Let's answer CARM's Questions for Atheists

[Elskidor]

Too many questions and not enough motivation. Pass.

[fr0d0]

If [...] you insist that holes are just convenient fictions and do not really exist then that makes you an a-hole, now doesn't it?

[Esquilax]

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.

Uh, maybe go back and read the question we were prompted to respond to: you just said that we can have physical evidence of an immaterial thing, which CARM labels as a category error.

I also find it interesting that, in a discussion about an apparently immaterial god, the first thing you jump to is something that doesn't actually exist, but is a term used to describe the absence of something, an interruption in an expected pattern of material things that comprise a solid object. That has a lot of connotations that don't exactly help your case.

[MusicLovingAtheist]

I forgot to respond to question 10
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
I wouldn't call it antagonism. I would call it progress. I look at it similarly to the fight to abolish slavery, like the civil war. That is basically what religion is is mind slavery to a make believe god. Except it's not a war, it's a peaceful demonstration against religion's lies and bullshit. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but the tooth fairy doesn't have a Church on every street, influence the politics of all countries, make it so only Christians can get elected to public office, misconstrue lies about homosexuals and abortion. The reason this question is annoying is because I have argued the same points again and again and again but it just never seems to be enough because for every person who I make an argument against, there are literally billions of other people who don't get the message. Often, the one person who I do argue against is too stubborn to even pay attention and takes for granted the fact that I'm actually trying to say something. Snobby fucks.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...go back and read the question we were prompted to respond to: you just said that we can have physical evidence of an immaterial thing, which CARM labels as a category error.

But you can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things. And if you take a step back, you can also infer the existence of material things from personal experience, which is not a material thing. And that takes you right back to where you started. Unless you accept the concept of the immaterial, the concept of materiality likewise makes little sense. You can go back and forth trying to define one in terms of the other without reaching any conclusion as to which is primary and thus remain forever stuck in paradox. (Hence the category error) The simpler solution is to just accept that both materiality and immateriality are part of one reality.

... in a discussion about an apparently immaterial god, the first thing you jump to is something that doesn't actually exist, but is a term used to describe the absence of something, an interruption in an expected pattern of material things that comprise a solid object.

Changing the name from ‘hole’ into the fancier sounding ‘an interruption in an expected pattern’ does not solve the problem. An interruption is just as immaterial as a hole, gap, opening, chasm, or rip. In each case we see similar forms that can manifest in various materials. Forms do not depend on specific substances for their existence. This property allows people to say things like, ‘the hole in the metal is the same size as the hole in this paper.” If you insist that holes do not properly exist, then you simultaneously and tacit deny the existence of all other forms, like triangles.

[FreeTony]

But you can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things.

How?


A hole is not an immaterial thing. I can physically measure a hole. I (apparently) can't physically measure a God.
When studying how transistors work you deal with "holes" in electron fields, and their properties. They are very much measureable.

[Esquilax]

But you can deduce the existence of immaterial things from material things.

Which means we're no longer talking about what the original question asked. My main contention, in the context of the initial question, was that rendering a claim unfalsifiable by pulling it beyond the reach of investigation doesn't make that claim safe, it makes it unjustifiable. I largely don't care about arguing against immaterial things on principle, but I do hold to the same standards I always have: without a means to detect them, I have no reason to believe in them. Though I don't think your example of a hole is a very good one, if we can glean positive evidence of the immaterial from the material, that's testable and I have no specific problem accepting that concept on principle.

But that's not what CARM was asking us about.

And if you take a step back, you can also infer the existence of material things from personal experience, which is not a material thing. And that takes you right back to where you started.

Only if you accept a thing/not thing dichotomy, which I don't. Personal experience is a part of consciousness, which I'm more inclined to approach as a process arising from an object, rather than an object in and of itself. As another example, wind isn't material, but it's not immaterial either; it's a descriptor of the motion of air, which is a material thing.

Unless you accept the concept of the immaterial, the concept of materiality likewise makes little sense. You can go back and forth trying to define one in terms of the other without reaching any conclusion as to which is primary and thus remain forever stuck in paradox. (Hence the category error) The simpler solution is to just accept that both materiality and immateriality are part of one reality.

Again, I think this is a false dichotomy if we're going to expand the range of the discussion to include concepts and the like. At the very least, I'd say that there's a lot of difference between the immaterial examples you've given, which I don't think are applicable for various reasons, and the idea of an immaterial god, which is neither conceptual, nor the absence of something.

Changing the name from ‘hole’ into the fancier sounding ‘an interruption in an expected pattern’ does not solve the problem. An interruption is just as immaterial as a hole, gap, opening, chasm, or rip.[

Look, it's just a word to describe a concept because we require the ability to communicate the realities of physical space, Chad. If you're really, actually attempting to tell me that a hole and god are remotely similar, then answer me this: if you remove all of the matter around the hole, does the hole still exist? Is there an essence of "hole" still floating in the same spatial coordinates? Or is the hole gone, because the attributes of the hole, the marked absence of what should be there, is also gone?

See, this is a bit of an equivocation on your part, in trying to pretend that the absence of something- because a hole is literally nothing, and we have a term for it due to its defined boundaries in physical space- is a literal thing that exists in its own right. I wasn't trying to change the name from "hole" to something else, I was using human language to communicate in greater depth what the word describes, and why it isn't what you're claiming it is.

We have words, and those words don't always describe literal things. Sometimes, they describe the attributes of a thing: when I say "the glass is empty," that doesn't mean the glass has emptiness in it, because emptiness is an objective thing that exists and is filling the glass, but rather that the glass has nothing in it besides regular background air. Similarly, when I say "there's a hole in that rock," I'm not pointing out that the rock has the literal object "a hole" embedded into it, I am describing the notable absence of rock enclosed by the boundaries of rock. When it's dark in a room, it's not because the room is filled with objectively real darkness, but rather that it doesn't have sufficient light to see by.

The only way you could get away with having that be a valid comparison to god is if you defined god as "the absence of a being," but then, somehow I doubt that'd be satisfying to you.

In each case we see similar forms that can manifest in various materials. Forms do not depend on a specific substances for their existence. This property allows people to say things like, ‘the hole in the metal is the same size as the hole in this paper.” If you insist that holes do not properly exist, then you simultaneously and tacit deny the existence of all other forms, like triangles.

I'm not calling you on the existence of holes. I'm quite happy to accept that holes exist as conceptual labels applied to corresponding phenomena in the real world. What I'm calling you on is the equivocation between a term used to describe the absence of something, and an objectively extant non-material thing. They aren't remotely similar.

[bladevalant546]

I used to frequent CARM, who cares answering them here what purpose does it serve? They will not listen or just twist your answer.

[Dolorian]

I used to frequent CARM, who cares answering them here what purpose does it serve? They will not listen or just twist your answer.

It is just for fun and it is not for CARM but for us to know and possibly learn from each other's perspectives on these questions.

[Chad32]

I used to frequent CARM, who cares answering them here what purpose does it serve? They will not listen or just twist your answer.

Catch 22. Answer them and they'll move the goalposts or interpret it in a way that means you're wrong. Don't answer, and they'll claim victory anyway.