I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Materialism and naturalism are very odd positions to assert if you don't know them to be true.

Perhaps in the abstract but it would be very odd to imagine our beliefs based on what we now would call materialism and naturalism not paying off way more than those based on what we now would call the super-natural, animism and so on. No doubt early man had both but which do you think contributed more to your ability to inquire into the basis for our beliefs in the natural world or materialism?

I believe science has provided a much better insight into what we can measure/observe/test etc, but I don't see leaping into a materialist's view as a logical step to take in this process.

Since most belief is built up non-rationally and unconsciously, I see nothing wrong with noting that materialism and naturalism seem to underpin the beliefs one holds. That is certainly true for me.

I see no problem either, as long as one realises that it's a belief. I have no issue with what people believe as long as it doesn't go beyond a belief to that which may impinge on anyone else with a different value set. This is why I take issue with many 'new' atheists.

I understand you claiming agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. To me they are, as what I believe to be true is based on my knowledge.

But then you are dismissing atheism as the mere state of finding no active beliefs in gods active in ones thoughts or actions. How can you possibly know that is true? I say that of all the beliefs regarding gods which I hold, my belief that I've never heard a convincing case for accepting rationally that gods do or that gods don't exist is by far the most important. I say that makes me agnostic. Secondarily, I note that no belief in gods or the possible existence of gods motivate any of my thoughts or actions. This, I say, makes me an atheist. No big deal. Just the way it is for me as best I can tell.

People require a rationale to any conclusion they've reached. I find it very unlikely with the strong support of materialism/naturalism amongst atheists that determines the 'no active belief' position.

Of course I don't know it to be true, I just find it contradictory based on my perception of what I hold to be true.

---

No Darwinism is not on my list. I take it you're not going to answer my questions then? I

I see atheism as a result of materialism/naturalism.

How can you ask a question asking why I'm so confused about both?

link?

Perhaps that's because you view gods as immaterial, but why assume this, have you observed any immaterial gods? What's wrong with a material god? What observation are you basing the claims to knowledge implied by this appraisal?

You imply that the immaterial is un-measurable or undetectable, but upon what observations do you base this appraisal?

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.