Misrepresentation of atheism with respect to materialism

[Galactic Spin]

"You guys are stupid materialists!! Hahahahahaha! I believe a bunch of magical stuff you can never prove false and that I can never prove true!!"

I'm not sure this Ouroborous guy understands that the joke is on him.

 

[watsup]

It's never been anything else.

Atheism does not require philosophy. It only requires (lack of) evidence. It’s just that simple.

 

[watsup]

Atheism opposes everything with any associations of essence or supernatural entities,

Atheism remains a rejection of all forms of essence-based belief due to an excessive belief in quantifiable scientific evidence.

We see what you are doing here. It’s quite transparent. You knew that trying to defend the word “faith” was a non-starter, so you substitute an equally nebulous word, namely “essence”. And then you give yourself sole right to “correctly” define it. It’s just more chat tricks on your part, the continued effort towards fuzziness because you can’t actually think of a solid way to defend said faith or to defame atheism.

 

[Rich2018]

Ouroboros hijacked a previous thread of mine with the following input that misrepresented atheism with a false definition.


He also gave a made-up and inaccurate “definition” of materialism, per se:



So let’s take a little closer look at the link between “materialism” and atheism, First, let’s start with a mainstream definition:
Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

Definition of MATERIALISM

a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Using that definition, I see nothing wrong with being a “materialist”, but the truth is that the great majority of atheists simply acknowledge that definition as a part of atheism rather than spending time calling themselves materialists. There would be no point since it’s already a part of atheism.

But Ouroboros is not the first “believer” to try to hit atheists over the head with that term. Way back when, a fella named Sherlock also tried to discredit atheists by calling them materialists and then trying to link that term with “evil”. So let’s have a discussion about this to see if we can clear up and rebut the misrepresentations by Ouroboros as regards atheists and materialism.

Atheists don't have a belief system, in relation to any divinity or religion.

 

[Rich2018]

Atheism does not require philosophy. It only requires (lack of) evidence. It’s just that simple.

Specifically, lack of convincing evidence.

 

[Rich2018]

I gave an ad hoc definition of atheism, whose purpose was to undermine the shallow philosophy of your position.

A definition of atheism is simple:
An atheist is not convinced, by any claims, that any god exists.

 

[devildavid]

Atheism remains a rejection of all forms of essence-based belief due to an excessive belief in quantifiable scientific evidence.

That is only your false impression of a complex subject.


I didn't posit any overarching "authority." In fact, I said the opposite, stating that there are structural likenesses between persons of very different essence-based philosophy (that would be Lewis and Bohm, since you forgot), just as there are structural likenesses between persons professing different specific positions.

Atheism only requires not believing in gods. You introduce the term essence as if it is the same as gods. It is not. You don’t even seem to have a definition of essence, so it is not possible to label a belief essence based.

Also, there are no essence based philosophies. Since you cannot even define the term essence, your claim that anything is essence based is meaningless. Philosophies don’t have structures, and so don’t have structural likenesses.

 

[devildavid]

A definition of atheism is simple:
An atheist is not convinced, by any claims, that any god exists.

It is even simpler than that and has nothing to do with evidence or lack thereof. An atheist doesn’t believe in gods. It can be arrived at by any means, and doesn’t require comparison to anyone’s claims or anything to do with evidence. An atheist decides not to believe, while a theist decides to believe, in the human created concept of gods. No need for evidence either way.

 

[devildavid]

Not in the slightest. The ability to philosophize stems from the ability to make abstractions from perceived evidence, whether the evidence suggests material or non-material causes.

I never said anything about ignoring empirical facts, but rather about putting them in perspective rather than allowing scientific method to define one's philosophy. Since most empirical philosophers are not performing experiments themselves, this means that they are dependent upon the findings of scientists, and on choosing some scientists' abstractions over those of others.

Scientists don’t come up with abstractions. Science is not about individual scientists or what they conclude, it is about a body of knowledge that stands up to constant testing and verification and which is also always open to falsification. The knowledge gained by science stands on its own, and is not dependent upon individual scientists.

Science cannot by its very nature suggest such a thing as non material causes, because such things are non falsifiable.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I never said anything about ignoring empirical facts, but rather about putting them in perspective rather than allowing scientific method to define one's philosophy.

It's kind of hard to "define" anything at all, without empirical facts.

Ask 10,000 people what a fairy is, in 50 words or less. You will get 10,000 widely varying answers.

Without any deference to empirical facts, or determinism, or physical laws, what "defines" your philosophy -- distinguishes it from all others -- is that truth is completely undefined, and anything goes. That isn't philosophy. That's just utter nonsense. It might be the polar opposite of philosophy.

In that space, I can say it is true that rainbow unicorns make Rolex watches in the 7th dimension. And my statement will NEVER be any more or less true -- by cases or degree -- than any statement you make. Any at all. The same would then go for ANY statement I made.

So you would be coloring waaaaaaay outside the lines to call this (your?) 'unphilosophy' a "philosophy". It would be more an abandonment entirely of philosophy.

 

[Ouroboros]

More psychological projection.

Pay ten bucks to the estate of Carl Jung for your bad use of his projection concept.

 

[Ouroboros]

It has zero characteristics of a philosophy. It is simply a disbelief. Disbeliefs are not philosophies, no matter the subject of the disbelief. Beliefs however, can become philosophies. But theism is also decidedly not a philosophy.

Particular belief systems within the respective spheres of religion and anti-religion have their particular philosophical quirks. But the spheres are philosophical in nature and deserve the general term of philosophy because they all sprang from processes of intellectual/abstract discourse, not from simple declarations of "I believe" vs. "I don't believe."

 

[Ouroboros]

English, please.

You do realize that ragging on your opponent's minor typing errors opens you up to the same treatment?

It's also a pusillanimous response because you know what was communicated and the phony confusion shows that you have no answer.

Pathetic and whiny strawman.

Like I said, this is all expected.

I didn't make up your attacks on imagination. They're typical of a host of proselytizing atheists.

 

[Ouroboros]

Most fictional characters have philosophies? No, most fictional characters don’t have philosophies and philosophy is not something derived from people who philosophize because anyone can philosophize if they so choose.

I said "of the world," not "of literature," so your deflection to the sphere of literature is untenable. Shakespeare made up Horatio based on the common traits of certain real people he'd observed, and so "Horatios of the world" obviously connotes real people who think like Horatio, who are entirely able to profess their own philosophies without being formal philosophers.

 

[Ouroboros]

In other words you are dependent of a pseudo science to hold your position.

There''s no mention of any "pseudo science" in the section you quoted.

Nothing in that statement calls for faith. marx simply pointed out that there are more than one way of predicting future events from past happenings. Such debates between causal and association.

He wants his adherents to "have faith" (informal but accurate connotation) in the notion that he made a science-based interpretation when he made nothing of the kind.

Which is still just you saying you do not agree .

Nope, just establishing that your position is not, in a structural sense, unique to you, any more than mine is to me.

Why would i?

Because you brought up the topic of scientific theists.

It is very well supported. Just that you choose not to accept it because it interferes with your crap theory that all atheists believe in dead matter.

Bataille's formulation was valid for satire, but Marx's prognostication of a rise of the proletariat was not valid as either theory or practical history.

Not necessary, as apposed to not needed. A bad rap? This is philosophy mot cheap music. Truth is a value not a belief.

In what context do you consider "necessary" different from "needed?"

"Bad rap" is not a reference to music. It's a slang metaphor that predates rap music.

The very fact that you think marx was trying to create a paradise is all I need to understand how clueless you are about his theories. The heirarchy he grew up with was oppressive. Europe was having violent revoltions all over the place because it was that bad.
And again all you do here is what anyone ignorant of marx does. Think up really dumb ways to do socialism and then congratulate themselves for proving marx ideas dumb.

Again, the rise of the proletariat was supposed to happen in real history based on Marx's extrapolations, and to lead to a more desirable society. He based those extrapolations on a false expectation that the movement from aristocracy to bourgeoisie would lead to an even looser social constellation.

There is no such thing as a scientific theist. the two words are an oxymoron.

I'm still not the person who originally used the oxymoron. Since you are, you might want to quit calling attention to your having done so.

Material analysis is the only acceptable method as far as science is concerned. Not so much for philosophy.

That's what I have repeatedly said, that science is not sufficient to define philosophy. Where are you going with this?

 

[Ouroboros]

What else should matter to science? Religious myths and fables?

I've said before that I'm okay with science confining itself to physical things. That doesn't mean one can't critique scientists who adopt a tunnel visioned view regarding what can be proven with the tools of science. I cited as an example of tunnel vision a study in which the proponents tried to claim one could not "prove" that activities like exercise and meditation "really" made individuals happier, at least temporarily. This is an arena where anecdotes matter more than empirical proof, because empirical science is inadequate to analyze any broad span of feelings.

Any philosophy, whether religious or anti-religious, needs (unlike science) to have a credible understanding of the nature of religious myths and of fables (which are not the same thing). And I also gave an example of poor understanding, when I mentioned the stupidity of Ayn Rand's claim that all shamanism evolved from epilepsy.

 

[Ouroboros]

Except that those “abstractions” are supported by actual evidence, so unlike philosophy where “abstractions” flutter around like a leaf in the wind.

This assertion is disproved by the dozens of philosophers who built their conceptual castles on the dissolving sands of Marx, who offered no evidence for his supposedly scientific conclusions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Another clear lie. I always included multiple examples when pointing out your unfortunate tendency for petty insult towards the opposing chatters, and not just me. You keep trying to “intellectualize” the discussion, but the sad fact is that you are really not that much different from, say, a Tosca. While you may “intellectualize” and she prefers to use emojis, you both still rely on a steady stream of strawmanning, ad hom, apologism, and outright lies in order to try to justify your bias confirmation towards fables and myth. Post all the double-talk and definition misrepresentations that you wish, it still doesn’t come close to showing that atheism is anything but a correct interpretation of available evidence.

What you deemed "petty insult" was just denigration of your views, not you, since I don't know you, only your views.

A second reference to a poster I don't know means no more than the first such reference.

If I had used apologism, which is your word for being too intellectual, it would be superior to your deceptive use of false characterizations. Your entire "Lot's story is perversion" is the biggest straw man ever.

 

[Ouroboros]

Scientists don’t come up with abstractions. Science is not about individual scientists or what they conclude, it is about a body of knowledge that stands up to constant testing and verification and which is also always open to falsification. The knowledge gained by science stands on its own, and is not dependent upon individual scientists.

Science cannot by its very nature suggest such a thing as non material causes, because such things are non falsifiable.

Data by itself means nothing, which is why scientists use abstractions to describe the data. Richard Dawkins cannot literally point to a "selfish gene." The concept of a selfish gene is an abstraction that represents all of the data that he believes support his evolutionary schema, an abstraction that seeks to explain how genes work in a general sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's kind of hard to "define" anything at all, without empirical facts.

Absolutely untrue. Facts can also be anecdotal but not empirical, as per the statement, "exercise makes me feel happy." This defines the subject's relationship to an activity, and it possesses truth value even if no scientist can prove the subject's correlation by charting brain activity or the like.

Ask 10,000 people what a fairy is, in 50 words or less. You will get 10,000 widely varying answers.

Nope, Jung showed that most beliefs in meta-empirical entities have structural similarities even if they possess merely local deviations about, say, the habits of Irish fairies versus Persian fairies.

Without any deference to empirical facts, or determinism, or physical laws, what "defines" your philosophy -- distinguishes it from all others -- is that truth is completely undefined, and anything goes. That isn't philosophy. That's just utter nonsense. It might be the polar opposite of philosophy.

Philosophy based exclusively on empirical facts is inadequate philosophy because it excludes the nature of humanity. which philosophy is supposed to address.

In that space, I can say it is true that rainbow unicorns make Rolex watches in the 7th dimension. And my statement will NEVER be any more or less true -- by cases or degree -- than any statement you make. Any at all. The same would then go for ANY statement I made.

This assumes that non-empirical statements are identical with nonsense, which is just more special pleading, because it's not based in the way actual people use non-empirical statements. The fact that you equate my positive view of non-empirical statements with gibberish is just your self-aggrandizing falsehood.

So you would be coloring waaaaaaay outside the lines to call this (your?) 'unphilosophy' a "philosophy". It would be more an abandonment entirely of philosophy.

All your statements show that you have zero understanding of what a philosophy is.

 

[Ouroboros]

"You guys are stupid materialists!! Hahahahahaha! I believe a bunch of magical stuff you can never prove false and that I can never prove true!!"

I'm not sure this Ouroborous guy understands that the joke is on him.

Another post that shows your total inability to comprehend the topic.

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheism does not require philosophy. It only requires (lack of) evidence. It’s just that simple.

Atheists form their philosophy out of their conviction in the dependability of material evidence, i.e., materialism, which is the subject of this thread, which you have failed to notice.

 

[Ouroboros]

We see what you are doing here. It’s quite transparent. You knew that trying to defend the word “faith” was a non-starter, so you substitute an equally nebulous word, namely “essence”. And then you give yourself sole right to “correctly” define it. It’s just more chat tricks on your part, the continued effort towards fuzziness because you can’t actually think of a solid way to defend said faith or to defame atheism.

Another example of your sad distortion. I have not forsworn the use-value of "faith" where it applies, but it does not apply to all of the intellectual discourse that atheists reject due to their over-dependence on material evidence.

I have defined "essence" as much as it can be defined, in structural terms. My reading is not something I made up by myself, but is based in the many forms of intellectual discourse with which you clearly are not familiar. "Essence" is a structural parallel to the atheist-materialists' conviction that only material evidence, which parallels the concept of "existence," is significant.

 

[Ouroboros]

A definition of atheism is simple:
An atheist is not convinced, by any claims, that any god exists.

Because he can only be convinced by material evidence.

Simple definitions tend toward over simplicity.

 

[Ouroboros]

Atheism only requires not believing in gods. You introduce the term essence as if it is the same as gods. It is not. You don’t even seem to have a definition of essence, so it is not possible to label a belief essence based.

Also, there are no essence based philosophies. Since you cannot even define the term essence, your claim that anything is essence based is meaningless. Philosophies don’t have structures, and so don’t have structural likenesses.

I didn't introduce "essence," it's part of the ongoing intellectual discourse that you choose to ignore in order to deflect from the fact that atheists oppose all non-empirical assertions, not just gods. Your atheism definition was wrong the first time and it remains wrong.

It's also absurd to claim that there are no essence based philosophies, even going by your restricted use of the term philosophy. I have given such parallel structural examples as Lewis and Bohm, who are structurally similar in positing an order outside the sphere of material existence. You ignore such examples because you choose to deflect from the history of intellectual discourse, because you put all your faith in your dictionary-style definitions. The attempt to avoid the history of discourse is fundamentally far more dishonest than my alleged "failure" to define essence.