I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Except that I didn't state that, you did. Except that I don't hold such a belief, you merely insist that I do. Mostly for those reasons. You seem to be arguing against classical materialism, in the same way that creationists often argue against darwinism, as though it has any impact on our current understanding of either subject. Classical materialism was abandoned (by most) long ago, and not because a philosopher deconstructed it, or because an apologist refuted it, but because we discovered a little thing called gravity. Gravity, and not your holy bullshit, or demands for explanations ad naus, is a good argument against classical materialism. That you decided to go the route you have and not this particular route only shows that you couldn't even be bothered to fucking google....

To hold the position of requiring evidence to be produced negates the possibility of the unknowable, whether this position is stated or now, that’s the only position you can hold. Unless evidence can be produced depending on it is pointless.

You insist I have “holy bullshit” despite my claims of agnosticism.
Many people here require evidence for a god, sounds like materialism to me. It’s up to you to define your position, not me to look it up on google.

As materialism is a position which finds the support of scientific endeavor behind it (at least for now-feel free to change that at any moment), our notions of materialism are subject to change or revision as our knowledge of our cosmos changes.

(and as a nod to those who would argue for classical materialism -gravity can be and is argued for as an effect of matter, of course.)

See, only tears lay down this road my love. You are demanding absolutes of a person who does not subscribe to beliefs, instead preferring provisional certitude, you may as well beat your head against a brick wall. If you were interested in my opinion (which of course you must be) then I'd have to say that I think you're projecting your own perceptions onto mine. You believe there to be absolutes, and so you assume that there must be similar absolutes in my perceptions. You believe that there can be certainty without provisions and so you look to find those areas in my own appraisals of reality that would suggest this -in order to criticize those things -and all of this, I suspect, in the hopes that by weakening another's views (either in actuality or perception) yours will somehow become strengthened, or at least placed on an equal plane. Unfortunately, that's not how this works.

You’re right, i do believe in absolutes. There is an absolute truth, reality, whether these can be identified are another issue. I’m not bothered whether those here changing their views or not, I have zero expectations that they will. I think this is due to the fact that many believe they make no assumptions towards their conclusion of no belief. It would make sense to suspend belief in the absence of proof, but many take great delight in claiming a lack of belief (or a semantic negation) and disparaging the wisdom of those who belief. I assure you, most believe the ‘new’ atheists to hold similar views to fundamentalists. Of course you can deny this, creationists deny their fundamentalism as they’re correct too.

As far as the strength of materialism in philosophy. Any conclusion you may reach can only have as much value as the premise and assumptions that went into it's culmination can be said to have. Materialism has an edge here in that the premise and assumptions (which vary, depending upon which type of materialism you want to invoke -it;s a broader field than you probably realize) can have a measure of truth or value assigned to them, because they lend themselves well to the methods we have collectively decided are a productive way of explaining the world around us. In truth, you don't have an issue with materialism until it conflicts (or is perceived by you to conflict) with some pet fantasy, such as a soul or spirit world, or magic. If these things were important to you I imagine that it would be much more useful for you to find a manner in which these things could coexist with our appraisal of the workings of the cosmos, rather than scorching the earth -even for yourself- as a kneejerk defense of a concept which you obviously haven't invested much thought in. If you want you fairy realm, make it work -don't tell others why their material realm doesn't -because it clearly does, even for you.

Materialism has an edge if it proves a god to be false or a proven ‘natural’ solution, until then it has no advantage. I have issue with materialism as it’s a circular belief set.

---

So you are basically arguing that the unknown is out there and branding it all supernatural? All of it a force *beyond* science, *beyond* nature because it cannot be measured?
By your definition gravity would of been supernatural before we finally figured out how it works and a unit of measurement for it. Needless to say gravity is not supernatural and your definition that the supernatural is what we can't measure does not hold up to speculation.
The definitions I gave are ones I took the trouble to look up and quote from directly. I'm not sure how that permits you to accuse me of treating them as interchangeable. Should I perhaps quote every definition I can find on the internet?

No I'm arguing for the possibility of the unknown, and if it exists it exists irrespective of whether we label it supernatural or natural.