That was disappointing I was expecting you to back up what you've said and outline your version of materialism. Not sure why though, many atheists are so reluctant to outline their position (or apparent lack of) in any sense.

(July 30, 2012 at 4:36 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: How would you to propose to measure that which is immaterial, or has no means to be scientifically proven? You can assume it doesn't exist, and this is why your view is an applied belief. You're welcome to make claims to knowledge of what we can observe, but claiming any degree of knowledge beyond this is pointless.

You still at this?

Atheism is not the assumption that because something can not be empirically proven, that it does not exist. Atheism is the absence of belief that it exists.

If something does exist that has no means to be empirically proven, what should be the justification to believe it exists?

Quote:I started out as an atheist and am now agnostic. I didn't start out with any magical expecations, I would others here began with these, so it would be a downer for them

That's interesting...

The vast majority of atheists are agnostic. I really get the feeling that you don't understand positions concerning knowledge (agnosticism and gnosticism) and belief (theism and atheism). They are not mutually exclusive.

The justification would be the recognition of the ability to decipher it either way. Belief, dogma, dominant paradigms etc prove nothing. I find the distinct 'brand' of new atheism to assign itself knowledge beyond its sphere.

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.

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

They are claims to knowledge of what we can observe, I thought you didn't have a problem with this...now you do? What makes you think you hadn't already fleshed out contemporary materialism in a manner that left no room for me to elaborate when you made that statement? I went the extra mile for you though, so tell me what parts of my response gave you the most trouble?

(July 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: The justification would be the recognition of the ability to decipher it either way. Belief, dogma, dominant paradigms etc prove nothing. I find the distinct 'brand' of new atheism to assign itself knowledge beyond its sphere.

If there is insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the existence of a god, the default position is to not have a belief that it exists.

Quote: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.

Then you are not using the standard, formal definitions of either word.

agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

As long as you understand the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge', it should be pretty easy to see why I can be agnostic and an atheist. Agnosticism is not some sort of fence sitting position between belief and disbelief. If you are using it that way, then you are using the colloquial, not the formal definition.

I too base my beliefs on knowledge. That is why, since I hold the position that the existence of gods is unknown and possibly unknowable, I am without beliefs in their existence.

(July 30, 2012 at 8:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: They are claims to knowledge of what we can observe, I thought you didn't have a problem with this...now you do? What makes you think you hadn't already fleshed out contemporary materialism in a manner that left no room for me to elaborate when you made that statement? I went the extra mile for you though, so tell me what parts of my response gave you the most trouble?

I have no problem with using evidence to determine that which is proven to exist, to think otherwise is conflating the issue.I have a problem that the materialist/naturalist view is used to portray that all which is proven, is all that does, or can exist. The position assumes its own premise by soely focusing on that which is proven to exist, the possibility of being unable to obtain all evidence is not considered or a viable evidenced alternative is not offered for existence. This is the primary reason atheism is untenable for me.

Link to where you went the extra mile?

---

(July 30, 2012 at 8:59 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(July 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: The justification would be the recognition of the ability to decipher it either way. Belief, dogma, dominant paradigms etc prove nothing. I find the distinct 'brand' of new atheism to assign itself knowledge beyond its sphere.

If there is insufficient evidence and reasoned argument to support the existence of a god, the default position is to not have a belief that it exists.

Do you believe in a randomly created universe? If not, do you lack belief in it the same way as a god? if so, why?

Quote: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.

Then you are not using the standard, formal definitions of either word.

agnostic - a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

atheist - a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods

As long as you understand the difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge', it should be pretty easy to see why I can be agnostic and an atheist. Agnosticism is not some sort of fence sitting position between belief and disbelief. If you are using it that way, then you are using the colloquial, not the formal definition.

Only the defintions commonly applied by atheists, you can claim to know or believe, I don't care which. I don't know of many theists who claim to be agnostic theists, or agnostics who claim as they hold a lack of belief they're an atheist. These defintions tend to be applied by atheists. However, what I'm interested in which side you promote as 'correct'.

Your application of 'lacking of belief' is the same as negating a god, and comes across as an attempt to shift the burden of proof. As materialism/naturalism is commonly used as a foundation, which don't correlate with lacking belief, but negating. Which in itself, is fine, I just dislike the pretense of holding some sort of truth, which I believe atheists do.

For those atheists escaping a higly religious upbringing I can understand their reaction, howver their reaction doesn't provides their new ideology any value either. These types of responses are commonly too emotive for the reaction to be of any rational value.

Quote:I too base my beliefs on knowledge. That is why, since I hold the position that the existence of gods is unknown and possibly unknowable, I am without beliefs in their existence.

There you go again, so, Darwinism is next right? Are you railing against atheism or materialism here, and why do you seem to be so confused about both?

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?

(July 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: 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?

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.

(July 30, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Selliedjoup Wrote: 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.

(July 31, 2012 at 1:00 am)Selliedjoup Wrote: 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?