one logical explanation for Materialistic Athiesm?

[Esquilax]

I just put that as I thought it was closest and easiest. But I said I am not any of them because I don't want to be put into a catagory.

The small truths are not truths, you have just taken a huge subject, and nit-picked at some small detail. Completely stupid reply tbh.

Frankly, I don't think you actually know what any of those means. Because you've said you don't believe in a god, you don't disbelieve in a god, and you don't not know whether there is or is not a god.

That's contradictory from top to bottom, leading me to the conclusion that you're either talking out of your ass, or you're a theist troll.

[Bob101]

It's fine if people are pretty indifferent to it and just want to live their life either believing or not believing. But I was asking the people who have a strong view point within Atheism if they have a logical reason for Materialism as opposed to Theism, or any other of the many theories of the cosmos. I actually know that there isn't a logical stand point for Atheism, so in asking the question I just wanted to gauge what people thought as one.

As I mentioned on the first page, you probably aren't going to meet a strong materialist here; you're going to meet a bunch of people who are honest about the limitations of their knowledge, and are content with that, as opposed to going further and tacking on additional claims they can't support. Atheism isn't materialism, and one doesn't have to be the latter if they identify as the former. You're attempting to tack on a concept here that most of us won't share in a way that would require us to provide evidence for it. For me, I accept that the physical world exists because I'm living in it, and I accept the things we can demonstrate about it; that's the end of my knowledge, so why would I indulge in a theistic position, or a purely materialist one, when instead I can just... admit where the end of my knowledge is?

And I'm a little worried at this point, because for someone who claims to be neither theistic nor atheist, you sure as hell seem to be falling victim to some theistic misrepresentations of atheism.

Yes I know the actual definition of Atheism, after all Buddhists and Hindu's technically Atheists. But there is a definite consensus in the current new wave of Atheism. And Atheism and Theism are not the only ways of looking at it!! This is pointless isn't it.

[Alex K]

And more Scientifically, just look into Quantum Physics.

Oh yeah, let's look into Quantum Physics. What about it, Bob?

[Psykhronic]

You seem awfully all about 'knowing'. You know what we see is not reality, you know there isn't a logical stand point for Atheism. I have to wonder why someone with such insights is bothering to garner anything from us.

And good luck finding answers about 'not-spacetime', which is where you claimed your adventures in 'truths' lay. If we have no means to measure 'not-spacetime' then you have no means to convince us of anything or any truth regarding such a 'place'.

Exactly!!

---

Yeah we perceive things.. which means they do not exist how?

That's interesting coming from an Atheist, because if you beleive our perceptions are real, then also hallucinations and dreams have some realness. Which I think they definitely do, but that's another point.

But really, we know that are perceptions of the material world are not the reality of the material world. It is a dance of particles and energy. Colour and sound are just particles and waves. Pretty simple stuff.

And particles and waves exist. Our interpretation of color and sound also exist as a result of these physical properties. I do think dreams and hallucinations have a realness; they take place in the real, physical mind.

But that 'exactly' comment had me chuckle. You cannot even fathom not-spacetime, but you're gonna disregard everything except not-spacetime as truth? How the fuck do you get through the day? Just because there is another "scale" or "place" does not mean this one does not exist.

But you're probs a troll. A very bad one.

[Esquilax]

Yes I know the actual definition of Atheism, after all Buddhists and Hindu's technically Atheists. But there is a definite consensus in the current new wave of Atheism. And Atheism and Theism are not the only ways of looking at it!! This is pointless isn't it.

Oh, there's a consensus? And the fact that we've all disagreed with you, and that you're now talking with someone who's disagreeing with you, doesn't give you an inkling that maybe we don't share this imaginary consensus? Why should we be made to justify a position we don't share just because you've barged in and insisted that we do share it?

And atheism and theism may not be the only ways of considering this subject, but when you come to the Atheist Forums, you might just have a hint as to which audience you're addressing.

[LastPoet]

Well, solipsism comes to mind. But to waste any time on that it would be silly.

[Bob101]

I just put that as I thought it was closest and easiest. But I said I am not any of them because I don't want to be put into a catagory.

The small truths are not truths, you have just taken a huge subject, and nit-picked at some small detail. Completely stupid reply tbh.

Frankly, I don't think you actually know what any of those means. Because you've said you don't believe in a god, you don't disbelieve in a god, and you don't not know whether there is or is not a god.

That's contradictory from top to bottom, leading me to the conclusion that you're either talking out of your ass, or you're a theist troll.

whether I believe or don't believe or don't care if there is a god completely irrelevant I'm not that arrogant to think it is. Why do I have to have a "label" only hold us back and close our minds.

[Esquilax]

whether I believe or don't believe or don't care if there is a god completely irrelevant I'm not that arrogant to think it is. Why do I have to have a "label" only hold us back and close our minds.

But as a matter of logic you do occupy one of those labels. Why begin your exchange with us by misrepresenting that fact?

[Psykhronic]

Arguing over labels also prevents us from getting anywhere. Notice you started that one by improperly defining such, Bobby-face?

[Bob101]

That's interesting coming from an Atheist, because if you beleive our perceptions are real, then also hallucinations and dreams have some realness. Which I think they definitely do, but that's another point.

But really, we know that are perceptions of the material world are not the reality of the material world. It is a dance of particles and energy. Colour and sound are just particles and waves. Pretty simple stuff.

And particles and waves exist. Our interpretation of color and sound also exist as a result of these physical properties. I do think dreams and hallucinations have a realness; they take place in the real, physical mind.

But that 'exactly' comment had me chuckle. You cannot even fathom not-spacetime, but you're gonna disregard everything except not-spacetime as truth? How the fuck do you get through the day? Just because there is another "scale" or "place" does not mean this one does not exist.

But you're probs a troll. A very bad one.

A troll? hahahaha

fuck me I give up on you Atheists. Can't have a debate with anyone that has something different to say. Just a troll. Forget about everything he's said