• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
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.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.

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.

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

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

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.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
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.
Hi.

I don't really like the claim that atheism is a lack of belief but in some cases it seems quite appropriate. On what grounds do you think it is absurd and unlogical?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Starting a thread with 'we don't need to take x position seriously' is already a bad sign that no productive conversation is going to take place, because you've already stated you won't take the POV of the other side seriously.

This is also an exasperating repeat of arguments already rebutted, (re:That's not fideism. A position that a non-physical substance is unevidenced is still a position) to the extent of I feel more like copy pasting from one of the million other samey threads you've done and apparently selectively ignored replies, or are just really comfortable generalizing all materialist atheists into one pile (of straw.)

Is this just a pet project, at this point?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Hi.

I don't really like the claim that atheism is a lack of belief but in some cases it seems quite appropriate. On what grounds do you think it is absurd and unlogical?

Simply put, if I find the existence of no gods more likely than the existence of one or more gods, I believe that there are no gods, or that this position is more likely. It is, indeed, a belief. Not that atheism is a positive assertion that there are no gods, which goes beyond simple belief. It's comparable to how I believe Bigfoot and unicorns are fabrications.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Starting a thread with 'we don't need to take x position seriously' is already a bad sign that no productive conversation is going to take place, because you've already stated you won't take the POV of the other side seriously.
This is also an exasperating repeat of arguments already rebutted, (re:That's not fideism. A position that a non-physical substance is is evidenced is still a position) to the extent of I feel more like copy pasting from one of the million other samey threads you've done and apparently selectively ignored replies, or are just really comfortable generalizing all materialist atheists into one pile (of straw.)
Is this just a pet project, at this point?

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.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I have provided support for my position, both in my own words, video and article rebuttals. You've either forgotten, choose to ignore it, or dismissed it. To say it's nothing is ironically the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Simply put, if I find the existence of no gods more likely than the existence of one or more gods, I believe that there are no gods, or that this position is more likely.

That's not the atheist position, although some atheists may choose to hold it. It's irrelevant how likely an atheist considers gods to be. What's relevant is that he has not picked one to believe in.

This atheist has no opinion on the likelihood of gods. I merely state that I have no evidence for any, no need for any, and therefore believe in none. Why would I?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Do you want to present a legitimate argument as why materialism should not be the null hypothesis, or are we to just take your word that materialism is illogical without you explaining?

I've posted many asking for refutation, and many more asking for evidence of materialism.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I have provided support for my position, both in my own words, video and article rebuttals. You've either forgotten, choose to ignore it, or dismissed it. To say it's nothing is ironically the exact same thing you're accusing others of doing.


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

Yerda

Veteran Member
Simply put, if I find the existence of no gods more likely than the existence of one or more gods, I believe that there are no gods, or that this position is more likely. It is, indeed, a belief.
I'm not going to argue with that.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
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.
Why make it so complicated?

It just means, "Without God's".
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
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.

How sad.
default.jpg
Think he's serious?

.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Who on Earth needs you to take atheism seriously?
Most likely I'd be allied with you against those folk anyway.
 
Top