existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. I've felt it myself more than once. Spiritual battles are common for literally millions of people and it's weird that you just ignore all the first person testimony, but believe the 4 percent who deny God.

I have no issue believing that you occasionally feel extreme pressure or a crushing feeling in your chest (and I'd suggest you get that checked out by a doctor, BTW).

I don't automatically go along when you decide that this feeling must be from God. I don't think you're in a position to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not even close to true. Do you know how many people go to a church or go to see whoever they think is a holy man because they have been attacked things they can't explain?

Operative words: "can't explain".
Experiencing things you can't explain is quite different from experiencing rather specific things that you can name and label.

Do you know that 68 percent of Americans believe in the devil

So?
Around 50% of them also believe the world is only a few thousand years old.
Hardly a public I would hold up as having something interesting to say on these matters.

Also, that is called the argument from popularity. It's a fallacy.
100% of people could believe X and be wrong about it.

And it's not just the uneducated, as I'm sure you will try to claim. Over 50 percent of college graduates believe in hell for example.

Again, so?

How many of them can support their beliefs with rational evidence?
Answer: ZERO.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They still believe in a spiritual reality.

1. not necessarily

2. Among those that do, the "spiritual reality" the majority of them believe in is VERY VERY DIFFERENT from the one YOU believe in. To the point of being mutually exclusive.

Yet, you still wish to count them in your camp. But it's just dishonesty to boot.
You try to create an "us vs them" situation but the reality is that your religions is just one fish in a vast ocean of make-belief.
There are no just 2 sides here. Instead, there are THOUSANDS. And you want to lump them all together and why? To create a fallacious argument from popularity, of all things.... hilarious.

The fact that they get parts of it wrong doesn't change that

"parts of it" being 100% as they are completely incompatible with the things YOU believe.

Voo-doo is a huge cult that has strong beliefs in the spirit world for example. Unfortunately, they approach spirits by trying to appease them, in many cases, instead of approaching them with the power of God. They try to cast out satan using Satan and he's more than happy to play along to deceive people.

Voodoo people don't believe in Satan.
You can pretend that they do, but they don't.
Satan is a biblical figure that YOU believe in. A "fallen angel" in the lore of abrahamic religion.
People who don't believe in the bible, don't believe in that lore and by extension also not in the characters of that lore.

It would be like Darth Vader appearing in Star Trek. It just doesn't happen.
Star Trek has its own bad guys. Like the Romulans and the Borg.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Voodoo people don't believe in Satan.
You can pretend that they do, but they don't.

Doesn't matter what they call them... they still believe in God and spirits. In fact many mix it with the Catholic religion.

 

[Wildswanderer]

"parts of it" being 100% as they are completely incompatible with the things YOU believe.

Totally missed the point. Most people believe in a spiritual realm. It's not so easy to define, but it's there. Your cult is the only one that doesn't.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Operative words: "can't explain".
Experiencing things you can't explain is quite different from experiencing rather specific things that you can name and label.

Until they find the explanation in the Bible. Then they know what they experienced.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Doesn't matter what they call them... they still believe in God and spirits. In fact many mix it with the Catholic religion.

It's so funny when fundamentalists double down on their fallacious nonsense.

So conclusion: everyone who believes things on faith and who has a story with a bad guy, is in your camp.



So ancient egyptians because they believe in Anubis.
Vikings because they believed in Loki
Children because they believe in the Grinch.

Haha.

Come on dude.
At least try to be reasonable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Totally missed the point.

I missed no point.
The point is that you are desperately trying to lump them all together for the sole purpose of building a fallacious argument ad populum.

In reality these groups disagree so much they are even willing to kill each other over it.

Most people believe in a spiritual realm

In more correct terms: most people engage in superstition. And that doesn't limit itself to "spiritual realms".
It also includes beliefs in bigfoot, fairies, alien abduction, reptilians, etc etc etc.

The human mind is very prone to superstitious beliefs (aka, cognition errors). As is the case for most of the animal kingdom, btw.

It's not so easy to define, but it's there.

It is very easy to define: superstition.

THAT is what is common among humans (and other animals).

Your cult is the only one that doesn't.

I can assure you that plenty of atheists engage in superstition / cognition errors.
We are all human. As the saying goes: the easiest person to fool, is yourself.

Atheists also, will tend to jump to conclusions at times through cognitive failure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Until they find the explanation in the Bible. Then they know what they experienced.

No. They just believe it. Like others "find the explanation" in religions like Hare Krishna's, hinduism, islam, judaism, wiccan, scientology, etc etc etc.

In truth, the unexplained thing is still unexplained. Bare assertions does not an explanation make.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I missed no point.
The point is that you are desperately trying to lump them all together for the sole purpose of building a fallacious argument ad populum.

In reality these groups disagree so much they are even willing to kill each other over it.



In more correct terms: most people engage in superstition. And that doesn't limit itself to "spiritual realms".
It also includes beliefs in bigfoot, fairies, alien abduction, reptilians, etc etc etc.

The human mind is very prone to superstitious beliefs (aka, cognition errors). As is the case for most of the animal kingdom, btw.



It is very easy to define: superstition.

THAT is what is common among humans (and other animals).



I can assure you that plenty of atheists engage in superstition / cognition errors.
We are all human. As the saying goes: the easiest person to fool, is yourself.

Atheists also, will tend to jump to conclusions at times through cognitive failure.

Again it's very unlikely that your little group is the only one who has the truth. What you dismiss as superstition is reality to most.
Atheism is actually self contradictory, BTW.
If atheism were true, an atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic that he constantly appeals to, because such laws would not be meaningful. How can they be in a world created by chance? Logic is whatever nature implants in you and therefore has no higher meaning at all. I like to call the atheist version of logic " universe farts" because they are nothing real, just hot air.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Again it's very unlikely that your little group is the only one who has the truth. What you dismiss as superstition is reality to most.

Popularity of any idea is not what makes it likely or true or unlikely or false.

If atheism were true, an atheist would not be able to reason or use laws of logic that he constantly appeals to, because such laws would not be meaningful.

There are no such thing as 'laws of logic.' And no actual laws used in science are prescriptive. They're descriptive. None of us think laws cause things to happen. The laws *describe* things that happen.

How can they be in a world created by chance?

None of us think it came about by chance, but by the aforementioned relationship between chemicals, objects and phenomena with expected results according to their attributes.

Logic is whatever nature implants in you and therefore has no higher meaning at all.

Even if I believed a god existing afforded a higher meaning rather than its own subjective perspective, and I do not, The difference between you and I is you project post hoc meaning on it and then say the meaning was always there. Whereas I derive meaning from common goals with my community. I fully acknowledge that meaning is what you make it, including the meaning you've made out of your religion.

From my perspective, your life is just as meaningless as mine is. That is, it's not. You've just decided the meaning you've adopted coincides with a mythology I don't believe in.

 

[Wildswanderer]

None of us think it came about by chance, but by the aforementioned relationship between chemicals, objects and phenomena with expected results according to their attributes.

Lol, that's still chance. Get real.