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

[Ponder This]

And as I cannot defend my claim to an invisible, fire-breathing dragon, you cannot defend your claim to an invisible, non-physical god.

The statement
"An invisible, fire-breathing dragon does not exist."
is an assertion.

It's illogical in it's on right because a lack of belief in X logically means one believes non-X to be more likely.

Precisely, to truly lack belief on the matter (not make an unconscious assertion), you would have to have never have considered the question to begin with. Since the people posting on this forum have considered the question, often at great length, it follows that they aren't truly neutral.

Yes I lack those beliefs, meaning I believe you have no dragon in your garage. We can even come up with reasons for this belief, like a lack of any disturbance in the garage.

How do you know he has a garage?

Crazy! So because I can't see my shows when my tv is broken, I know the shows exist within the tv? That's mind blowing, I thought TV's we're just receivers.

Didn't you know? 2+2 ceases to equal 4 every time a person dies. Luckily we have more people being born every day to help continue the myth.

Does a dime on the sidewalk cease to be ten cents if no one if around to pick it up?

Because math objectively exists free of minds, thus disproving physicalism.

Just like gravity, right?

Absence of evidence is exactly the reason you don't believe unicorns exist, for example.

Is it? Or is it because you disagree that the thing 'unicorn' denotes could exist? Are you aware of Narwhales and Rhinoceroses?

I'm not speaking as an atheist, since to be an atheist I'd have to know what real thing the term 'god' denoted before I could lack a belief in its existence. I don't know, and it seems no one can tell me.

Really? Aren't all words flexible in meaning? Are you talking about empirical knowledge or logistic knowledge? What would you need to know to be able to discuss 'god' meaningfully?

For instance,
how is the googled definition insufficient to a meaningful discussion?

God
ɡäd/
noun
1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.​

Is there some sort of doubt about what this means? Or is the investigation of the meaning an exercise in Derrida's deconstruction of language? Or are you simply worried that the definition google finds is not universally accepted by everyone? Do you read the definition and say, "I lack the imagination to conceive of the idea of a supreme being"? Would you consider the Sun to be a sufficiently well-defined object to express a belief about?

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.

Ah, but the soul, by definition, is the spiritual or 'immaterial' part of a human being or animal. So, the moment you accept that these 'immaterial' things 'exist', you accept that souls 'exist'.

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.

All is well as long as you don't claim that unicorns don't exist, but the moment you claim unicorns do not exist, you've made a negative claim with as much burden of proof as a positive claim. Comparing a lack of position to not believing in unicorns essentially shows the error.

It doesn't need to defend itself, any more than your disbelief in the Easter bunny.

If you are claiming that the Easter Bunny does not exist, then you have a burden of proof. The only reason you think you can escape the burden of proof is because you think I believe the Easter Bunny doesn't exist and therefore that I won't actually press you to prove it…

There are no positive claims. The burden, again, is on you who make positive claims.

Or negative claims. Are you really claiming that the Easter Bunny does not exist? To be clear, you should simply say you have no position on the matter.. perhaps the Easter Bunny does exist, perhaps not, but you don't really have a position on the matter, do you? The very fact that you use the Easter Bunny to 'defend' your position shows that you have a position to defend.

My lack of belief is not illogical because what I actually have is a belief that there are not flying elephants. Just like you believe atheism is more likely than theism.

Precisely, claiming that Flying Elephants do not exist is a claim with a burden of proof.

Atheism is a non-position in that lack of belief in gods is a non-position.

It's only a non-position in a the sense of someone not having considered the question or not having made a judgment regarding it. The moment a person makes a judgment regarding it, he has a position. Even so, as long as he never states a position, he has nothing to defend in an argument. It isn't until he makes an assertion that he has a burden of proof. So for example, a conversation starts and the 'atheist' claims non-position, so the burden of proof is on the theist he is discussing with. The theist starts to give reasons and then the 'atheist' asserts, "No, that is not the case" to one of the theists suppositions. At that moment, the supposed 'atheist' takes a position whether he realizes it or not. Otherwise, the 'atheist' would go through the entire argument given by the theist without disagreement on any point. In which case, why not accept the theist's case?

Lastly, I want to put this series in (for everyone not just for you, since I know I've linked it before) because it speaks to a lot of other questions you've had in the thread as I've seen them. For example why abstract concepts are not the same as immaterial substance to me, or why I don't see reason to believe mind is independent of brain.

If we knew that nothing exists except matter and it's movements and modifications, then we could accept materialism. We don't know this. We do know that we experience what appears to be objective, non-material realities. Mathematics appears to be an objective, non-material reality and we experience it by thinking about it. Even if you claim that the experience is only taking place as thoughts in a brain in a material body, it doesn't change the fact that we've experienced an apparently objective, non-material reality. The entire empirical approach is based upon things we experience. If you say that we don't actually experience things, then you are saying that there isn't actually anything to base empiricism on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

No, it really doesn't mean that.

If you're actually interested in productive discussion, it would be useful to not make bad assumptions about the beliefs of the people you're talking to.

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?

Where's the straw man?

Take you and a materialist who has the same standard of evidence that you do. Whatever you accept as real, the materialist will accept as real, too... the only difference is what you call "supernatural," he'll call "natural."

When we're talking about materialists and dualists accepting different things as real, we're actually talking about different standards of evidence. IOW, you're doing a bait-and-switch.

 

[columbus]

Why do you believe all religions need to accept others as right for religion to be true?

I don't think that, which is why I didn't say it. It is good solid evidence that people can and will invent fictional characters and concepts, then fervently believe that they are reflective of reality instead of their own experiences and preference.

Do you like think since religions disagree it's proof of atheism.

No, which is why I didn't say that.
It is, however, solid evidence that there is no God who cares about what we believe enough to make it clear. I believe in a God who doesn't care about us. Not what we believe or do or what happens to us, God just is. No claims about any specific characteristics of God, because I am also sure that my limited human perceptions and reasoning is utterly incapable of grasping the Truth.
Tom

 

[Corvus]

God just is. No claims about any specific characteristics of God, because I am also sure that my limited human perceptions and reasoning is utterly incapable of grasping the Truth.

I am far more likely to take a theist such as yourself seriously, who apparently recognizes the subjective limitations that apply to us all.

 

[Corvus]

You seem to have called it "underlying reality".

Nevermind.

A 2 dimensional surface of which we are a holographic representation of the interactions occurring upon, according to some physicists.

 

[columbus]

I am far more likely to take a theist such as yourself seriously, who apparently recognizes the subjective limitations that apply to us all.

Thanks.
But I honestly don't consider myself a theist. Theism, seems to me, to be about unevidenced claims about deity, souls, spirits, afterlife and such.(As opposed to ghosts, telekinesis, and other stuff supernatural stuff).
Tom

 

[Corvus]

Thanks.
But I honestly don't consider myself a theist. Theism, seems to me, to be about unevidenced claims about deity, souls, spirits, afterlife and such.(As opposed to ghosts, telekinesis, and other stuff supernatural stuff).
Tom

Well traditionally any belief in a God, defined or not, is a theism. I think I understand what you are saying however.

 

[columbus]

Well traditionally any belief in a God, defined or not, is a theism.

I don't consider myself a slave to tradition or Holy Writ(including dictionaries or Wikipedia). I often find it difficult to explain exactly what I mean because people assume things about the meaning of the words I use.

Tom

 

[Nakosis]

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 don't believe is aliens abducting folks nor ghosts. My defense is I've never experienced these things and they've not been validated scientifically.

God has not been validated scientifically. Subjectively maybe folks experience God but without being able to validate it scientifically it remains subjective which means whether you believe in God or not is purely a subjective choice. Like aliens from outer space abducting folks or ghosts.

Evidence for my position? You got to take my word for it. I don't believe in a God. I suppose I could be lying about that, but why would I lie? What would motivate me to tell you, a complete stranger, that I didn't believe in God?

You believe in God, fine, I'm willing to take your word for that. Shouldn't I? Are you lying?

I'm not saying there is no God, only that I don't believe in a God. I think I've already explained why.

I'm not denying anything, I'm just saying that without scientific validation, your belief, my belief in something remains subjective.

I prefer that what I decide to believe in is supported scientifically. That's not always the case but stuff I might believe in I can't support scientifically, I've no expectation that you have any need to believe.

 

[Indagator]

I think idealistic atheists are less logical than the materialist and should be taking even less seriously. But this is only the case if one is atheist.

Idealistic view are again more logical than the materialist one since materialists are actually some kind of Druids that believe that objects can be self-aware and materialists that dont believe in consciousness are ... well...
I am really not sure who of them are more idiotic.

 

[Indagator]

I remember them. They are not as good as you think. His accent makes him sound clever thought. Imagen him having a redneck accent... lol

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

for what?

You've heard of learning, right? You understand that doctors hang around sick people NOT because they want to be sick, don't you?

Non-believers live in a world full of people who believe some of the wildest bunch of rubbish you've ever heard of, and who all-too-often act on those rubbish beliefs. Don't you think it wise of non-believers to try and understand what they're up against?

 

[McBell]

So your subjective feeling of being convinced is the ground of your reasoning?

nope.
Nice strawman though.

Funny all the whining you do in this thread and you are the most guilty (in this thread).

Do you see a problem with that line of reasoning?

Since it isn't my line of reasoning....

But don't let truth or facts get in the way of your ranting.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The statement
"An invisible, fire-breathing dragon does not exist."
is an assertion.

No!

The statement "an invisible, fire-breathing dragon exists" is an assertion. The other is a denial of that assertion.

You might profit from looking at the source of this dragon story -- by Carl Sagan, a much smarter individual than I can ever hope to be. You could learn something about this sort of argument.

 

[blü 2]

Ponder This

As to my example of unicorns to show that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, you say:

Is it? Or is it because you disagree that the thing 'unicorn' denotes could exist? Are you aware of Narwhales and Rhinoceroses?​

I think narwhals exist because I've seen evidence from credible authorities that they do, and I think rhinos exist because I've seen quite a few. I'm yet to see a real unicorn or credible evidence of one.

However, in this regard the unicorn's position is far superior to god's, in that if I found an equine animal with a single horn on its forehead, which could only be controlled by virgin females (&c), then I may well have found a unicorn.

Whereas no qualities are claimed for god such that we could determine whether any candidate with objective existence were a god or not.

(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.​

Should you bring forward a candidate with objective existence, what does 'supreme' mean here, and how do we test for it?

You can't offer Yahweh as an example ─ first, Yahweh lacks objective existence and second in no demonstrable sense does [he] rule even Central Park, let alone the universe.

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.​

How are we to distinguish a superscientist from a 'superhuman'? Why would you worship either of them? Surely part of the correct response to such a being is an all-out effort to discover how it gets its powers, and emulate them?

And spirits don't have objective existence. Like gods, they're imaginary, only found as concepts in brains.

"lack the imagination to conceive of the idea of a supreme being"​

I can imagine such a thing, but it involves a great deal of silliness ─ Lord of Vast Emptiness and Master of a Trillion Galactic Clusters with a Few Amoeba and the Odd Bug.

How a real being might be said to rule the universe escapes me.

 

[Thief]

You've heard of learning, right? You understand that doctors hang around sick people NOT because they want to be sick, don't you?

Non-believers live in a world full of people who believe some of the wildest bunch of rubbish you've ever heard of, and who all-too-often act on those rubbish beliefs. Don't you think it wise of non-believers to try and understand what they're up against?

up against.......
is the key

you're not here to learn
you are here to oppose

you have an agenda

 

[Thief]

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?"

we know the universe had a beginning
the motion we observe proves it

the serious question is ......which came first?
Spirit?
or substance

God is the Cause
the universe is the effect

 

[Thief]

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.

the end is near.....so I've heard

and though there have been religious wars and long standing hatreds.....

politics and territorial gains were more for the killing

 

[Ponder This]

No!

The statement "an invisible, fire-breathing dragon exists" is an assertion. The other is a denial of that assertion.

You might profit from looking at the source of this dragon story -- by Carl Sagan, a much smarter individual than I can ever hope to be. You could learn something about this sort of argument.

Nice video! Thanks for linking!
I think the key phrase here is:
"Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving that it is true."
To which I would agree.

But watch the video carefully. Where is the assertion "the dragon does not exist"?
"The only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future data, and to wonder why so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."
"to be open to future data" suggests that a judgment hasn't been made, but the reality is that a judgment has been made: it's a "strange delusion". Having gone through the video, neutrality is lost; the counter assertion is made. And it makes sense. How long can a person continue to entertain the notion of the fire-breathing dragon without taking a side? Perhaps he can do so for some time, but with enough examination either the assertion or the counter assertion will eventually be made.

So this is what I mean. The notion that atheists are claiming lack of belief and non-position instead of disbelief, and it's corresponding strong assertion, is the notion that they simply haven't examined the question deeply enough to arrive at a conclusion. They adopt this point of view in an argument to avoid burdens of proof, not because this is the actual position they personally hold.

 

[blü 2]

1137

I take it from your silence that you concur with my #40.

I'd nonetheless be grateful if you could tell me what objective test ─

will tell us whether any entity or phenomenon is a god or not,​

will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary, and​

will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the non-existent.​

Thanks