I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Materialism and naturalism are very odd positions to assert if you don't know them to be true.

Perhaps in the abstract but it would be very odd to imagine our beliefs based on what we now would call materialism and naturalism not paying off way more than those based on what we now would call the super-natural, animism and so on. No doubt early man had both but which do you think contributed more to your ability to inquire into the basis for our beliefs in the natural world or materialism?

I believe science has provided a much better insight into what we can measure/observe/test etc, but I don't see leaping into a materialist's view as a logical step to take in this process.

Since most belief is built up non-rationally and unconsciously, I see nothing wrong with noting that materialism and naturalism seem to underpin the beliefs one holds. That is certainly true for me.

I see no problem either, as long as one realises that it's a belief. I have no issue with what people believe as long as it doesn't go beyond a belief to that which may impinge on anyone else with a different value set. This is why I take issue with many 'new' atheists.

I understand you claiming agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. To me they are, as what I believe to be true is based on my knowledge.

But then you are dismissing atheism as the mere state of finding no active beliefs in gods active in ones thoughts or actions. How can you possibly know that is true? I say that of all the beliefs regarding gods which I hold, my belief that I've never heard a convincing case for accepting rationally that gods do or that gods don't exist is by far the most important. I say that makes me agnostic. Secondarily, I note that no belief in gods or the possible existence of gods motivate any of my thoughts or actions. This, I say, makes me an atheist. No big deal. Just the way it is for me as best I can tell.

People require a rationale to any conclusion they've reached. I find it very unlikely with the strong support of materialism/naturalism amongst atheists that determines the 'no active belief' position.

Of course I don't know it to be true, I just find it contradictory based on my perception of what I hold to be true.

---

No Darwinism is not on my list. I take it you're not going to answer my questions then? I

I see atheism as a result of materialism/naturalism.

How can you ask a question asking why I'm so confused about both?

link?

Perhaps that's because you view gods as immaterial, but why assume this, have you observed any immaterial gods? What's wrong with a material god? What observation are you basing the claims to knowledge implied by this appraisal?

You imply that the immaterial is un-measurable or undetectable, but upon what observations do you base this appraisal?

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.

[downbeatplumb]

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.

We like evidence with our facts.
You obviously do not.

You don't even have a good idea of what these "unobservable" things might be. Everything you say is baseless speculation.

The supernatural realm is one of fantasy and you waste time defending it.

[Whateverist]

But then you are dismissing atheism as the mere state of finding no active beliefs in gods active in ones thoughts or actions. How can you possibly know that is true? I say that of all the beliefs regarding gods which I hold, my belief that I've never heard a convincing case for accepting rationally that gods do or that gods don't exist is by far the most important. I say that makes me agnostic. Secondarily, I note that no belief in gods or the possible existence of gods motivate any of my thoughts or actions. This, I say, makes me an atheist. No big deal. Just the way it is for me as best I can tell.

People require a rationale to any conclusion they've reached. I find it very unlikely with the strong support of materialism/naturalism amongst atheists that determines the 'no active belief' position.

Of course I don't know it to be true, I just find it contradictory based on my perception of what I hold to be true.

Seems a little solipsistic to me. You're going to stick with your theory of what's true for me in spite of my direct report to the contrary. Your call.

[Selliedjoup]

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.

We like evidence with our facts.
You obviously do not.

You don't even have a good idea of what these "unobservable" things might be. Everything you say is baseless speculation.

The supernatural realm is one of fantasy and you waste time defending it.

The assumption that every thing can be obsevered is baseless speculation, all evidence gathered by humanity allows us to understand (on our terms) what happened.

To assume anything beyond what evidence tells us is based on a philosphical viewpoint. And even then why assume what the evidence tells us, is how it is?

Why would I have a good idea of what these 'unobservable" things are? I hope you see the contradiction in this stataement.

Your focus on the natural and what it proves is one of assumptions.

---

People require a rationale to any conclusion they've reached. I find it very unlikely with the strong support of materialism/naturalism amongst atheists that determines the 'no active belief' position.

Of course I don't know it to be true, I just find it contradictory based on my perception of what I hold to be true.

Seems a little solipsistic to me. You're going to stick with your theory of what's true for me in spite of my direct report to the contrary. Your call.

Yes true, it is a little like solipsism. I do believe that our physical limits shapes our reality. I'm sticking with my theory of how I view you, I have no choice in the matter. I understand your perspective, how you view yourself and respect this, I just don't agree. Much like anyone who has a different foundation, could either of us view a creationist how they viewed themselves?

[The Grand Nudger]

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.

No, I'm asking you questions based upon a statement that you yourself made just a few posts ago. Upon what do you base this proposal, what observation have you made? How have you reached the knowledge that this (whatever) is unobservable, or that this (whatever) may be unobservable?

[Selliedjoup]

Your line of questioning just re-iterates your materialist focus, you ask for observations of what I have proposed that , may be, unobservable.

No, I'm asking you questions based upon a statement that you yourself made just a few posts ago. Upon what do you base this proposal, what observation have you made? How have you reached the knowledge that this (whatever) is unobservable, or that this (whatever) may be unobservable?

Funny, you're asking me on what basis do I deny that the material is all that there is. Your position, like mine, is a statement of belief.

What observations have you made that tell you that the material is the only thing that exists? We can go round and round forever on this.

[The Grand Nudger]

The observation that all that we have observed (and therefore all that we can make claims to knowledge of) exists within the material world, we have looked, and the immaterial world remains curiously hidden, and so suggesting that it exists is a claim to knowledge of which there are no observations, next?

Again, I haven't been asking you questions that arose from any belief of mine, you said, very specifically, that there where conditions for our making claims to knowledge. Why are you unwilling to meet those conditions which you yourself set, or provide the observations that led you to these claims to knowledge -that you yourself insisted one must have-?

The only reason we're going around in circles here is because you have failed to proceed past the very first step that you yourself laid out not but 5 or 6 posts back. Until you either provide those observations-or modify your statement with regards to the conditions of claims to knowledge, I will continue to ask you this same question.

[Selliedjoup]

The observation that all that we have observed (and therefore all that we can make claims to knowledge of) exists within the material world, we have looked, and the immaterial world remains curiously hidden, and so suggesting that it exists is a claim to knowledge of which there are no observations, next?

Again, I haven't been asking you questions that arose from any belief of mine, you said, very specifically, that there where conditions for our making claims to knowledge. Why are you unwilling to meet those conditions which you yourself set, or provide the observations that led you to these claims to knowledge -that you yourself insisted one must have-?

The only reason we're going around in circles here is because you have failed to proceed past the very first step that you yourself laid out not but 5 or 6 posts back. Until you either provide those observations-or modify your statement with regards to the conditions of claims to knowledge, I will continue to ask you this same question.

Suggesting is not a claim to knowledge. It's considering and not dismissing what you don't know as there's no answer emerging from what you do know.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by 'observations', do you mean in the scientific sense or my epistemology?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh it isn't, so if I were to suggest that life may exist on Mars, there are no claims to knowledge there, I would not have to provide any justification or observations for this, it just gets to hang out in the wind, on my word, and nothing else?
(and yes, I understand that this seems perfectly fine when you decide to suggest something, when you make claims, imply this or that- but it's clear that you don't extend this courtesy to others)
Nah.

I'm also highly amused at this narrative you seem to be creating for yourself where the immaterial wasn't considered, where it wasn't pursued. It is the result of that consideration, the completely empty list of the spoils of that pursuit that lead us to materialism in the here and now.

You decided that observations had to be made, stop shifting every burden you can possibly imagine onto those who call bullshit on you. You define it, it's your baby.

So, lets recap.
Does the immaterial exist? -you don't know, correct?
Is the material all there is?- you don't know, correct?

[Selliedjoup]

Oh it isn't, so if I were to suggest that life may exist on Mars, there are no claims to knowledge there, I would not have to provide any justification or observations for this, it just gets to hang out in the wind, on my word, and nothing else?
(and yes, I understand that this seems perfectly fine when you decide to suggest something, when you make claims, imply this or that- but it's clear that you don't extend this courtesy to others)
Nah.

I'm also highly amused at this narrative you seem to be creating for yourself where the immaterial wasn't considered, where it wasn't pursued. It is the result of that consideration, the completely empty list of the spoils of that pursuit that lead us to materialism in the here and now.

You decided that observations had to be made, stop shifting every burden you can possibly imagine onto those who call bullshit on you. You define it, it's your baby.

So, lets recap.
Does the immaterial exist? -you don't know, correct?
Is the material all there is?- you don't know, correct?

You use the observable (life on mars) to compare to that which may not be able to be obtained. Not the same thing. I'm proposing the possiblity of the unknowable, whereas your basis dismisses the unknowable as you cannot prove it. I have made no claims at all. I just don't dismiss what I don't know.

You are welcome to make claims of knowledge, but those who use materialism assume in the absense of knowledge. This is not the same thing.

I already have defined observations as in the evidential sense, that you want me to observe the unobserved is not my problem, It highlights your position and why this conversation will go round and round.

And to recap, yes I don't know, which seems a logical place to leave it., as this position does not lead to atheism.