one logical explanation for Materialistic Athiesm?

[Alex K]

Sorry I missed your reply. Ok I'll just put it like this, I would like to know why Materialistic Atheists claim their view is based on logical deduction when there is so much evidence to refute that it is.

Oh, but they rarely or never do claim that! I certainly don't, and the public figures of new atheism don't either. Not from logical deduction alone that is.

To quote meself again:

Bob,

We know the material world exists. There is no evidence for "supernatural" things or deities, and no logical necessity for them. If you want to argue for the existence of anything beyond that which we readily observe, you have to do just that: make a positive case *for* whatever it is you want to claim to exist. Materialist atheists find that all existence claims for deities and such have failed to be compelling. Some theist apologists would like you to believe that "Observable universe+personal creator God exist" ist just as valid a default position as "Observable universe exists". It isn't, the first option introduces an extremely complicated additional assumption which does not solve any problems and only introduces new ones. Therefore, it is out of the window unless you have compelling evidence. Some apologists want to argue that their god is a logical necessity - all these arguments are nonsense.

Yes, I would like to emphasize LastPoet's point. Most of us who identify as atheists don't mean that we have a 100% logically absolute forever fixed belief that deities don't exist. This is just not how we use the word. We simply, given our current knowledge, don't believe that deities exist. You could as well be an atheist in our sense - what is it for you?

The only statements from atheists I've ever heard to that end are arguments that the common concepts of God are logically inconsistent and can therefore be proven to not exist in a strict sense.

[Marvin]

Hi,

As Atheist's like to claim the logical high ground for some reason, I was just wondering if any of you can actually give me one logical/rational explanation for Atheism

A god is presented, he doesn't talk to me.
In the old days many gods were the way.
I don't sense any god, just human fallibility.

[Whateverist]

I admit my posts have been haphazard, they are a bit rushed and I am a layman. But I am trying to get into a meaningful conversation atleast, I think if you really looked at it you would see that everything anyone has replied to me has been trivial, for lack of a better word.

Sorry Bob but your idea of trying to have a meaningful conversation is different than mine. The real problem is just that you keep saying more than you know and trying to impose a framework that no one here shares. You refuse to be labeled but come in insisting on how we all do our labeling. You don't have the authority and are over reaching. You had a chip on your shoulder and were dismissive from the get go. You actually have gotten a lot of honest feedback even if it wasn't what you hoped for.

Here's an idea. Maybe you don't know everything. Perhaps your initial position was no where near as brilliant as you thought. Grow up or grow bitter. Your call.

[Mister Agenda]

And yet you listed your religious belief as agnostic. Do you normally start out conversations this dishonestly? For someone who claims to be interested in the big truths, you're surprisingly negligent with the smaller ones. Or maybe you're just a liar from top to bottom. Probably the latter. You sound like one.

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.

What's with all the anti-labellists lately?

[Simon Moon]

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.

This just goes to show, that you actually don't know the definition of atheism. The first sign you don't know the definition is that you write it with an upper case 'A'.


Either one believes (accepts as true) in at least one god (theist) or they don't believe in at least one god (atheist). There is no other psychological state one's mind can be in.

[Mister Agenda]

Hi,

As Atheist's like to claim the logical high ground for some reason, I was just wondering if any of you can actually give me one logical/rational explanation for Atheism, in particular Materialistic Atheism, which is the only kind as far as I am aware.

Btw I am not Religious or Atheist.

Cheers,
Bob

Well, I admit I am disappointed when an atheist makes a claim about what an entire demographic likes, but being an atheist isn't what makes me logical, and being logical isn't what makes a lot of people atheists.

The explanation for atheism is that some people don't believe in any God or gods, those people are called atheists, and atheism is the word for the state of mind in which one does not hold it to be true that some God or gods exist. Atheism isn't a claim that no God or gods exist, it's an opinion on the topic.

In later posts, you indicate awareness of the existence of atheists who are not materialists, such as 'bare-bone' Buddhists, so I assume you're exaggerating a bit when you say you're not aware of any kind of atheism but 'materialistic atheism'. It's a bit redundant to say 'materialistic atheist' isn't it, doesn't 'materialist' serve as well?

Essentially what you're saying is that most atheists, at least the 'new' ones, are metaphysical naturalists. I don't agree. In my experience, atheists are more typically rationalists who hold methodological naturalism to be the default in the absence of any way to determine the existence of anything that isn't natural.

I would certainly like to hear the reasoning of someone who believes they can deduce materialism. Can you give a source for someone like that?

[Esquilax]

Doesn't this whole thing seem rather similar to shockofgod's old "what is the proof that atheism is accurate and correct?" bullshit?

[Ryantology]

Do I have to justify my lack of belief in the Easter Bunny, too?

[Whateverist]

Apparently, yeah.

[Esquilax]

Do I have to justify my lack of belief in the Easter Bunny, too?

Yes, but only if you're an atheist. Have you noticed how the sort of person who'd ask these kinds of questions never see fit to justify the disbelief in all the other gods or concepts they don't agree with?