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

[1137]

Expand and read the red replies.

The red works, there was none in the post I quoted.

 

[1137]

There is evidence of cause and effect, what the heck life fields are, I have no idea. Neither are what I asked for, which was evidence for a deity.

Ah, well cause and effect is the only evidence we need to accept to ride the cosmological argument to the end as valid and plausible, so it seems I did give you what you asked. Life fields are what guide cell-replication and the like, and prove that human beings posses a Teleology.

 

[1137]

Sorry, I know I am doing it incorrectly. couldn't figure out the quote system here. my apologies.

No worries. I'm going to use two qs in the word quote to help you out here.

[Qquote] quoted text here [/qquote]

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

First off 'materialist atheism' is a term you made up and has no real meaning. You are either a theist who believes in God(s) or an atheist who does not believe in a God(s).

That said:

1. Explain how having a lack of belief in something is absurd and illogical.

2. It's not an ideology, so there's no need to defend it.

3. Atheist are not purporting a position, so there's is no need to provide evidence.

4. Math. logic, the laws of nature, and subjective experience are all products of a physical mind.

5. Lack of belief in something without evidence IS the default position for me and anyone who uses rational thinking.

6. If I claim there are pink unicorns that control all of our lives, the burden is on ME to provide evidence for my claim, not on YOU to refute my unsubstantiated claim. The same holds true for claims about God(s).

7. First provide me with a 'valid' argument for God and then we'll see if I deny it. As for math, self, or certain benefits that religion has provided, I don't deny any of that, so your claim is clearly false. Please provide an example of a valid science that atheists routinely deny.

 

[idav]

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.

Theism gets the short end of the stick on this argument. Though theism and atheism both rely on not knowing, only theism has any sort of burden of proof since atheism doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[1137]

First off 'materialist atheism' is a term you made up and has no real meaning. You are either a theist who believes in God(s) or an atheist who does not believe in a God(s).

Lol you can't be an atheist and a materialist? The only metaphysical question is the existence of gods? Wow, this should be good...

1. Explain how having a lack of belief in something is absurd and illogical.

It only is absurd and illogical when one pretends they don't believe the opposite position is more likely, like you do right in the next question!

2. It's not an ideology, so there's no need to defend it.

Really? You don't find it more likely that there's no gods than that there's one or more? Also remember this is also addressing materialism, which is unquestionably a position.

3. Atheist are not purporting a position, so there's is no need to provide evidence.

By this logic if I say I lack a belief in godless universes, I'm still not taking the position of theism. If that doesn't clarify the issue nothing can.

4. Math. logic, the laws of nature, and subjective experience are all products of a physical mind.

Wait, logic and the laws of nature and math are mind dependent? I'm sorry, can you give me a reason I should debate with someone who doesn't believe in objective logic and laws?

5. Lack of belief in something without evidence IS the default position for me and anyone who uses rational thinking.

Exactly, yet materialists and atheists provide no evidence.

6. If I claim there are pink unicorns that control all of our lives, the burden is on ME to provide evidence for my claim, not on YOU to refute my unsubstantiated claim. The same holds true for claims about God(s).

And if I judge your claim and come to a conclusion against it, I believe there are no unicorns and also have defense for that.

7. First provide me with a 'valid' argument for God and then we'll see if I deny it. As for math, self, or certain benefits that religion has provided, I don't deny any of that, so your claim is clearly false. Please provide an example of a valid science that atheists routinely deny.

You've either never heard of the cosmological argument or don't understand validity, can you clarify which it is? Many atheists reject things like cause and effect, property dualism, life fields, psychological benefits of religion, historical accomplishments of religion, and so on.

 

[Polymath257]

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 faulty in many different ways.

1. It assumes *everything* has a cause.
2. In contradiction to 1, it concludes that something does not have a cause.
3. If 1 is modified to say that everything that 'begins to exist' has a cause, the counter is that everything that 'begins to exist' has a *physical* cause.
4. It assumes no infinite regress of causes is possible, even though it is implied by the assumption of 1.
5 It assumes that there is only one 'uncaused cause' when the argument would only show the existence of such, not the uniqueness.
6. The argument specifically fails when applied to time: since causality happens within time, time cannot be caused.

And that is just off the top of my head.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry you feel that way about valid logic.

The cosmological argument is NOT valid logic.

Cause and effect is central to the most popular argument for god. How is cause and effect not empirical?

Well, we know that most quantum level events are not 'caused' in any classical sense. To the extent that they can be said to be caused, it is in a way that doens't allow your argument to proceed.

That fits with the closed minded dogma of materialistic atheism!

Materialism is a reasonable philosophy. Atheism is about one particular question. I prefer secular humanism, myself.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, well cause and effect is the only evidence we need to accept to ride the cosmological argument to the end as valid and plausible, so it seems I did give you what you asked. Life fields are what guide cell-replication and the like, and prove that human beings posses a Teleology.

There are no 'life fields'. The concept of a 'life force' is fiction. What guides cell replication is chemistry and physics. That is shown by biochemistry.

 

[Polymath257]

You've either never heard of the cosmological argument or don't understand validity, can you clarify which it is? Many atheists reject things like cause and effect, property dualism, life fields, psychological benefits of religion, historical accomplishments of religion, and so on.

Cause and effect is at least brought into question by the best science we have: quantum mechanics, Life fields do not exist. Life is based on physics and chemistry.

Yes, there are psychological benefits to religion. Mostly they are from having a circle of people who you relate to.

Yes, religions have many historical accomplishments. The concept of natural law as distinct from divine law is a huge one. The encouragement of art is another. They are also great motivators for wars.

 

[1137]

This seems much needed.

Validity - Wikipedia

 

[1137]

There are no 'life fields'. The concept of a 'life force' is fiction. What guides cell replication is chemistry and physics. That is shown by biochemistry.

Huh, I choose to not deny truths confirmed by massive wealths of scientific data, but you do you.

 

[Polymath257]

Huh, I choose to not deny truths confirmed by massive wealths of scientific data, but you do you.

No, I do not. The whole science of biochemistry shows that no 'life field' exists. ALL that is found is physics and chemistry.

 

[Polymath257]

This seems much needed.

Validity - Wikipedia

Yes. And the cosmological argument is not valid even in this sense.

 

[1137]

No, I do not. The whole science of biochemistry shows that no 'life field' exists. ALL that is found is physics and chemistry.

Lol, I guess those thousands of confirmed scientific experiments were wrong since you believe otherwise

 

[Thief]

But what is this "spirit?" Has anyone detected it; measured it?

have you looked in a mirror?

ghost in a shell?

 

[Thief]

Theism gets the short end of the stick on this argument. Though theism and atheism both rely on not knowing, only theism has any sort of burden of proof since atheism doesn't have to prove anything.

ooops ......on your part

(religious forum)

 

[Thief]

And you do not have an agenda?

Are you attempting to assert that the only possible way to "learn" is to accept, uncritically, what one is told? No matter how little sense it makes?

I would rethink that, if I were you.

tell that to the world.....
get a youtube channel

as for me.....I've been here more than 8yrs and have not seen PROOF
there is no God

 

[Thief]

The cosmological argument is faulty in many different ways.

1. It assumes *everything* has a cause.
2. In contradiction to 1, it concludes that something does not have a cause.
3. If 1 is modified to say that everything that 'begins to exist' has a cause, the counter is that everything that 'begins to exist' has a *physical* cause.
4. It assumes no infinite regress of causes is possible, even though it is implied by the assumption of 1.
5 It assumes that there is only one 'uncaused cause' when the argument would only show the existence of such, not the uniqueness.
6. The argument specifically fails when applied to time: since causality happens within time, time cannot be caused.

And that is just off the top of my head.

fail.....

time does not exist
not a force or a substance
only a quotient on a chalkboard

 

[QuestioningMind]

Lol you can't be an atheist and a materialist? The only metaphysical question is the existence of gods? Wow, this should be good...



It only is absurd and illogical when one pretends they don't believe the opposite position is more likely, like you do right in the next question!



Really? You don't find it more likely that there's no gods than that there's one or more? Also remember this is also addressing materialism, which is unquestionably a position.



By this logic if I say I lack a belief in godless universes, I'm still not taking the position of theism. If that doesn't clarify the issue nothing can.



Wait, logic and the laws of nature and math are mind dependent? I'm sorry, can you give me a reason I should debate with someone who doesn't believe in objective logic and laws?



Exactly, yet materialists and atheists provide no evidence.




And if I judge your claim and come to a conclusion against it, I believe there are no unicorns and also have defense for that.



You've either never heard of the cosmological argument or don't understand validity, can you clarify which it is? Many atheists reject things like cause and effect, property dualism, life fields, psychological benefits of religion, historical accomplishments of religion, and so on.

1.It only is absurd and illogical when one pretends they don't believe the opposite position is more likely, like you do right in the next question!

What a silly claim. Thus far no one has presented me with enough evidence to believe that Bigfoot exits, so I lack a belief in Bigfoot. That does NOT mean that I'm claiming that no one will EVER come up with verifiable evidence of Bigfoot's existence. Clearly I do NOT need to think that the opposite position is more likely , just that THUS FAR there is not enough evidence to support the notion.

2. Really? You don't find it more likely that there's no gods than that there's one or more? Also remember this is also addressing materialism, which is unquestionably a position.

I've yet to be presented with any evidence that a god or gods exist. Based upon the evidence THUS FAR, I find that it's more likely that no god(s) exist, but since I would never claim to have access to all evidence that's a conditional statement. Provide additional evidence and I'll gladly alter my position.

3. Hey, if you want to call your lack of belief in unicorns and leprechauns an 'ideology' , go right ahead. So tell me, what is your collection of doctrines or beliefs concerning these 'ideologies' that you have?

4. Wait, logic and the laws of nature and math are mind dependent? I'm sorry, can you give me a reason I should debate with someone who doesn't believe in objective logic and laws?

Logic, math, and the Laws of Nature are all human concepts conceived by a physical human brain. You do realize that, right?

5. Exactly, yet materialists and atheists provide no evidence.

You do realize that you can't provide evidence for a negative, right? It's impossible to PROVE that God does NOT exist... just like it is impossible to PROVE that pink unicorns do NOT exist. All one can do is provide evidence that they DO exist. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

6. So you have no belief in unicorns. But your lack of belief in unicorns is based on more than just the lack of evidence to support the existence of unicorns. You have actual EVIDENCE that unicorns DO NOT exist. I'd LOVE to hear what it is.

7. You've either never heard of the cosmological argument or don't understand validity, can you clarify which it is? Many atheists reject things like cause and effect, property dualism, life fields, psychological benefits of religion, historical accomplishments of religion, and so on.

I'm familiar with the cosmological argument. It's flaw is that if you suggest that something as complex as the universe had to have a first cause then surely something as complex as God had to have a first cause as well.

You're not claiming that the cosmological argument is a science are you?