What philosophical evidence is there against believing in non-physical entities?

[The Grand Nudger]

That would be an understanding of altered states that;s so inclusive as to be meaningless(if something can be anything, it;s nothing in particular )...and I don't think that either myself or Pan would find it useful in our conversation.

[robvalue]

Fair enough!

I apologise for the interruption.

[Mister Agenda]

It's more fun to wait until they start in on each other.  *goes to make popcorn*

At least the believers on this forum are willing to challenge each other. Maybe it is confirmation bias but it truly seems to me that the atheist members do not challenge each other nearly so much. I have never seen one atheist debate another about causality for example . It is nearly always gang up on the theists.

Funny how Western atheists tend to converge while theists tend to split. Ever honestly wonder why that is instead of strawmanning it?

[Mister Agenda]

I note Panatheist and Rhythm 'having a go at each' other for pages on this thread. Just sayin'.

[Neo-Scholastic]

At least the believers on this forum are willing to challenge each other. Maybe it is confirmation bias but it truly seems to me that the atheist members do not challenge each other nearly so much. I have never seen one atheist debate another about causality for example . It is nearly always gang up on the theists.

Challenge each other on what? Either science is wrong or the monotheistic deities are out of the window. That in itself doesn't mean that I spiritual entity is unimaginable. That's why my sig still read agnostic and will continue to read so. But any scripted god is utter bullshit in lights of what we know about the world and the universe.

Could a totally neutral higher intelligence exist? Certainly. I don't have evidence for or against it's existence. But a humanocnetric deity doesn't make any sense, given the short period of time humans have been around.

Sure atheists agree on the nonexistence of god, but that is just one issue. Even within an overall atheistic framework people could have various beliefs about causality (previously mentioned), ethical systems, etc. There are at least four physicalism theories of mind and only very rarely do atheists advocates of each debate the relative merits of those theories among themselves. (Bennyboy is a notable exception). Otherwise differences are ignored because the atheists, who hold opinions contrary to one another, will only debate against theists.

As for me, I have no problems pointing out when my understanding of doctrine is at variance with other Christians.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Other christians" seem to think that there really aren;t that many differences, and that the differences they do acknowledge or are aware of aren't all that meaningful.  You all, basically, agree...right?
(I feel left out, above, btw..how could you call benny a notable example and leave out his perpetual sparring partner, lol? He completes me, and I'm the yin to his yang. )

In any case...did you really just say..that except for all of the things that atheists will debate against each other (and yours is a short list, friend).... they only debate theists? Did that make sense, in your head, and when it fell out of your head..or am I missing something? This entire board is a running argument between atheists about..well, fucking everything...from what kabob is the best kabob, to complicated geo-politicval issues about which -none- of us are experts. Try reading it sometime.

[Jesster]

Lol. Atheists don't debate other atheists? I voice my disagreements with atheists on this site all the time. I might even disagree with my brother (also an atheist) even more often.

I just have one more point to disagree on with theists than I do with atheists.

Failed assertion.

[abaris]

Otherwise differences are ignored because the atheists, who hold opinions contrary to one another, will only debate against theists.

Well, to this I can only say, you obviously haven't read any of my posts. From the top of my head I would say I'm challenging atheists more often than theists, since most theists making it here aren't worth debating at all.

It's only that I usually don't look at the gazillionst thread on theists answer me this or that and so I'm missing out on most of the religious discussions. The only thing interesting me is when religion plays into social or political life. Otherwise I'm with the Prussian King Frederick of old: chacun a son gout.

[robvalue]

Theists don't often go out the religious section. Is it surprising atheists all agree with each other that theistic claims are bullshit?

Step out into the real world a little.

[The Grand Nudger]

It';s also an issue of representation.  There are simply more atheists here than theists...anytime ayone disagrees with anyone it's just brute force of demographics that say they're likely to be disagreeing with an atheist, lol.

Chad thinks we only argue with theists because he's a theist, and we argue with him - he has that experience alot.  It's selection bias, lol.