"Exclusive materialist atheist"

[Seismosaurus]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.

Even if it proves him wrong about something?

 

[tsg]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.

By making this post, I'm afraid you already have.

 

[Lamuella]

I entirely accept the possibility of any number of things that are not physically verifiable. Any of them could be true.

However, if they are not physically verifiable then their existence has no definite impact upon me or the way I live my life.

Thus, I will continue to act as if they did not exist until better evidence presents itself.

 

[dglas]

I rather like to think of myself as an inclusive materialist humanist. Anyone is welcome to join me in the real world.

So much more positive, don'tcha think?

Doesn't mean I don't understand and respect the power of ideas, but let us not confuse language constructs with supernatural entities, mmmmkay?

Personally, I doubt very much if I'd even notice "spiritualists" if they just went there and stayed there. But, for some gosh-darn reason, they seem to feel the need to try to bring their "spirituality" into the material realm. They, it seems, are not happy being "spiritual." They gotta try, by very materialist means, to make us all crazy.

Peace, and Win Powerball!!

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

I'm a 2. Of course I can't rule such things out, that'd put the onus on me to show that they're impossible, and frankly I'd like to use as little of my precious time as possible contemplating the non-essential. If these things are indeed truly inverifiable, that means that they're entirely irrelevant.

That said;

Is there a Atheist code like the Furcode or something I could just apend it to my sig, then the theists would no what type of ebul skwryl yiffer they are talking to.

This intrigues me, what does it mean?

 

[PixyMisa]

You're better off not knowing what "ebul skwryl yiffer" means.

But what Furi is referring to is things like geekcode, a string of letters and symbols that denote your beliefs/preferences/knowledge in some field.

So we could have:

At = atheist. At- = weak atheist. At+ = strong atheist. At++ = evangelical atheist. At+++ = militant atheist.
T = theist. T- = deist. T+ = devout theist. T++ = evangelical theist. T+++ = fundamentalist fruitcake. Tdis = discordian. Tfsm = Pastafarian. Tfsm++ = I make my own pasta. Tfsm-- = I don't believe in it at all, but it annoys my Tbap+++ neighbours.
Ag = agnostic. You can be an AgAt or an AgT.
Ev = evilutionist.

F = formerly. Fc = formerly Christian.
C = cultural. Cj = culturally Jewish.

And so on. So I could be an At Tdis-- Tfsm-- Fc+ Cj- Ev++

 

[ThatSoundAgain]

Thank you, Misa. I like the code idea.

I do know the meaning of "Yiffer", and "Skwryl" I can hazard a guess. As for "Ebul", is it a distortion of "evil"? Googling the term with any of the other only yields this thread.

 

[Tricky]

You're better off not knowing what "ebul skwryl yiffer" means.

But what Furi is referring to is things like geekcode, a string of letters and symbols that denote your beliefs/preferences/knowledge in some field.

So we could have:

At = atheist. At- = weak atheist. At+ = strong atheist. At++ = evangelical atheist. At+++ = militant atheist.
T = theist. T- = deist. T+ = devout theist. T++ = evangelical theist. T+++ = fundamentalist fruitcake. Tdis = discordian. Tfsm = Pastafarian. Tfsm++ = I make my own pasta. Tfsm-- = I don't believe in it at all, but it annoys my Tbap+++ neighbours.
Ag = agnostic. You can be an AgAt or an AgT.
Ev = evilutionist.

F = formerly. Fc = formerly Christian.
C = cultural. Cj = culturally Jewish.

And so on. So I could be an At Tdis-- Tfsm-- Fc+ Cj- Ev++

Too much work. It's easier to say what you mean than trying to learn all the abbreviations. And really, the abbreviations are but an artifact of bygone days when you paid for space in the newspaper by the word. We have plenty of bandwidth now.

And I'm really glad I'm not on the dating scene any more. I'd be terrified of winding up with a Solipsistic Whiny Fruitcake.

 

[rocketdodger]

I am an atheist materialist who believes non physically verifiable entities are something that we can't, by definition, know anything about including whether or not it is possible for them to exist.

And by "we" I am including those who claim they do.

Seismosaurus you should have included this option, because it really is at the heart of good materialism.

Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.

You might call that "impossible" but it is clearly a different kind of "impossible" than "can be demonstrated impossible using logic, etc," so I don't even like to use the same term.

 

[hammegk]

Seismosaurus you should have included this option, because it really is at the heart of good materialism.

ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.

Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.

The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.

You might call that "impossible" but it is clearly a different kind of "impossible" than "can be demonstrated impossible using logic, etc," so I don't even like to use the same term.

Quibble, dance, dodge.

 

[rocketdodger]

ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.

No, it does not. Stop lying.

The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.

So what?

The consideration of the potential existence of such entities is. What good does it do to say "we can't say anything at all about X, but it may or may not exist?"

 

[bruto]

The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.

Perhaps not, but their relevance does.

 

[hammegk]

No, it does not.

So you may assert. As always, everyone can make up their own minds as to which viewpoint is correct.

Stop lying.

I'm not. I fully believe what I say. Chill out.

Perhaps not, but their relevance does.

And indeed that is the question. If you choose to believe god and freewill have 0% relevance, you should have no trouble with your next choice; i.e. they don't exist. At that point, welcome to Materialism.

The concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria remains dualist.

 

[Stitch]

Even if it proves him wrong about something?

Let's be honest, that isn't too hard.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.

But they are still either possible or they're not, right? I mean, it's not like "possible", "not possible" and "inconceivable!" are three different things.

Let's be honest, that isn't too hard.

Well... I've only really "discovered" plumjam on the thread that inspired this one, so I won't comment on that.

 

[tsg]

ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.

You're going to have to be more specific what you mean by "dualism".

 

[rocketdodger]

But they are still either possible or they're not, right? I mean, it's not like "possible", "not possible" and "inconceivable!" are three different things.

I think it is. You can't prove something to be possible or impossible unless you can have knowledge of it.

I mean, maybe you are right, because saying "non-physically verifiable entity" is something, and we can certainly think such a thing is impossible.

My point, though, and I think this is what tsg was saying too, is that "non-physically verifiable entity" is merely a term we give to something that we can't know anything about, and the real thing the term stands for (which we can't even call a thing, or anything at all for that matter) can't be judged possible or impossible.

 

[tsg]

I think it is. You can't prove something to be possible or impossible unless you can have knowledge of it.

I mean, maybe you are right, because saying "non-physically verifiable entity" is something, and we can certainly think such a thing is impossible.

My point, though, and I think this is what tsg was saying too, is that "non-physically verifiable entity" is merely a term we give to something that we can't know anything about, and the real thing the term stands for (which we can't even call a thing, or anything at all for that matter) can't be judged possible or impossible.

To further clarify, yes, they are either possible or impossible, but we can't know which it is. Not knowing that it is impossible is not the same as knowing it is possible.

 

[Nick227]

To be serious, my view of life certainly does nothing to rule out the possibility of gods, souls, demons, etc. And most every atheist I have talked to (some hundreds if not thousands by now I would think) certainly never expressed that viewpoint. So I was curious, and thought I would see if plumjam's view actually does represent the people on this forum.

Could I ask, do you consider a thought to be a physically verifiable entity? You can monitor brainwaves but I'm not sure about individual thoughts.

Nick

 

[AkuManiMani]

-What is "material" and what does it consist of?

-In light of your answer to the above question, what does it mean to be a "materialist"?