Let's answer CARM's Questions for Atheists

[Neo-Scholastic]

Here is an example of something immaterial: a hole. What is your objection now?

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?