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

[columbus]

n the other hand, atheist regimes like USSR, communist China, North Korea do have serious real world impacts on both their own citizens and the free world..

While we're on the subject....
I have known a few Christian Communists. In a nutshell, they simply dismiss the atheist bits as misguided human understanding. But they see the goals and methods of true communism(as opposed to the awful way it was put into practice) as most reflective of the Teachings of their Lord Jesus Christ. Not that it's perfect, but far closer than any other modern economic system. Far more so than capitalism, with it's emphasis on individuality and personal wealth and power. Capitalism clearly rewards the strong, lucky and ruthless. That is not at all Christ-like, as anyone can see.
Tom

 

[Quintessence]

Wait a sec. Supposedly these are reasons why "we" don't need to take materialist atheism seriously. Who is "we?"

 

[Corvus]

On the other hand, atheist regimes like USSR, communist China, North Korea do have serious real world impacts on both their own citizens and the free world..

having killed vastly more people in a single recent generation, that every religious conflict in the history of humanity combined

Atheism does not equal Stalinist Communism. No atheist has strapped a bomb to his/her back and killed innocent people in the name of Atheism or persecuted homosexuals in the name of Atheism etc. An absurd comment, not befitting an intelligent person.

I believe in human rights, unlike Stalin, who believed in feeding his people to his war machine. I swear I am actually annoyed.

 

[Corvus]

but why can't we just all get along?

I am completely for freedom of religious expression, without question. It's the bad stuff I take issue with, when done in the name of religion and morality etc. That has to end.

 

[Corvus]

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

You certainly do not, since presumably according to what can be inferred logically from another post on this thread, as an atheist you believed that genocide/mass murder was only fair. As you equated it (Atheism) with the deaths caused by dictatorial Communist regimes over the early 20th century.

 

[1137]

Whether it's a Muslim's opinion about Ganesh or a Setian's opinion about the Risen Christ, doesn't matter. Virtually everybody understands that religion is fiction. But most people prefer to exempt one flavor of religion, with entirely subjective reasons for doing so.

Most people definitely believe their religion to be true, this is just a laughably ignorant claim

Non-theists simply don't do that "subjective preference" for a religious ideological worldview thing that theists consistently do.

I brought it up because the user I was responding to did just that.

When I try to describe the meaning of "non-theist" I try to avoid the negative, "Do not believe in God". I try to use the positive, "Believe that religion is fiction".
Tom

At least you're aware these are beliefs!

That's because atheists are bloodthirsty killers. Just look Carl Sagan. There's a vicious murderer if I've ever seen one.

So you deny atheistic groups have committed atrocities? See OP #7.

Wait a sec. Supposedly these are reasons why "we" don't need to take materialist atheism seriously. Who is "we?"

Any rational, truth seeking philosophers.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Atheism does not equal Stalinist Communism. No atheist has strapped a bomb to his/her back and killed innocent people in the name of Atheism or persecute homosexuals in the name of Atheism etc. An absurd comment, not befitting an intelligent person.

I believe in human rights, unlike Stalin, who believed in feeding his people to his war machine. I swear I am actually annoyed.

I am sorry about that, the victims of those regimes were not too chuffed either...

To be clear though- I certainly don't think atheists are inherently evil, I used to be one and I still know and love many who are all thoughtful, intelligent, well meaning people

I'd say our common enemy here is politics, it does not mix well with theism , atheism, or any other matter of personal faith

can we agree on this?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So materialistic atheism is a position, since it is a form of materialism.
The term "materialistic atheism" makes no sense; "atheistic materialism" is at least coherent.

"Materialistic atheism" is like describing a non-red car as "an automotive form of not the colour red." It has things backward.

Of course we both know a lack of belief in X implies a belief that non-X is more likely, but we can pretend that's not the case.

Speak for yourself, bub. Over here at the rational end of the spectrum, we wait until we've at least heard an idea before we decide whether it's true.

I think it is noble for you to admit that you begin with your conclusion then use circular reasoning, but this makes it no more logical.

The logic is just fine: when I see compelling evidence that something exists, I'll acknowledge that it exists and label it "natural" or "material."

Subjective preference has no influence on truth, unfortunately.

But that's really all you have going for yourself when it comes right down to it.

For both naturalists and dualists, if they're rational, when they're confronted with compelling evidence that something exists, they'll be convinced of it and acknowledge its existence. The only difference between these two views is what happens next:

- the naturalist will call the thing "natural".
- the dualist will have to make a decision (based on what criteria, I don't know) whether to call the thing "natural" or "supernatural".

Everything else is really about standards of evidence, which is really a separate topic. As it happens, dualists tend to have a lower standard of evidence for "supernatural" things than for "natural" things (and often a lower standard than naturalists use), but this doesn't have to be the case.

 

[columbus]

Most people definitely believe their religion to be true, this is just a laughably ignorant claim

So, you are agreeing with me, then referring to that as a laughably ignorant claim?
Perhaps you missed the part about theists believing that religion is fiction, except for their own?

Maybe that's because it's exactly what you do.
Tom

 

[1137]

So, you are agreeing with me, then referring to that as a laughably ignorant claim?
Perhaps you missed the part about theists believing that religion is fiction, except for their own?

No? You claim that all people recognize religion as fiction. I blatantly disagreed with you. This is just so sad and dishonest, I squirm each time you guys validate the op

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So you deny atheistic groups have committed atrocities? See OP #7.

No, I'm admitting that atheists are all savage, mass-murderers. I mean, without god, everyone reverts to a psychopathic state. Just look at that villain Stephen Hawking. He'd run over every child in the world with his wheelchair if he could.

 

[1137]

"Materialistic atheism" is like describing a non-red car as "an automotive form of not the colour red." It has things backward.

Materialistic atheism is materialism + atheism. What is making this so confounding for you?

Speak for yourself, bub. Over here at the rational end of the spectrum, we wait until we've at least heard an idea before we decide whether it's true.

You literally said if something exists it is material. That means you've decided it fr any existent thing even if you've never heard it, a direct contradiction to what you're saying now.

logic is just fine: when I see compelling evidence that something exists, I'll acknowledge that it exists and label it "natural" or "material."

Here, you really really need to read this if you're going to pretend your position is rational. Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

that's really all you have going for yourself when it comes right down to it.

Haha, what? Math, inner experience, logic, laws of nature... All rely simply on subjective preference? My God you've outdone yourself on faith!

the naturalist will call the thing "natural".
- the dualist will have to make a decision (based on what criteria, I don't know) whether to call the thing "natural" or "supernatural".

Like I said we really need to add a number 8 with straw men, do you guys like get special training in straw manning positions?

 

[1137]

No, I'm admitting that atheists are all savage, mass-murderers. I mean, without god, everyone reverts to a psychopathic state. Just look at that villain Stephen Hawking. He'd run over every child in the world with his wheelchair if he could.

An atheist making a straw man? I'm oh so shocked!!!

 

[columbus]

No? You claim that all people recognize religion as fiction. I blatantly disagreed with you. This is just so sad and dishonest, I squirm each time you guys validate the op

Feel free to give me an example of a theist who believes in all religions. I don't think you can. Every theist I know considers the vast majority of religions to be fiction. Most only make one exception. I gave examples.
Tom

 

[1137]

Feel free to give me an example of a theist who believes in all religions. I don't think you can. Every theist I know considers the vast majority of religions to be fiction. Most only make one exception. I gave examples.
Tom

Ah now you're changing your claim, how interesting. Basically all polytheists accept other pantheon's, as do universalists, as do mystics, as do many occultists.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An atheist making a straw man? I'm oh so shocked!!!

That's nothing. Given half a chance, we slaughter millions of innocents at the drop of a hat. We're all soulless psychopathic killers.

 

[columbus]

Ah now you're changing your claim, how interesting. Basically all polytheists accept other pantheon's, as do universalists, as do mystics, as do many occultists.

No I am not.
A polytheist may well accept the existence of some other pantheons, while considering monotheistic and animistic religions fictional human inventions. Etc.
But the number of adherents of the fringy belief systems you are referring to kinda illustrates my point. The vast majority of religionists accept one narrative and dismiss the rest. Heck, even Catholics don't necessarily accept the narratives of all other Catholics.
You're full of it.
The vast majority of religionists agree that religion is fiction, except for theirs.
Tom

 

[McBell]

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 am atheist due to the epic failure of theists to convince me that a deity exists.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Cause and effect...

Which proves what by your estimation? Not the "beginning" of the universe, I hope? We don't know anything about the actual beginning of matter/space - the "Big Bang" is only a guess - and therefore also insufficient, and begs the question "what caused it?" Then again, if He exists, what is the "cause" of God? What effect produced God? Only God gets to be "uncaused?" Why? Does the universe/matter even have a beginning? Why would a "beginning" be necessary? Why would there ever have to be a time when there was "nothing" before there was "something?"

 

[1137]

That's nothing. Given half a chance, we slaughter millions of innocents at the drop of a hat. We're all soulless psychopathic killers.

Haha, this is exactly what I've come to except of you guys. Straw men, sarcasm, an inability to even admit there was a murderous atheist group at one point without resorting to absurdism in a hissy fit. Its just so sad.

No I am not.
A polytheist may well accept the existence of some other pantheons, while considering monotheistic and animistic religions fictional human inventions. Etc.

Why do you believe all religions need to accept others as right for religion to be true? Do you like think since religions disagree it's proof of atheism.

the number of adherents of the fringy belief systems you are referring to kinda illustrates my point. The vast majority of religionists accept one narrative and dismiss the rest. Heck, even Catholics don't necessarily accept the narratives of all other Catholics.

Oh god... what I just said above really is your argument isn't it?

I am atheist due to the epic failure of theists to convince me that a deity exists.

So your subjective feeling of being convinced is the ground of your reasoning? Do you see a problem with that line of reasoning?