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

[Kilgore Trout]

Yawn - have the theists nothing better to throw at us atheists?

This is as good as it gets.

It's really just very sad at this point.

 

[Thief]

see what I mean?

 

[Corvus]

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.

An irrational philosophy which deserves no respect.

 

[Corvus]

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

I simply laugh at that. There is no (empirical) EVIDENCE for GOD to disprove, what do you not understand about this?

 

[Corvus]

That's an objective falsehood, sorry

I am now going to put you on ignore. Bye dude. There is little point in further conversation between us.

 

[Corvus]

Spirit could be dark energy
science can't see it

just saying

I think not.

 

[Corvus]

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

for what?

Know thy enemy.

 

[Thief]

but why can't we just all get along?

 

[1137]

An irrational philosophy which deserves no respect.

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

I simply laugh at that. There is no (empirical) EVIDENCE for GOD to disprove, what do you not understand about this?

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

I am now going to put you on ignore. Bye dude. There is little point in further conversation between us.

That fits with the closed minded dogma of materialistic atheism!

 

[1137]

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

So materialistic atheism is a position, since it is a form of materialism. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Subjective preference has no influence on truth, unfortunately.

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.

I'm not pretending there's no material world that interacts with the mental, there very clearly seems to be.

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.

So math, logic, laws, and experience are simply concepts? If you believe reality is mind-dependent you certainly can't be a materialist, and it would probably be hard to be an atheist.

 

[1137]

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

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.

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?

Actually what I did was point out that the idea of a non position is ridiculous, and dishonest because any lack of belief requires a belief that the opposite is more likely.

One shred of evidence for material reductionism.

? Please explain.

Simple, materialism is not a default positions, it's not a null hypothesis or where we begin our reasoning.

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.

More garbage. You don't believe flying elephants are made up?

We won't deny any "valid arguments" -- we just haven't heard any.

Then you don't understand what logical validity is.

Who's denying self or maths?

All physicalism / materialism.

The rest is just you validating the OP by screaming that your position is not a position lol

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You make a fair point, there has been evidence here and there.

Cool. We can work with this. Let's see if we can go from here a bit then.
If all you're asking by 'admitting to evidence' is admitting that the other side from me has presented evidence then hell yes, they have! I've seen the cosmological argument (which you've brought up earlier), and I agree that it's part of their presented evidence. I just don't agree with their conclusion and I think it creates many a priori assumptions (which you can read about in places like Two Problems for the Cosmological Argument | Austro-Athenian Empire or The Case Against The Cosmological Argument) and thus I don't agree with the conclusion theists draw from it when attempting to use it as evidence for god(s).
And I'm sure evidence I've presented you have been likewise not convincing to you (or maybe it has and I'm misjudging your position, that's totally possible too). And that's fine! I'm not interested in the scoreboard method of debating where winner converts the loser. I'm much more interested in an exchange of POV where both sides understand each other's position a little better.

With that said there's a lot of confusion in the replies because people are merging atheist and materialist. Atheism is a non-position in that lack of belief in gods is a non-position. And I suppose you could argue that materialism is a non-position in a similar way by saying that lack of belief in non-material substance is a non-position. But I'm not one of those people who is allergic to the word 'belief,' and even though I can understand that 'I believe there is no god(s)' and 'I do not have a belief in god(s)' has different connotation that might have to be sorted out, it's still small pickings in a much more interesting sea of debate subjects in my view. If it satisfies both sides:
I do not agree with other people's reasons for believing in god(s).
I do not agree with other people's reasons for believing in non-material substance.
I do draw the line in trying to distill it down to probability though. I will not attempt to establish 'likely' or 'unlikely' because I don't believe I can honestly make that sort of judgement. It's not a matter of guestimating how many gumballs are in a jar if I haven't been shown a jar. Which is not to say I won't use the terms 'unlikely' or 'likely' in any discussion of religious subject (I think it's VERY UNLIKELY that there was a global flood, based on data we have which a global flood should have impacted.)

I also think that burden of proof is a misnomer, because there if we're talking about empiricism then we're talking about the scientific method and there is no 'proofs' in science, only greater and lesser bodies of evidence. And no, the cosmological argument is most certainly not an empirical argument. It's a philosophical one. That doesn't make it unimportant, but math and philosophy builds if/then abstract models of the universe. Empiricism deals with the universe as is, making large margin-for-error conclusions strictly based on observation. And, as far as I've found, there's been no conclusive empirical evidence of the non-material. It might still be out there, but I've chosen to not assume it's there until I actually see it's there.

I also want to bring up again that I do not view fideism the same way you do. Not only do I think using fidism this way is disingenuous (like people who say 'it takes too much faith to believe in evolution therefore evolutionists have too much faith') but I also don't think it fits with the history of the term. Fidism is something someone identifies themselves as, to state that they believe faith is the only path to knowledge, salvation, et al. Hence Sola Fide. Using Fidism as an insulting label not only is kinda childish (imo), but it's also insulting people for whom the term has real meaning relevant to their religious belief as you're cheapening it to take a pot shot at materialist atheists. And don't think by saying this it means I don't think only you're being childish here. I can see plenty of atheist materialist posts which even make my eyes roll. But that doesn't change that statements like "That fits with the closed minded dogma of materialistic atheism!" is also pretty inane.

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.

 

[1137]

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

What you mean to say is you do not understand how logical validity works, and so just go with what you believe is right or wrong.

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

Ah but a denial of evidence doesn't make it magically disappear.

No argument for God is based on empirical evidence."

So now you're comfortably straight making objectively false claims? #atheism

 

[columbus]

Subjective preference has no influence on truth, unfortunately.

It's really theists who are unable to grasp this, generally.
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.

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

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

 

[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.

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

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This was laughable, I know what you were trying to imply with this statement but it is just horribly pathetic. It disregards essentially 99.99% of all observable experience we get when walking out our doors and promote the claim that the sun is a nonexistent entity.

You means to tell me you would throw arithmetic in the same category as ghosts and and telekinesis?

. . . Look, just go down to a university or better yet start a movement that encourages academic institution to promote classes for "Interdimensional Magical Pony Studies" and see how serious they take you.

I can prove 2 and 2 things equals 4 no matter what I do.
Now go and do the same for ______________ <-- insert any woo entity here

You are horribly confused with what obvious and nonobvious means. I spent my entire teens years exploring this and it ended up with me having empty hands.

Oooh! Oooh! <hand up waving>

Can I has a class for Interdimentional Magical Unicorn Studies too?

 

[columbus]

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

Not because they are atheist, though.
It's because they have a Communist ideological worldview, a dogmatic belief that is held with religious fervor by many adherents.
Tom

 

[columbus]

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

It's obscure because it's a collection of narratives about the unknown. Anybody can invent almost anything and attribute it to the ineffable, thereby sidestepping the fact that there is no real evidence for the belief. Just a subjective preference for it.
Tom

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

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

 

[ADigitalArtist]

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

I am not an authoritarian communist (in part) for the same reason I am not a Christian (in part.) I would not take moral instruction at face value from any leader, no matter how powerful, wise or loving they claimed to be. I wouldn't support an authoritarian state, atheistic or theocratic.