We don't need to take materialist atheism as a whole seriously.

[Corvus]

Ah here we go, pretending you've never heard a valid argument for gods in your life.

Do not be anti social. I have never heard a valid argument for God(s), period. Do not accuse of me of dishonesty without proof.

 

[Corvus]

But surely you're not suggesting theism and science are mutually exclusive?

They have nothing in common, so pretty much yes.

 

[Corvus]

I mean, I've seen some, but the ones based in empirical evidence, like the cosmological, tend to hold up much better.

No argument for God is based on empirical evidence.

 

[Altfish]

and non-believers hang around religious forums......

for what?

To bring some reality and sense to them.

 

[Jesster]

Theism is a made up word. It's obscure.

Technically, all words are made up.

 

[PureX]

Yet we will continue rejecting the theists unsupported claims about gods.

We need no defense for that position, although its justification is robust nevertheless. There is no burden of proof because there is no claim to knowledge.

That's called agnosticism, not atheism. And there are agnostic atheists just as there are agnostic theists. Atheism, itself, is the theistic counter-assertion that if no proof of gods exists, then no gods exist. Most atheists are too willfully ignorant to recognize that they are posing this counter-position because they know they can't defend it, logically or evidentially, but they are posing it nevertheless. Loudly and adamantly.

We also have no need to refute other claims based in faith. They are just opinions.

Where there is no proof, it's all opinion, including atheism. The difference is that atheism opines nothing, while theism opines a hopeful possibility.

Religion offered me no benefit, so I cast it aside. Freeing myself of it thusly, however, did.

Too bad you didn't bother to learn the difference between religion and theism. You may have found something very useful for yourself, to keep.

We don't need you to take us seriously. Nor does science. Feel free to bay at the moon if that's what gives your life meaning.

It's weirdly interesting that your ego would still be invested in this "non-position" of yours.

 

[Corvus]

Most atheists are too willfully ignorant to recognize that they are posing this counter-position because they know they can't defend it, logically or evidentially, but they are posing it nevertheless. Loudly and adamantly.

Laughable. You have no evidence, there is nothing to disprove. End of matter.

 

[Thief]

Laughable. You have no evidence, there is nothing to disprove. End of matter.

matter can be destroyed.....energy cannot

Spirit could be dark energy
science can't see it

just saying

 

[leibowde84]

I was speaking about atheists who are also materialists. Hahaha this is literally in the title, c'mon.

No one claims that materialism is not a belief. Atheism is not necessarily an active belief, as it can merely be the absence of belief. But, because materialism is a belief, a "materialist atheist" is certainly one who holds an active belief in materialism. That is why it makes no sense that you claim materialist atheists claim to not necessarily hold a belief. No one makes that argument.

 

[1137]

Do not be anti social. I have never heard a valid argument for God(s), period. Do not accuse of me of dishonesty without proof.

You've never heard the cosmological argument? My basis for accusing you of lying is the extreme likelihood that you've heard of this argument.

They have nothing in common, so pretty much yes.

They're a search for truth aren't they. Surely you don't think science has somehow disapproven theism.

No argument for God is based on empirical evidence.

That's an objective falsehood, sorry

 

[1137]

No one claims that materialism is not a belief. Atheism is not necessarily an active belief, as it can merely be the absence of belief. But, because materialism is a belief, a "materialist atheist" is certainly one who holds an active belief in materialism. That is why it makes no sense that you claim materialist atheists claim to not necessarily hold a belief. No one makes that argument.

Literally almost every one of them does.

 

[leibowde84]

Literally almost every one of them does.

Can you provide an example? I've been on RF for quite a while and, although I've obviously heard many explain (correctly) that atheism is not necessarily a belief, I've never seen anyone claim that materialism is not, at least not the way that you define materialism (as not including man-made mathematics, logic, etc.). When it comes to the mind, we don't know whether it is physical or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's jump right into the why.

1. It's a supposedly non position, something followers parrot pretty much more than they say anything else. Just a lack of belief according to them, which is absurd and unlogical in it's on right.

Atheism is a non-position; materialism isn't.

2. It won't be defended because it's supposedly not a position. Any ideology that can't or won't defend itself can't be seriously considered, it's the equivalent to an unfalisfiable hypothesis.

Not an unfalsifiable hypothesis; a tautology (and therefore necessarily true): I define "the material" in terms of that which exists; if something exists, I consider it material. Therefore, only the materal exists.

There's also another way of looking at it: as an aesthetic preference.

- the materialist thinks it's better to consider "that which exists" as a single category. A category that's very heterogenous, sometimes not well-understood, and not entirely known to humanity, but still a single category.

- the immaterialist thinks that, because of some sort of inherent divide in "that which exists", it's better to consider "that which exists" as two distinct categories: the natural and the supernatural.

3. They cannot provide the slightest evidence for the position. Literally all we have in favor of physicalism is brain-mind correlation, but materialism has ridden this all the way to the end goal of reduction. After being asked for years by anyone outside their position, still not one shred of evidence has been put forth.

This is really irrelevant to the question. If our minds were really located outside of our bodies somewhere and were controlling our bodies through our brains by remote control, that whole process would still be physical. You get pushback on it because there's no reason whatsoever to assume it's happening, not because it's incompatible with materialism.

4. The immaterial is self evident, which for any objective thinker discredits the position anyways. Math, logic, the laws of nature themselves, certain fields, and most obviously our own subjective experience.

I'm sure you realize that the "existence" of concepts is not the sort of existence being referred to by terms like "materialism." The fact that we can add numbers says nothing about whether an invisible realm exists where souls or angels live.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's jump right into the why.

1. It's a supposedly non position, something followers parrot pretty much more than they say anything else. Just a lack of belief according to them, which is absurd and unlogical in it's on right.

2. It won't be defended because it's supposedly not a position. Any ideology that can't or won't defend itself can't be seriously considered, it's the equivalent to an unfalisfiable hypothesis.

3. They cannot provide the slightest evidence for the position. Literally all we have in favor of physicalism is brain-mind correlation, but materialism has ridden this all the way to the end goal of reduction. After being asked for years by anyone outside their position, still not one shred of evidence has been put forth.

4. The immaterial is self evident, which for any objective thinker discredits the position anyways. Math, logic, the laws of nature themselves, certain fields, and most obviously our own subjective experience.

5. Most will claim the position is default, that we start from physicalism and go from their, despite the fact that this is self evidently not the case. This is an extremely dishonest tactic most groups won't even use specifically because said groups are able and willing to defend their position.

6. The burden of proof is itself a game based in #1, 2, and 3. Again, if a position can and will not defend itself we need not take it seriously.

7. Fideism, faith over science and reason, is rampart in this position, where people will literally deny any valid arguments for gods, will deny the existence of things like the self and math, will deny the benefits of religion, will deny any science not directly supporting materialism, and worse they'll pretend none of it was presented at all. This is done, of course, because the arguments can't be refuted and the position cannot be defended.

I like the number 7, and we have more than enough reasons to not take materialism and atheism in this form seriously. It refuses to defend itself, denies the self evident, has provided no evidence, plays dirty games, and rejects factual knowledge on faith.

I can't speak for all atheists, but as a recovering one, I think you have boiled it down pretty well.

It's always easier to critique other people's beliefs than your own. So if you don't even acknowledge your beliefs as such- you can't lose- it's a pretty tempting position intellectually

Like any non-belief; blind faith, superstition, its very difficult to move beyond because it is an unquestionable 'default truth' for the believer.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

and non-believers hang around religious forums......

for what?

Well, I can only speak for myself... I do it to keep a watch on what contemporary believers are all about, find out where my arguments could use some shoring up, find out what arguments I should find myself up against, make sure that my own set of beliefs is robust and exhaustive.

Not to mention keeping an eye out for anything resembling proof that believers might come up with - nothing notable so far, obviously - but against all odds believers seem to remain hopeful.

 

[leibowde84]

I can't speak for all atheists, but as a recovering one, I think you have boiled it down pretty well.

It's always easier to critique other people's beliefs than your own. So if you don't even acknowledge your beliefs as such- you can't lose- it's a pretty tempting position intellectually

Like any non-belief; blind faith, superstition, its very difficult to move beyond because it is an unquestionable 'default truth' for the believer.

How is a "lack of belief" or being "without a belief" a "belief system"?

 

[Thief]

Well, I can only speak for myself... I do it to keep a watch on what contemporary believers are all about, find out where my arguments could use some shoring up, find out what arguments I should find myself up against, make sure that my own set of beliefs is robust and exhaustive.

Not to mention keeping an eye out for anything resembling proof that believers might come up with - nothing notable so far, obviously - but against all odds believers seem to remain hopeful.

Cause and effect.....
let's go a few rounds?

 

[Valjean]

Let's jump right into the why.
1. It's a supposedly non position, something followers parrot pretty much more than they say anything else. Just a lack of belief according to them, which is absurd and unlogical in it's on right.

Why is non-belief in something illogical? Is your lack of belief in flying elephants illogical?

2. It won't be defended because it's supposedly not a position. Any ideology that can't or won't defend itself can't be seriously considered, it's the equivalent to an unfalisfiable hypothesis.

But a non position isn't an ideology, is it? Nor is it a hypothesis. It doesn't need defense. It's not a positive claim, in the same way lack of belief in unicorns is not a claim.

3. They cannot provide the slightest evidence for the position. Literally all we have in favor of physicalism is brain-mind correlation, but materialism has ridden this all the way to the end goal of reduction. After being asked for years by anyone outside their position, still not one shred of evidence has been put forth.

But we have no "position" to defend; nothing to provide evidence for. You acknowledge yourself that it's a non-position.
Not one shred of evidence for what? We're making no claims to provide evidence for. It's you who are making the claims. The burden's on you -- where's your evidence?

5. Most will claim the position is default, that we start from physicalism and go from their, despite the fact that this is self evidently not the case. This is an extremely dishonest tactic most groups won't even use specifically because said groups are able and willing to defend their position.

Huh? Please explain.

6. The burden of proof is itself a game based in #1, 2, and 3. Again, if a position can and will not defend itself we need not take it seriously.

"A position that will not defend itself ?" IT'S NOT A POSITION! It's a lack of position. You just don't get it, do you? You restate the non-position claim, so you've obviously read it, but the implication completely escapes you.

7. Fideism, faith over science and reason, is rampart in this position, where people will literally deny any valid arguments for gods, will deny the existence of things like the self and math, will deny the benefits of religion, will deny any science not directly supporting materialism, and worse they'll pretend none of it was presented at all.

We won't deny any "valid arguments" -- we just haven't heard any.
We have no faith. Science requires evidence; so does theism. It's atheism that does not.
The benefit of religion? What does this have to do with the argument?
Who's denying self or maths?
What science isn't based on materialism?

This is done, of course, because the arguments can't be refuted and the position cannot be defended.

Theistic arguments are refuted on every front -- what planet are you living on? Atheists have no "position," so there is nothing to defend. It's the default position.

I like the number 7, and we have more than enough reasons to not take materialism and atheism in this form seriously. It refuses to defend itself, denies the self evident, has provided no evidence, plays dirty games, and rejects factual knowledge on faith.

It doesn't need to defend itself, any more than your disbelief in the Easter bunny. We make no positive claim, so there is nothing to defend.
"denies the self evident?" What is this that's self-evident? It provides no evidence because there's nothing to provide evidence for. There are no positive claims. The burden, again, is on you who make positive claims.
What is "factual knowledge on faith?"

So you recognize how many times we've been through this, but turned a blind eye to the fact that none of those times provided the slightest support for your position? That's just ridiculous. Half these problems would be easy to avoid if atheists simply admitted they had a belief and would defend it, but after asking a recognized million times, with still no shred being presented, the simplest conclusion is there is none to be provided.

Again, there's no position, so no need to defend the non-it.
Not all atheists are strong atheists. Atheism, per se, is weak atheism -- a simple lack of belief. If you make claims that apply only to a specific subset of atheists please throw in a modifier to identify it.

 

[Valjean]

and non-believers hang around religious forums......
for what?

Because religion is a massively influential force in the world. It affects everyone, and it's a fascinating psychological phenomenon.
Who wouldn't be interested?

That's called agnosticism, not atheism. And there are agnostic atheists just as there are agnostic theists. Atheism, itself, is the theistic counter-assertion that if no proof of gods exists, then no gods exist. Most atheists are too willfully ignorant to recognize that they are posing this counter-position because they know they can't defend it, logically or evidentially, but they are posing it nevertheless. Loudly and adamantly.

There is nothing to defend. It's not an assertion. The burden of "defense" is on the party making the positive assertion.

Where there is no proof, it's all opinion, including atheism. The difference is that atheism opines nothing, while theism opines a hopeful possibility.

You acknowledge that atheism opines nothing, yet you insist it's a "position" that requires defense? How do you not see the absurdity of this?
Why is the fact that theism opines a hopeful possibility relevant?

You've never heard the cosmological argument? My basis for accusing you of lying is the extreme likelihood that you've heard of this argument.

The cosmological argument is not logical. It's a defective argument.

They're a search for truth aren't they. Surely you don't think science has somehow disapproven theism.

Science ignores theism. Anything supernatural or without evidence is outside the purview of science.

"No argument for God is based on empirical evidence."

That's an objective falsehood, sorry

How so? Can you point to any objective evidence for God?

 

[Thief]

Because religion is a massively influential force in the world. It affects everyone, and it's a fascinating psychological phenomenon.
Who wouldn't be interested?

fair enough.....until you read some of the retorts I've had to suffer