Let's answer CARM's Questions for Atheists

[Neo-Scholastic]

I largely don't care about arguing against immaterial things on principle…

Fair enough. I may start a discussion of immateriality on the Philosophy thread.

[fr0d0]

Will we know if you don't start it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Will we know if you don't start it?

Yes, because there will be a hole in the philosophy forum where my thread should be.

[Chas]

I'll just dismiss the belief out of hand until you can demonstrate the existence of the immaterial, and that god belongs in that set.

Here is an example of something immaterial: a hole.

What is your objection now?

Nope. The hole is defined by the space and space is not 'immaterial', it demonstrably real.

[Mister Agenda]

I'll just dismiss the belief out of hand until you can demonstrate the existence of the immaterial, and that god belongs in that set.

Here is an example of something immaterial: a hole.

What is your objection now?

A hollow place in a solid body or surface. What's immaterial about it, it doesn't exist without material to exist in.

---

A hole is not defined by what it is not, a hole is defined as the absence of that which surrounds it, which is.

Yes, the hole is defined by what surrounds it, but the hole itself is not the same as that which surrounds it. The point is that Esquilax asked for something that is intrinsically immaterial. A hole is known with respect to something material but is not itself material. Thus it is possible to know about something that is indeed immaterial through observation of something that is material. If however you insist that holes are just convenient fictions and do not really exist then that makes you an a-hole, now doesn't it?

Can you give an example of a hole filled with something immaterial?

You really should have gone with something more abstract here, if the game is to make us come up with material explanations for stuff.

[Aoi Magi]

1. How would you define atheism?
As logical standpoint of not-believing in the idea of self-contradictory, illogical, supernatural entity/entities without evidence

2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?
I act according to my own beliefs which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with god/gods

3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?
The best way to find and verify the correctness or truth of a statement or concept is by finding the flaws and errors within it. Finding the errors in the concept of your God is similarly a way to verify his existence.

4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
Pretty sure, because it is based on observable reality.

5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
As sure as logically possible for me.

6. How would you define what truth is?
To me truth is something which is not false.

7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
Because of lack of evidence.

8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?
Explain those terms please.

9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
No, because it is a logically neutral standpoint, against a very specific concept.

10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
I am not. I am antagonistic to some specific things like willful ignorance, and meaningless violence

11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
Knowledge

12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
Yes. Because religion makes us feel powerless and vulnerable to being mislead.

13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes.

14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
No, it is a very necessary idea which stemmed from our need to maintain control over things beyond our understanding and due to our lack of knowledge. As our understanding and knowledge increases, the necessity of this idea decreases.

15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
The "scientific method" is just a way for us humans to learn and understand everything around us. However I am fine with any method as long as it satisfies the logical requirements of validity of truth.

16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?
An immaterial being can still manifest observable materialistic evidence which religion has claimed several times but has failed to provide.

17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
No. We create our own purposes. However as species, our basic goal or target is survival same as any other living being.

18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
We define our own purpose, we don't define it for someone else.

19. Where does morality come from?
From our instinct to survive as a species as well as our social structure.

20. Are there moral absolutes?
No

21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
No

22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Anything that causes a negative effect towards our ultimate goal of survivability is evil

23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
Same standards as stated above

24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
Logically undeniable evidence

25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
His observable existence or the unique effect of his existence which can be validated and verified by any individual as and when needed.

26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?
The evidence has to be rational as well as verifiable by any and all individuals in any manner they wish to verify it

27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
A society run by people who cannot trust in their own morality, and need to rely on an unverifiable moral authority, is not safe. Hence given the two choices, a society run by atheists is safer.

28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
Yes as per the definition included with the question assuming that no other data or factors apart from the said "coercion" is being considered.

29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?
No as long as the same definition as #28 is used.

30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?
Physical objects don't "evolve" into objects beyond reality.

31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
No, because evolution is bound by the laws of nature including space and time, so even if we evolve considering the best case scenario, our understanding of nature might reach a point where we can freely manipulate nature as per our will, however that will have to happen within the laws of nature, and thus we cannot become supernatural beings.

[fr0d0]

A hollow place in a solid body or surface. What's immaterial about it, it doesn't exist without material to exist in.

So if you took the surrounding material away the hole would disappear!?

If a hole is defined by what it is not: not hole, then that sounds like a definition of God that I remember: we can know something of God by means of knowing what he is not.

[Chad32]

A hollow place in a solid body or surface. What's immaterial about it, it doesn't exist without material to exist in.

So if you took the surrounding material away the hole would disappear!?

If a hole is defined by what it is not: not hole, then that sounds like a definition of God that I remember: we can know something of God by means of knowing what he is not.

God is apparently the gap in our knowledge, and as our knowledge of the universe grows, we find out it has nothing to do with god. Judging from the pattern, we can so far conclude that gods don't exist, as all claims of what gods do have been proven false. Gods do not hurl lightning bolts, or pull the sun, or sit on a throne on the firmament above the world.

[fr0d0]

Science can possibly discover more things that are not God. This only goes to increase the accuracy of what we know is God. More knowledge of not God = more knowledge of God.

[genkaus]

Science can possibly discover more things that are not God. This only goes to increase the accuracy of what we know is God. More knowledge of not God = more knowledge of God.

So, basically, you are refuting the god-of-the-gaps argument by saying that your god is the gap.