Misrepresentation of atheism with respect to materialism

[watsup]

It doesn't matter if other posters here don't care about Marx (though this is not an actual fact, as you would know if you'd read all the posts). It only matters that he claimed his principles were based on science and many later philosophers drank his Kool-Aid.

Expand. Which philosophers “drank his Kool-aid” and in what way?

 

[devildavid]

I referenced "essence" because it's a traditional defense of all structurally similar beliefs, not because I pulled it out of my ass.

There is no atheism without atheists, and atheists are defined by what they do, not what the dictionary says about them.

I don't care if you do or do not "take seriously" the works of esteemed philosophers. I'm pointing out that many philosophers of different beliefs are structurally similar, and that this is part of an ongoing intellectual discourse.

You and your fellow travelers have misconstrued my role in this thread. I'm not going to propose examples of essence based philosophy like targets in a shooting gallery, so that you can shoot them down with your superficial repetitions. I don't care anything about persuading any of you, because you've chosen your belief system and have tried to falsify other belief systems to support your beliefs. I only care about shooting down YOUR bad definitions, because the thread originated with the OP falsely claiming that my correlation of atheism and materialism was incorrect. None of you have shown this yet.

There are atheism and theism definitions prior to labeling a person. Atheism and theism describe lack of belief and belief that any individual may claim to not hold or hold in regard to gods and only gods. We are talking about the idea concerning beliefs in gods, not about what those who you identify as such prefer for breakfast or what entertainment they consume. Beliefs are not what you do, they are states of mind. Can you tell an atheist by the color shirt that they choose to wear or by what sports team they profess to follow?

You present claims of essence based philosophy but no examples of them. Yet all you look at for atheism are people who identify as atheist in order to define what atheism is. So what is so difficult in presenting the names of philosopers who identify as essence based philosophers or at the very least then names of these essence based philosophies?

 

[Galactic Spin]

"Essence based philosophy"

Meaningless gibberish. This is just more code for "a philosophy where anything can be true and nothing can be rendered false."

In other words, the opposite of philosophy. The opposite of any space based on reason or evidence.

 

[watsup]

I'm not going to propose examples of essence based philosophy like targets in a shooting gallery, so that you can shoot them down with your superficial repetitions.

Of course you’re not. Instead, you are going to spend your time denigrating atheism with your philosophy-based gibberish. You are just like DrewPaul—he makes a claim of a “Creator”, but refuses to discuss where this imaginary entity could have come from. What are you atheist critics so afraid of?

 

[watsup]

Can you define "existence," without recourse to what particular philosophers have written about it? And I'm not talking about a dictionary definition.

Like 99.99999% of humans on this planet, I live life without resorting to an active “philosophical” basis. Now to answer your question, existence means “are”. We “are” and so we must try to live life in the best and most appropriate manner, and to atheists, that means without resort to a claim of an overarching imaginary entity, most often known as “God”.

 

[watsup]

Again, in case you don't read my post to devildavid, I don't care about persuading any of you, only about exposing your bad logic.

Speaking of bad logic, there is literally no “good logic” that can lead to proof, or even evidence, of the actual existence of an imaginary entity most often known as “God”. And if you want to see some truly TERRIBLE “logic”, try perusing some of DrewPaul’s ridiculous claims..

 

[watsup]

If science shouldn't insert itself into "feelings," then the scientists mentioned in the study are wrong to claim that earlier studies about happiness are imprecise, because all studies would be similarly imprecise. But I bet that's not why the cited scientists brought up earlier studies.

So you take one example and generalize it. What is your ultimate conclusion here?

 

[watsup]

It's still not an ad hom when it's directed against your philosophical or political views.

It is when it becomes personalized against the chatter, and my examples were of those times. I noticed almost immediately upon coming to this forum three years ago that the believers/atheists ALL had this great need to resort to ad hom and strawmanning quite regularly, and it hasn’t changed with newer participants such as yourself and DrewPaul. I state it over and over because it’s true: doing so shows a weakness on the part of those doing the ad hom because they can’t seem to allow their claims to rest on themselves. It basically means nothing to those on the receiving end because they know that it’s just strawmanning and lies.

 

[watsup]

were entirely lame and pointless.

You know yourself well......

 

[soylentgreen]

You still haven't cited discourse from someone who claims to be a scientific theist, so no, your claim remains unverified.

And once again oit needs to be explained to you that there is no such thing as a scientific theist that is just you not knowing you created an oxymoron.

There may well be discriminating examples of "soft sciences" (your word) that can be profitably used. Marx was not such an example.

Dialetics deals with social structures which is a social science also known as the soft sciences.

What fake science have I cited?

Yeah, and your claim is still unverified.

I said "Depends on whether you want to use fake science". Not that you diod. Do not try and create problems that do not exist.

I didn't say that Bataille wasn't serious about his formulation of base materialism. I said he specifically used the phrase "worship of dead matter" to satirize monistic materialists, with whom you have agreed he did not like. He guessed that most materialists then would not like that characterization, just as no atheist-materialist here liked it.

I disagree. My saying theists worship a fake god is no more a satire than bataille saying the worship of dead matter. he merely uses the word worship because without anty evidence or facts to back a god worship is all iot can be. And his point is that there are no facts or evidence to back the idea of everything is made of matter. It is his main point and you disregard it as a mere joke.

Just your interpretation of motive.

Of course it . And it makes far more sense than just believing in a fake god for no reason.

I don't know why you're doubling down on your misunderstanding. It's no great deal that you hadn't heard the slang phrase "bad rap" before, and I didn't even denigrate you for not having heard the phrase.

It is like you referring to worship of dead matter as a joke. Shows a lack of comprehension.

The proletariat absolutely did not rise in the sense Marx connoted.

No, of course not. But then marx never actually said we would go straight from a monarchist system to a communist. That is just what is said by those who are the clueless about what marx actually said .
Another misinterpretation of our exchange.

I continue to argue that philosophy's job, even when focused only on material existence, should not be based only upon science's findings, because there are many things in culture that science is inadequate to assess.

Sciences purpose is to give an explanation of how things work. Philosophy is an attempt to explain why thing work. It is up to science to prove that a materialist world is actual reality. It is up to philosophy to discover why the world is materialist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Name some “essence based philosophies” that atheism is “against”.

Madlyn Murray O'Hair condemned every religion in history, so that's pretty much everything.

I can't pinpoint a period in history or a place in the universe where religion has actually helped the welfare of man.

And she also condemned any philosophy that did not reject what she called "the god camp."

The agnostic is gutless and prefers to keep one safe foot in the god camp.

 

[Ouroboros]

Expand. Which philosophers “drank his Kool-aid” and in what way?

More sealioning from you, but the list includes Adorno and Horkheimer, Foucault, Louis Althusser, Barthes, and Frederic Jameson.

They're not all identical, so asking "in what way" is you being disingenuous. But they all favor Marx's attempt to cast all history and culture into his limited (and atheist) schema.

 

[Ouroboros]

There are atheism and theism definitions prior to labeling a person. Atheism and theism describe lack of belief and belief that any individual may claim to not hold or hold in regard to gods and only gods. We are talking about the idea concerning beliefs in gods, not about what those who you identify as such prefer for breakfast or what entertainment they consume. Beliefs are not what you do, they are states of mind. Can you tell an atheist by the color shirt that they choose to wear or by what sports team they profess to follow?

Though there can be a gap between an individual's theory and practice, both can be indicative of beliefs, though what an individual *does* typically defines what he believes. If Person A passionately believes in atheism but never does anything to communicate his "state of mind" to anyone else, then his belief exists only in theory, not in practice, We can't know people by their inner states of mind; only by what they do and say.

You present claims of essence based philosophy but no examples of them. Yet all you look at for atheism are people who identify as atheist in order to define what atheism is. So what is so difficult in presenting the names of philosopers who identify as essence based philosophers or at the very least then names of these essence based philosophies?

The above is totally untrue since I cited both C.S. Lewis, best known for his traditional Christianity, and David Bohm, who theorized an implicate order beneath the explicate order that atheist-materialists consider the sole aspect of existence. You chose not to engage with those specific examples, so why ask for more, given that you won't engage with their beliefs either?

 

[Ouroboros]

"Essence based philosophy"

Meaningless gibberish. This is just more code for "a philosophy where anything can be true and nothing can be rendered false."

In other words, the opposite of philosophy. The opposite of any space based on reason or evidence.

Ho hum. Let's start with Plato, since everyone knows that he believed in "Forms" which the phenomenal world mirrored.

Show how Plato can be read to show that "anything can be true." I'll be waiting to laugh at you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course you’re not. Instead, you are going to spend your time denigrating atheism with your philosophy-based gibberish. You are just like DrewPaul—he makes a claim of a “Creator”, but refuses to discuss where this imaginary entity could have come from. What are you atheist critics so afraid of?

To know the meaningless rhetoric of atheists has nothing to do with being afraid of it. Same basic question to you as to Mister Spin: is Plato "gibberish" because he theorizes an existence outside phenomenal reality? (You'll probably say yes, without being able to understand anything Plato said.)

 

[Ouroboros]

Like 99.99999% of humans on this planet, I live life without resorting to an active “philosophical” basis. Now to answer your question, existence means “are”. We “are” and so we must try to live life in the best and most appropriate manner, and to atheists, that means without resort to a claim of an overarching imaginary entity, most often known as “God”.

So you're saying that anything outside your immediate existence threatens you.

 

[Ouroboros]

Speaking of bad logic, there is literally no “good logic” that can lead to proof, or even evidence, of the actual existence of an imaginary entity most often known as “God”. And if you want to see some truly TERRIBLE “logic”, try perusing some of DrewPaul’s ridiculous claims..

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. The fallacy of atheism remains its conviction that any testimony contradicting the materialism underlying that belief-system must be the product of deception or illusion.

Do I have to believe that Paul experienced the power of God on the road to Damascus? No, nor must I believe any single claim of revelation. But all such claims together constitute testimony of a human experience that atheism denies for convenience.

 

[Ouroboros]

So you take one example and generalize it. What is your ultimate conclusion here?

Science is not the final authority. It's good about what it's good at, but that's it.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is when it becomes personalized against the chatter, and my examples were of those times. I noticed almost immediately upon coming to this forum three years ago that the believers/atheists ALL had this great need to resort to ad hom and strawmanning quite regularly, and it hasn’t changed with newer participants such as yourself and DrewPaul. I state it over and over because it’s true: doing so shows a weakness on the part of those doing the ad hom because they can’t seem to allow their claims to rest on themselves. It basically means nothing to those on the receiving end because they know that it’s just strawmanning and lies.

You resorted to the ad hom accusation because you couldn't deal with having your beliefs ridiculed after you have taken the same attitude toward those you disagree with. I repeat that your characterization of the Lot story as "perversion" means that you have no room to criticize anyone else for strawmanning.

 

[Ouroboros]

You know yourself well......

I know you are, but what am I?

 

[Ouroboros]

And once again oit needs to be explained to you that there is no such thing as a scientific theist that is just you not knowing you created an oxymoron.

You're still the one who brought up scientific theism and couldn't give a pertinent example.

Dialetics deals with social structures which is a social science also known as the soft sciences.

Marxist dialectic decides its results in advance and therefore does not qualify as science.

I said "Depends on whether you want to use fake science". Not that you diod. Do not try and create problems that do not exist.

If it wasn't an accusation of something I've said, then it's a meaningless rejoinder.

I disagree. My saying theists worship a fake god is no more a satire than bataille saying the worship of dead matter. he merely uses the word worship because without anty evidence or facts to back a god worship is all iot can be. And his point is that there are no facts or evidence to back the idea of everything is made of matter. It is his main point and you disregard it as a mere joke.

You never labeled theism as a "satire" and of course it's not one. Bataille realized that mainstream materialism advocated the idea that "everything is inert matter" and he satirized that belief system by calling it "the worship of dead matter."

Of course it . And it makes far more sense than just believing in a fake god for no reason.

It makes sense to you because that's your belief system.

It is like you referring to worship of dead matter as a joke. Shows a lack of comprehension.

"Satire" is not the same as "a joke." But I'll bet you really know this and are just pretending ignorance.

No, of course not. But then marx never actually said we would go straight from a monarchist system to a communist. That is just what is said by those who are the clueless about what marx actually said .
Another misinterpretation of our exchange.

Here's one thing KM wrote about his fantasy of proletariat "emancipation:"

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are vanishing gradually from day to day, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

None of this happened, so his dialectic was flawed from the start.

Sciences purpose is to give an explanation of how things work. Philosophy is an attempt to explain why thing work. It is up to science to prove that a materialist world is actual reality. It is up to philosophy to discover why the world is materialist.

None of that responds to my assertion that "there are many things in culture that science is inadequate to assess."

 

[watsup]

More sealioning from you, but the list includes Adorno and Horkheimer, Foucault, Louis Althusser, Barthes, and Frederic Jameson.

They're not all identical, so asking "in what way" is you being disingenuous. But they all favor Marx's attempt to cast all history and culture into his limited (and atheist) schema.

Thank you for that list, but nobod really cares about your obsession with Marx. Atheists certainly don’t sit around mulling about him.

 

[watsup]

To know the meaningless rhetoric of atheists has nothing to do with being afraid of it. Same basic question to you as to Mister Spin: is Plato "gibberish" because he theorizes an existence outside phenomenal reality? (You'll probably say yes, without being able to understand anything Plato said.)

And to claim “meaningless rhetoric” is yet another generalized ad hom towards atheists which once again proves my point regarding the believers/theists who can’t seem to make an argument without it. I will remind you yet again that it is a weakness on YOUR part and that’s your strawmanning of lies and insults about atheists bothers us not at all.

 

[watsup]

So you're saying that anything outside your immediate existence threatens you.

So you’re once again strawmanning me with a claim that I didn’t make? Thank you for proving my claims about you over and over.

 

[watsup]

Anecdotal evidence is still evidence. The fallacy of atheism remains its conviction that any testimony contradicting the materialism underlying that belief-system must be the product of deception or illusion.

Do I have to believe that Paul experienced the power of God on the road to Damascus? No, nor must I believe any single claim of revelation. But all such claims together constitute testimony of a human experience that atheism denies for convenience.

I see that you still have not perused the claims of DrewPaul. His “evidence” is not even close to anecdotal. It’s just a bunch of total sophist garbage. And no, we don’t accept “anecdotal” evidence. There is a chatter in another thread claiming to have “seen God”. And yes, hallucinations come directly from the brain, not from some outside source. There is no scientific evidence to the contrary.