Why aren't all atheists materialists?

[Sledge]

I don't care what you want, Christian. You laid down a challenge and I'm meeting it. Explain to me how the fact I haven't seen a god is a reason I shouldn't believe in the telepathy I've seen.

 

[Christian]

I don't care what you want, Christian. You laid down a challenge and I'm meeting it. Explain to me how the fact I haven't seen a god is a reason I shouldn't believe in the telepathy I've seen.

The challenge is null when someone is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Sledge]

And what is that supposed to mean?

 

[Agatha]

Are you accusing Sledge of intellectual dishonesty? What makes you so certain that s/he hasn't seen something that absolutely convinces him/her that telepathy is as real as my empty wine glass?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was absolutely convinced that the Cottingley fairies were real. He was wrong, but he would have defended his stance of belief against any argument.

 

[Sun Countess]

I remember when The Amityville Horror came out, and I spent a year or so immersing myself in ghost stories. I was never a hard-core believer, but I certainly entertained the thought that ghosts were real, and they visited living people.

Of course, Christian doesn't understand that not all atheists come to atheism in the same way, and they don't come to other beliefs or disbeliefs in the same way. If that makes atheists logically inconsistent, I guess he might have to rethink his theory that atheists are somehow different from other people. Logical inconsistency seems to be the norm among people of all stripes. I mean, shouldn't theists believe in all gods if they believe in one god? Where's their logical consistency?

 

[Christian]

And what is that supposed to mean?

Why do I have to do all the heavy lifting? My statement is very clear.

 

[Christian]

Are you accusing Sledge of intellectual dishonesty? What makes you so certain that s/he hasn't seen something that absolutely convinces him/her that telepathy is as real as my empty wine glass?

Again, why do I have to do all the heavy lifting here. That's not all intellectual dishonesty can be.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was absolutely convinced that the Cottingley fairies were real. He was wrong, but he would have defended his stance of belief against any argument.

We're asking for that here. So far it's been dodge ball.

 

[Christian]

Of course, Christian doesn't understand that not all atheists come to atheism in the same way, and they don't come to other beliefs or disbeliefs in the same way.

So you have to make me destroy straw men left and right. It's getting frustrating. Here:

I believe and understand that not all atheists come to atheism in the same way, and they don't come to other beliefs or disbeliefs in the same way.

If that makes atheists logically inconsistent, I guess he might have to rethink his theory that atheists are somehow different from other people.

And another straw man to destroy:

Specific atheists can be logically inconsistent, just like anybody else

This does not mean that, on average, atheists can't be somehow different from other people.

Logical inconsistency seems to be the norm among people of all stripes. I mean, shouldn't theists believe in all gods if they believe in one god? Where's their logical consistency?

Yes, inconsistencies can be found in many individuals, as people with 70 IQ's. Still the average IQ is 100.

 

[Sledge]

We don't know what you mean, Christian. Please rephrase your statement in such a way as to remove ambiguity. Make clear who is being intellectually dishonest, and what you mean by "intellectually dishonest." You have just acknowledged that the phrase has more than one meaning, so clarify what you mean by it.

 

[Christian]

We're asking for that here. So far it's been dodge ball.

Exactly.

 

[Christian]

We don't know what you mean, Christian. Please rephrase your statement in such a way as to remove ambiguity. Make clear who is being intellectually dishonest, and what you mean by "intellectually dishonest." You have just acknowledged that the phrase has more than one meaning, so clarify what you mean by it.

Look for all the acceptions of the term and fit it accordingly. That's all.

 

[Sun Countess]

So you have to make me destroy straw men left and right. It's getting frustrating. Here:

I believe and understand that not all atheists come to atheism in the same way, and they don't come to other beliefs or disbeliefs in the same way.

How is this a strawman? Back in post #12, you explained how people became atheists:

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them, why would atheism believe any but matter exists?

It doesn't matter to you at all that not all atheists become/remain atheists because there is no evidence for deities.
Here's another direct quote from you:

Of course. The point is it should, meaning, for the same reasons a atheist doesn't believe in gods, he or she shouldn't believe in telepathy.

Yet you have no interest in hearing why atheists don't believe in gods and why those same atheists may believe in telepathy. The reasons may be logically consistent, as Sledge has been trying to show.

I didn't believe in gods, because I was taught they were fictional.

I believed in ghosts because I saw a show about them, went on to read books about encounters with ghosts, and had no reason to believe the people involved weren't telling the truth. It certainly looked real in the movie. Of course, I also believed that stage magicians had special powers that allowed them to do things that normal people couldn't, like cut women in half and put them back together again. I didn't know it was an illusion, so it was another supernatural belief I held.

And another straw man to destroy:

Specific atheists can be logically inconsistent, just like anybody else

I never said they couldn't. You never said they couldn't. You seem to be thinking it's somehow odd that atheists are logically inconsistent. I'm just asking why you think it's odd that atheists are logically inconsistent? Just about every person on the planet is going to be logically inconsistent.

This does not mean that, on average, atheists can't be somehow different from other people.

I'm just pointing out that engaging in logical inconsistencies is a trait common to atheists and theists.


My only purpose in coming into your threads and sharing these things is to help rid you of your prejudices regarding how or why atheists believe what they do. We don't all become atheists in the same way. We don't all evaluate the evidence or lack of evidence of deities in the same way or in the same timeframe. I know some atheists who never think about whether or not there's evidence of deities. Their beliefs aren't evidence-based, but are more similar to the faith-based beliefs of theists.

 

[Christian]

How is this a strawman? Back in post #12, you explained how people became atheists:

You are just reading what you want to read. Do you see the if at the beginning of the sentence? That statement includes a premise:
It is a valid syllogism:

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them

then nothing that which you can't show evidence for should be believed.

I will concede I'm wrong if you can show me how (why) my syllogism is wrong.

This is why it is a straw man.

It doesn't matter to you at all that not all atheists become/remain atheists because there is no evidence for deities.

Do you see how you create the straw man? I have never said that all atheist become /remain atheist because they see no evidence for deities. I have said that the definition of atheist is one who has explictly rejected deities (for whatever reasons).

Here's another direct quote from you:

It is another syllogism.

For the same reasons an atheist doesn't believe in gods, he or she shouldn't believe in telepathy.

Sledge wants to destroy my syllogism by introducing an element not considered: the possibility that telepathy is real. If we introduce this new element, the syllogism is destroyed. But it is not nullified because it is incorrect, it is nullified because he knows I constructed my syllogism under the underlying premise that all supernatural is ficticious. To be intellectually honest is to first falsify the underlying premise.

Yet you have no interest in hearing why atheists don't believe in gods and why those same atheists may believe in telepathy. The reasons may be logically consistent, as Sledge has been trying to show.

If you say you don't believe in any god just because, and don't believe in telepathy just because, you are being logically consistent, but you are not being rational.

I didn't believe in gods, because I was taught they were fictional.

Yes, I understand. This was not a rational position.

I believed in ghosts because I saw a show about them, went on to read books about encounters with ghosts, and had no reason to believe the people involved weren't telling the truth. It certainly looked real in the movie. Of course, I also believed that stage magicians had special powers that allowed them to do things that normal people couldn't, like cut women in half and put them back together again. I didn't know it was an illusion, so it was another supernatural belief I held.

And you were not being rational here either.

I never said they couldn't. You never said they couldn't. You seem to be thinking it's somehow odd that atheists are logically inconsistent. I'm just asking why you think it's odd that atheists are logically inconsistent? Just about every person on the planet is going to be logically inconsistent.

No, individual atheists can be irrational. I hypothesize the average atheist is not logically inconsistent or irrational.

I'm just pointing out that engaging in logical inconsistencies is a trait common to atheists and theists.

Sure, individual atheists and individual theists can be irrational, logically inconsistent. I hypothesize the average atheist is more rational and logically consistent than the average theist.

My only purpose in coming into your threads and sharing these things is to help rid you of your prejudices regarding how or why atheists believe what they do.

This is another straw man. I have no predujices regarding how or why atheists believe what they do. I have this ideas of what could be, this is called hypothesizing. The diference between the two, is that in the second you are aware that your idea can be wrong and it can only be (momentarily) true after you have tested it.

We don't all become atheists in the same way. We don't all evaluate the evidence or lack of evidence of deities in the same way or in the same timeframe. I know some atheists who never think about whether or not there's evidence of deities. Their beliefs aren't evidence-based, but are more similar to the faith-based beliefs of theists.

Absolutely.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Would that be the guy that's running around with Randi's million dollars?

I thought it was about non-materialistic things? Is the definition of materialism that makes recourse to scientific methodology still hot, or is it swapped out for something more ... intuitive?

 

[Sun Countess]

You are just reading what you want to read. Do you see the if at the beginning of the sentence? That statement includes a premise:
It is a valid syllogism:

If the reason for not believing in deities is because there is no evidence for them

then nothing that which you can't show evidence for should be believed.

If an OP starts with an incorrect premise, then the thread should be put to rest immediately.

Do you see how you create the straw man? I have never said that all atheist become /remain atheist because they see no evidence for deities. I have said that the definition of atheist is one who has explictly rejected deities (for whatever reasons).

Yes, you've insisted on this definition, in spite of repeated requests that you not do so. That's not the definition of an atheist.

For the same reasons an atheist doesn't believe in gods, he or she shouldn't believe in telepathy.

Why though? Even if an atheist has rejected deities because he or she doesn't have any evidence, that atheist can still believe in telepathy, if they've seen a convincing performance of that feat. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Sledge wants to destroy my syllogism by introducing an element not considered: the possibility that telepathy is real. If we introduce this new element, the syllogism is destroyed. But it is not nullified because it is incorrect, it is nullified because he knows I constructed my syllogism under the underlying premise that all supernatural is ficticious. To be intellectually honest is to first falsify the underlying premise.

Where did Sledge ever say that telepathy was real? He said that somebody could see telepathy happen, and believe that it was real, because they didn't have any evidence to the contrary.

If you say you don't believe in on god just because, and believe in telepathy just because, you are being logically consistent, but you are not being rational.

Huh? I hope you're not saying this in response to what I wrote. My reasons are not "just because." Somebody could not believe in deities for the same reasons they don't believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. That same person could believe in telepathy because they saw a convincing performance by a conman. Neither of those reasons is "just because."

Yes, I understand. This was not a rational position.

It's never a rational position for a child to accept the god beliefs or disbeliefs of their parents, is that what you're saying? Can you give me a rational position regarding theistic beliefs?

And you were not being rational here either.

I was a child who saw a realistic-seeming television show, and I didn't have the experience to recognize that people are prone to lying for really strange reasons. Based on my knowledge and experience at the time, I would characterize my position rational, as it was based on reason.

No, individual atheists can be irrational. I hypothesize the average atheist is not logically inconsistent or irrational.

Why would you hypothesize this? I know a whole lot of atheists, and the vast majority are logically inconsistent and irrational. I know that's anecdotal, but it's your hypothesize. Do you have a reason to hypothesize that most atheists are not logically inconsistent or irrational?

Sure, individual atheists and individual theists can be irrational, logically inconsistent. I hypothesize the average atheist is more rational and logically consistent than the average theist.

Upon what rationale are you basing this hypothesis? The giant survey that you've never conducted and have no plans on conducting? Do you have any evidence for your position?

This is another straw man. I have no predujices regarding how or why atheists believe what they do. I have this ideas of what could be, this is called hypothesizing. The diference between the two, is that in the second you are aware that your idea can be wrong and it can only be (momentarily) true after you have tested it.

I call it a prejudice because you have consistently disregarded the viewpoints of actual atheists. You think you know what makes atheists tick, but you have no clue. You have an "idea." What is the basis for your idea? Is it anecdote, is it trying to place yourself into an atheist's shoes? Because if you're thinking, "Hmmmm, I wonder what type of thought processes would turn me into an atheist....maybe it's something like (fill in the blank)," then you're going about it wrong. If you want to know, you should ask actual atheists, and listen to what they say.

 

[Christian]

If an OP starts with an incorrect premise, then the thread should be put to rest immediately.

What are you talking about. In hypothetical syllogisms you have to consider the whole construction.

Is this an incorrect premise? If people don't wake up...

Yes, you've insisted on this definition, in spite of repeated requests that you not do so. That's not the definition of an atheist.

Why not? Why should I accept implicit atheism in my definition? It is not useful to me. I have never met an implicit atheist. Implicit atheism can be a valid definition in the abstract. It serves no purpose to me in reality. All that have argued for that definition, all without exception are explicit atheists.

Why though? Even if an atheist has rejected deities because he or she doesn't have any evidence, that atheist can still believe in telepathy, if they've seen a convincing performance of that feat. The two have nothing to do with each other.

A convincing performance is not evidence for telepathy. If that were so, the million dollars would have been claimed long ago.

Where did Sledge ever say that telepathy was real? He said that somebody could see telepathy happen, and believe that it was real, because they didn't have any evidence to the contrary.

No, he said he saw it. He is either lying or what he saw is not telepathy. There is no evidence for telepathy as there is no evidence for deities. And no, a convincing performance is not evidence.

Huh? I hope you're not saying this in response to what I wrote. My reasons are not "just because." Somebody could not believe in deities for the same reasons they don't believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy. That same person could believe in telepathy because they saw a convincing performance by a conman. Neither of those reasons is "just because."

I meant "one" not "you" specifically. Yes, that would be just because, it is just because they saw a convincing performance, it is the same as just because I decided to. The same quality answer.

It's never a rational position for a child to accept the god beliefs or disbeliefs of their parents, is that what you're saying?

No, it is not rational to believe something just because someone tells you to believe.

Can you give me a rational position regarding theistic beliefs?

No.

I was a child who saw a realistic-seeming television show, and I didn't have the experience to recognize that people are prone to lying for really strange reasons. Based on my knowledge and experience at the time, I would characterize my position rational, as it was based on reason.

You are using the word wrong. Rationality is not subjective. Your position was irrational. your reasoning was irrational. It it were based on reason then you would have concluded that all was fiction.

Why would you hypothesize this?

Why not? Hypothesizing is free thinking. So long one is aware of the quality of this thinking. It is an idea of what could be or not. Lots of today's tested ideas were considered improbable before.

I know a whole lot of atheists, and the vast majority are logically inconsistent and irrational. I know that's anecdotal, but it's your hypothesize. Do you have a reason to hypothesize that most atheists are not logically inconsistent or irrational?

My experience is the opposite.

Upon what rationale are you basing this hypothesis? The giant survey that you've never conducted and have no plans on conducting? Do you have any evidence for your position?

On the rationale that human behavior can be explained throught mental processes, and brain makeup. I don't have any evidence for my hypothesis.

I call it a prejudice because you have consistently disregarded the viewpoints of actual atheists.

I have met no atheist here who claims he or she is irrational or logically inconsistent. I have met no atheist who believes this.

You think you know what makes atheists tick, but you have no clue.

I don't know what makes a particular atheist tick and have no clue, correct.

You have an "idea." What is the basis for your idea? Is it anecdote, is it trying to place yourself into an atheist's shoes? Because if you're thinking, "Hmmmm, I wonder what type of thought processes would turn me into an atheist....maybe it's something like (fill in the blank)," then you're going about it wrong. If you want to know, you should ask actual atheists, and listen to what they say.

I'm not doing either. I'm coming from the perspective that humans are predisposed to explaining things with supernatural elements. There is much evidence for this. Does not mean it is true. But, if this is true, then it is interesting to consider why other humans are resistent to this.

 

[Helen]

Why not? Why should I accept implicit atheism in my definition? It is not useful to me. I have never met an implicit atheist. Implicit atheism can be a valid definition in the abstract. It serves no purpose to me in reality. All that have argued for that definition, all without exception are explicit atheists.

I like this reality of yours, where you get to define and redefine everything and everyone to suit your purposes. I think I shall accept is as mine. So, Christian, how many implicit christians have you met?

But since it does tend to make communication even more impossible than it is in the normal reality, I think I'll stop trying. Good luck to the rest of you...

 

[Sledge]

Look for all the acceptions of the term and fit it accordingly. That's all.

This sentence is meaningless. Please, PLEASE try and post more clearly.

I presume you're suggesting I look for all possible meanings in your posts and pick the one I think you mean. Can you see why this is not a good way to communicate?

 

[linusrichard]

You miss my point, I think. To have ANY supernatural beings at all is to allow ALL supernatural beings. Unless you can think of a good reason why one group would be allowable and another not?

Then the thread could as well have been titled, "Why aren't all theists pantheists?"



I'll try to engage the question, explaining why I am an atheist and not inclined to materialism.

1. I am an atheist because I have no reason to believe in a god.
2. I experience free will. So do we all. I'm sorry, I know some people claim that they don't experience the phenomenon of making choices, but I can't believe it.
3. As far as I'm aware, there is no explanation for free will that is consistent with materialism.
4. This leads me to three possible conclusions:
-- (a) Free will is an illusion.
-- (b) There is an explanation for free will that is consistent with materialism, but we don't know enough to know what that is.
-- (c) Free will exists, but the explanation for free will is not consistent with materialism.
5. I am told that we know enough about the universe (and specifically the human brain) that, if there were a materialist explanation for free will, we would know what it is. I.e., (b) is all but eliminated.
6. I think if there's one principle we should embrace a priori it's that we should trust the evidence of our senses and our direct experience, absent some specific reason to distrust it (which reason, of course, might well come to us through our senses and direct experience).
7. I don't consider the position of materialism to be a sufficient reason to believe that my perceptions (and the perceptions of all my fellow humans) are an illusion.
8. So (a) is eliminated, and I lean toward (c), although I have not entirely eliminated (b). (c), of course, precludes materialism.
9. Also, I had a really weird experience on a Ouija board one time, that I absolutely can't explain.