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

[Desert Snake]

What about us idealist atheists? Do we get to be taken seriously?

That isn't really atheism, apparently.

 

[Desert Snake]

Definition thing

 

[1137]

What about us idealist atheists? Do we get to be taken seriously?

Most idealist atheists I have met don't really have these issues. Of course, there don't seem to be a whole lot of you! My best friend is apparently an idealist and an atheist though as well, and he'll defend that thing like a true philosopher.

That isn't really atheism, apparently.

Why would that not be atheism?

 

[Desert Snake]

Most idealist atheists I have met don't really have these issues. Of course, there don't seem to be a whole lot of you! My best friend is apparently an idealist and an atheist though as well, and he'll defend that thing like a true philosopher.



Why would that not be atheism?

A-theos, atheism. The current definition doesnt work.

Would be anti-theism, or something, at best

 

[Corvus]

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.

1. Please provide existence of God(s) in order to refute or otherwise prove false. Since if there is no evidence for a claim, there is nothing to disprove. There is no case to answer. Any unsubstantiated claim can be instantly refuted, be it a claim for the existence of faeries unicorns flying elephants or Gods.
2. Science has no need of God(s) to explain any aspect of reality, there is no connection between theism and science, other than both attempt to answer fundamental questions about nature and existence. In very different ways.
3. There are no purely logical arguments for the existence of God(s) not based on faulty premises.
4. There may be benefits of religion, but rationalism isn't one of them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's jump right into the why.

Apparently, you leapt without thinking, however.

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.

So you are claiming "lack of belief" is absurd and illogical in its own right? Then if you have a lack of belief in anything whatever, that must also qualify as absurd and illogical in its own right, and for the same reason you have given. (Which is to say, none -- you didn't give a reason. You merely assume that what you believe would be absurdly and illogically not believed by someone else. Well guess what -- right back atcha!)

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.

You are correct -- it's not a position. When you say you don't believe in an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you are merely stating your lack of belief. You have no need to defend it, because I couldn't do anything to defend my actual claim -- which is the only thing that needs to be defended.

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

It is, after all, only the existential claims that need to be defended, not somebody else's refusal to accept those indefensible claims.

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.

And you cannot provide the slightest evidence for yours. You cannot produce a mind without some physical medium for its functioning and expression. You cannot produce a god or angels or devils or most of what else you might believe -- in your own words, you "cannot provide the slightest evidence" for any of it.

On the other hand, and neurologists and unhappy families see this all the time -- there is at least some slightly circumstantial evidence for the brain being the mind. You know, when people have strokes and other sorts of brain damage, and bits of (or lots of) them simply go away. If the physical brain were not involved, there's zero reason for the mind to behave differently when there's bits of the brain not working properly. And yet -- it does just that.

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.

What, in that list, is actually and demonstrably "immaterial," given your position that it is "self-evident?" It's so "self-evident" you couldn't even point to it!

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.

I'm quite fascinated by your repeated use of "self-evident." It seems to mean something like "without actual evidence, but in light of the fact that I believe it (whether anybody else does or not) it must be self-evident -- because how is it possible I could be mistaken?"

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.

Okay, show us "god" without substance. Show us "mind" with physicality. You cannot, yet you make those claims. If you make those claims, you have the burden of proof.

Those of us who say, "you keep saying there's this invisible god doing stuff, and your mind works whether you have a brain or not, but we just don't believe you," are not taking a position. We are simply denying yours.

And so yes, the burden of proof belongs to you. We have, on our side, the only actual evidence so far produced. You have your claims, but nothing else.

Enough, there's not even a point in addressing the rest of your post. You make claims without evidence, and when we say "show us the evidence," you try to suggest that we have the onus of showing why evidence ought to be needed.

 

[Willamena]

A-theos, atheism. The current definition doesnt work.

Would be anti-theism, or something, at best

Um, what?

Can you explain why atheism's current definition doesn't fit?

 

[Kapalika]

I'm not sure what I think of the original post. I think it sets out at first to accomplish one thing that might have a good train of thought going but then serves to a direction I can't agree with.

 

[Sha'irullah]

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.

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.

 

[Desert Snake]

Um, what?

Can you explain why atheism's current definition doesn't fit?

Didn't you state that there was some sort of 'god', according to you?

 

[Willamena]

Didn't you state that there was some sort of 'god', according to you?

Where?

 

[Desert Snake]

Where?

You seem to have called it "underlying reality".

Nevermind.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

This is an extremely dishonest post. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any gods. Materialist atheism is something very different, and would require an actual belief that gods cannot exist. If you don't understand the difference between materialism and atheism, I would encourage you to do some research.

So, you are only arguing with yourself, and you arugment here has no merit, as you are starting with a completely incorrect and ludicrous definition of "materialist atheist". Materialism IS a position. Strong atheism, or the belief that gods do not exist is a position. Weak atheism, or merely the lack of belief in any gods (due most of the time to a lack of evidence), is not necessarily a position.

You might want to do a bit of research before you start insulting an entire population.

 

[leibowde84]

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

It is logical to start with materialism and add on from there when verifiable evidence is found that contradicts it. Do you have any verifiable evidence to contradict materialism?

 

[Willamena]

You seem to have called it "underlying reality".

Nevermind.

Oh, that thread.

I pointed to it as not something I would call god.

 

[Thief]

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

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

for what?

 

[Sunstone]

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.

Just for the record, I can't be bothered to take the OP seriously enough to read the thing, but I'm guessing it's just another bit of ever popular atheist-bashing. Sheesh!

 

[1137]

1. Please provide existence of God(s) in order to refute or otherwise prove false. Since if there is no evidence for a claim, there is nothing to disprove. There is no case to answer. Any unsubstantiated claim can be instantly refuted, be it a claim for the existence of faeries unicorns flying elephants or Gods.

Ah here we go, pretending you've never heard a valid argument for gods in your life.

2. Science has no need of God(s) to explain any aspect of reality, there is no connection between theism and science, other than both attempt to answer fundamental questions about nature and existence. In very different ways.

But surely you're not suggesting theism and science are mutually exclusive?

3. There are no purely logical arguments for the existence of God(s) not based on faulty premises.

I mean, I've seen some, but the ones based in empirical evidence, like the cosmological, tend to hold up much better.

4 there may be benefits to religion but rationalism isn't one of them.[/QUOTE]

Apparently, you leapt without thinking, however.

So you are claiming "lack of belief" is absurd and illogical in its own right? Then if you have a lack of belief in anything whatever, that must also qualify as absurd and illogical in its own right, and for the same reason you have given. (Which is to say, none -- you didn't give a reason. You merely assume that what you believe would be absurdly and illogically not believed by someone else. Well guess what -- right back atcha!)

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.

You are correct -- it's not a position. When you say you don't believe in an invisible, fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you are merely stating your lack of belief. You have no need to defend it, because I couldn't do anything to defend my actual claim -- which is the only thing that needs to be defended.

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.

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

Sure I can, many theists can. Hell we've done it here quite a bit. You simply subjectively disagree with the conclusions, which is how philosophy tends to work

And you cannot provide the slightest evidence for yours. You cannot produce a mind without some physical medium for its functioning and expression. You cannot produce a god or angels or devils or most of what else you might believe -- in your own words, you "cannot provide the slightest evidence" for any of it.

how could I produce something non material in a material way, like minds or gods? Let's take the cosmological again. It's based on evidence of cause and effect, do you deny there is evidence that effects have causes?

On the other hand, and neurologists and unhappy families see this all the time -- there is at least some slightly circumstantial evidence for the brain being the mind. You know, when people have strokes and other sorts of brain damage, and bits of (or lots of) them simply go away. If the physical brain were not involved, there's zero reason for the mind to behave differently when there's bits of the brain not working properly. And yet -- it does just that.

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.

What, in that list, is actually and demonstrably "immaterial," given your position that it is "self-evident?" It's so "self-evident" you couldn't even point to it!

Well sure, can I hold your inner experience, or the number three, or the law of identity?

Okay, show us "god" without substance. Show us "mind" with physicality. You cannot, yet you make those claims. If you make those claims, you have the burden of proof.

How can I physically show you a nonphysical thing? You have access to your mind right now, just simply test it for yourself. Here I'll make an extremely easy test: let me in to your subjective experience, the way both you and I could interact with X if X is something physical.

Those of us who say, "you keep saying there's this invisible god doing stuff, and your mind works whether you have a brain or not, but we just don't believe you," are not taking a position. We are simply denying yours.

So basically you don't believe these things to be true but don't believe the opposite is more likely? This is a perfect example of the OP, thank you.

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.

Wait, you are able to interact with the external world without inner experience? Can you please explain how you do this?

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

You think math and telekinis have been used with equal success????????

. . . 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.

Lol magical pony? Definitely need to and number 8 for straw men, you guys are apparently lost without them!

i can prove 2 and 2 things equals 4 no matter what I do.

Because math objectively exists free of minds, thus disproving physicalism. I've decided not to address your childish challenge, rephrase or as an adult.

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.

So you remember the mind, math, logic, etc exist, and expect me to believe you on your experience. Thread title, QED.

This is an extremely dishonest post. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in any gods. Materialist atheism is something very different, and would require an actual belief that gods cannot exist. If you don't understand the difference between materialism and atheism, I would encourage you to do some research.

I was speaking about atheists who are also materialists. Hahaha this is literally in the title, c'mon.

It is logical to start with materialism and add on from there when verifiable evidence is found that contradicts it. Do you have any verifiable evidence to contradict materialism?

So we self evidently have internal experience, it's self evident for all self aware beings, and we cannot access it physically. All the world we interpret as physical is known their that inner experience, so we have to trust the non-physical to even have faith in the physical. We also have a world describable by logic, math, and laws, all which cannot be physically shown as the thing in itself, plus axiomatic inner experience, and the only knowledge of the physical stems from these immaterial thing. But physicalism is default? Not even close. Actually the best default is solipsism though we have good reasons to move past it.

 

[blü 2]

1137

[Materialist atheism is] a supposedly non position, something followers parrot pretty much more than they say anything else.​

First, materialism is where all the examinable evidence points. I'm a materialist not least because I can't find any credible alternative.

Second, you can be an atheist, and use all the atheist arguments mentioned, whether you're a materialist or not.

Third, materialism isn't a non-position. Atheism however is, strictly speaking, the absence of a belief in gods, and can usually but not always be generalized into an absence of belief in the supernatural.

Fourth, 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.

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.​

Atheism is easily defended. If you disagree with atheists, just give them a satisfactory demonstration of a real god. Until you do that, their position no more requires defense than does the position of someone who doesn't believe in unicorns. It's not incumbent on atheists to prove a negative. It's incumbent on theists to demonstrate their purportedly positive claims.

Just like it was incumbent on physicists to demonstrate the reality of the Higgs boson.

But it's my view that before we can call for the demonstration of a real god, we need someone to state the objective test that will tell us whether some entity or phenomenon is a real god or not. I think the lack of such a test is a gaping hole in theism ─ of itself powerful evidence that gods exist only in human mentation ie are imaginary.

They cannot provide the slightest evidence for the position.​

Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence in these circumstances. Absence of evidence is exactly the reason you don't believe unicorns exist, for example.

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.​

'Mind' refers to a vaguely defined set of brain functions. If you follow brain research eg in any of the popular science magazines ─ SciAm Mind, Science, Science Daily, your local newspaper ─ you'll know that the mapping, description and explanation of brain functions is getting steadily more exact, step by step verified by repeatable experiment. (It has a lo-o-ong way to go, but the results keep coming in.) You can't just wave away that great and accumulating body of research with a petulant snort ─ you need to understand it and if you have reasoned criticisms, present them.

As for materialism more generally, the evidence for it is the sum of present knowledge in the physical sciences + the absence of any alternative, including any supernatural alternative, of even the slightest demonstrable power.

The immaterial is self evident​

Then you'll have no trouble telling us:

What objective test will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the imaginary?

​

What objective test will distinguish the 'immaterial' from non-existence?

Math, logic, the laws of nature themselves, certain fields, and most obviously our own subjective experience.​

Maths isn't immaterial. Maths is a set of concepts. Concepts are only found in brains. Brains are physical. The best you can say is that the concepts of maths have no counterpart in objective reality ─ while you might see instantiations of 'two' everywhere ─ two eyes, two parking tickets, two cigarettes in the dark ─ you'll never see a naked 'two' running around out there. It's a concept, an abstraction, if you like a generalization from all those instantiations.

Ditto logic, 'the laws of nature', the maths of fields as distinct from the fields themselves.

As for our own subjective experiences, we're the ones who see optical illusions, interpret what we see to accord with our own interest, tell fibs, have dreams, make mischief, experience the products of mental disorders as visions and so on. That's why, in court (let's say) I might win if it's your word against mine, but I won't win if it's my word against your video evidence.

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.​

There you go again. WHY is it 'self-evidently not the case'?

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.​

I declare that Donald Duck is a real meter-high duck with three-finger hands and a sailor jacket, who speaks fluent English.

Can I now further declare that this is an accurate statement about reality because you haven't demonstrated it's false?

Obviously, the burden of demonstrating the correctness of a claim lies on the person who makes the positive claim.

The correct reply to 'God has objective existence' is 'Show me.'

people will literally deny any valid arguments for gods​

Give me a valid argument for gods. Before you do, tell me what objective test will tell us whether any entity or phen ... oh, I asked you that above.

will deny the existence of things like the self and math​

I don't deny those things, for the reason set out above. I simply point out they present no problem for materialism.

will deny the benefits of religion​

I don't deny the benefits of religion. A few ─ three ─ of my close friends are believers, as are some of my favorite rellies.

(I do however say that fundamentalism ─ the mind welded shut ─ is pernicious, regardless of the religion.)

 

[Desert Snake]

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