Why materialists are predominantly materialists

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not an idealist.  I'm purely agnostic.  

It's not a dirty word.  You know you're an idealist and I know that you're an idealist.  We've had that discussion plenty.  You can safely be an idealist in my presence, lol.  

I'm arguing that materialism requires at least one extra assumption, and that the benefits of holding a material world view are insufficient to merit the extra assumption.  If you need a monism, start at the source for a default position: experience itself as reality.  After that, walk very carefully in determining what additional assumptions you need to make, and the degree to which they are really necessary.

I'm not sure what it's supposed to be insufficient for or as, but hey, knock yourself out.   

You can call it ignostic if you want.  But I think it's pretty safe to say that someone who thinks certain things CAN'T be known will also claim not to know them-- i.e. also be agnostic.  But wait. . . if you think I'm an ignostic, why did you just call me an idealist?

It's not about what I want, it's how -you- frame your position.  If something cant be known it's more accurate to call yourself ignostic about it.  If it's just something you don't know, then fine..agnosticism.  I find your ignostic idealism just as perplexing as you seemed to have picked up on. If we can't know, we can;t know. There's no sense in referring to the ways that we know things, about what makes fewer assumptions., or their logical necessities. Nor, frankly, is there any reason to point to what is evident, another term for our experiences and the root of evidence. There's no reason at all, in fact, that can pierce what cannot be known. That's sort of what it means when something -can't be known, rather than when something simply isn't.

We can't know, you've said so, full stop.