Can an atheist be anything but a materialist?

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You may not fit because you were not born in a vacuum.

Care to answer the rest of the questions or are you happy to have your responses classified ‘unsubstantiated assertions’. What exactly do you mean by vacuum?

 

[nguirado]

His replies:

Re: the underlined sentence, which is the crux of your quote - I explained precisely why that is a logical fallacy, an explanation which has obviously sailed right over your head. The briefer explanation (which may be easier to understand) is simply that materialism as a philosophical position has long since passed into the category of “not even wrong”, which is why saying that someone is materialist is about on par with saying that someone is psychic or an astrologer. If an idea has no basis in reality, its internal consistency is of no consequence. Capisce?

Here’s the deal with materialism. Every time something new in the physical universe is discovered, that is added to what someone who still thinks in the childishly dualist framework of “idealism” vs. “materialism” might consider “matter”. Well, allow me to inform you that contrary to what you might believe, words have well-defined meanings in science (and in physics in particular). I have made that very clear in all my posts to date. It is not my job to act as a dictionary in this matter - there are plenty of them out there on the internet or if that is not your cup of tea, several paper versions exist. I encourage you to make use of them at some point.

As a physicist, “matter” means something very specific in the scientific lexicon and yes, in any but the most wishy-washy, intellectually lazy and scientifically ignorant sense, “anti-matter” is distinct from “matter”. It is not my fault that you continue to use outdated terminology and flawed or obsolete ideas to describe the world and our state of knowledge as it exists today. To call this distinction “semantics” and an attempt to “filibuster” is, I’m sorry to say, a laughable example of seeing your own lack of integrity in someone else’s writing.

Having said this, I do admit that I was aware of your flawed and/or incomplete understanding of “matter” (I notice that you conveniently slipped in “matter and energy” in one of your follow-up posts, though it was but a quote from someone else - well, at least we are progressing) and so “anti-matter” was at least partly tongue-in-cheek (though it is of course a completely accurate example within that list, so this is in no way a takeback). I can now confirm that you are using a definition of “matter” that owes more to armchair philosophy than to laboratory science. I notice also that you had nothing to say about the other things on that list. It is a damned shame that your agreement and/or lack of rebuttal is displayed only through a pointed refusal to acknowledge the same. Shrug. So, I ask again, is space-time also “matter”? Is its curvature also “matter”? Is a quantum wavefunction also “matter”? Is there any point to my continuing to treat this so-called conversation seriously? Even some post-modern philosophers are jumping on the quantum bandwagon, trying to explain away their delusions by using the “magic of the quantum” . Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that “matter” is whatever you do not want to pray to - or to put it another way, “matter” is whatever you wish to apply the adverb “merely” to (as in, something is “merely” matter) while saving all that saccharine awe and reverence for the imaginary world of the “supernatural”?

As an aside, is it anything but an exercise in nonsense to pit an observable quantity in opposition to a mere idea in someone’s fervered imagination and grant it the same level of reality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nguirado
I cannot decipher what your friend is saying, though. Sounds like filibuster.
Sounds like you . Next time, pick someone who doesn’t share your lack of understanding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nguirado
Quote:
Quote:
Antimatter is just a different kind of matter, so it is ridiculous for your friend to use semantics to posit that atheists who believe in antimatter are not materialists. the contrast is between the material world and the supernatural world.
The underlined sentence is wrong on so many levels that I suspect that “somebody” (could be your own alter-ego for all I know) has either been fed a highly processed version of what I wrote or “somebody” is as sadly misinformed as you are. “Atheists who believe in antimatter”? The “supernatural world”? Pixies and fairydust? Gimme a break. Anyone who can say “supernatural world” with a straight face in what is meant to be a reasoned argument is not worthy of rebuttal.

In any case, since you are merely quoting someone who cannot himself/herself respond to my rebuttals, what’s the farking point? Hell, I’m still waiting to hear a response from you to probably 80% of my rebuttals since we first started debating on this forum . Sadly, the thermocouple I placed in hell for this purpose has stopped responding to my pings .

In my last post, I systematically dismantled the very idea of “materialism” in light of what we understand about the universe today. If you and your “friend” are still valiantly trying to describe present-day science and philosophy in terms of fossilized ideas, I certainly can’t stop you. But I’ll be damned if I sit by and swallow that misguided arrogance whole.

In all this, I would like you to reflect on the fact that I have been rebutting you (and now your “friend”) with p(name removed by moderator)oint specificity while you insist on purveying wholesale universal statements of dubious accuracy. How ironic that it is atheists who are branded as “arrogant”.

 

[nguirado]

I replied:

All of the physics terms you’re using are meant to describe physical reality. Time describes the process of change, etc.

Likewise, “information” is just description. If I were to call this forum theme “blue,” I suppose you can say that my description “exists.” You can say that dreams are real. You can argue that since you believe that descriptions and mental representations of physical phenomenon are real yet not physical, you’re not a materialist.

(If we can describe God, does that mean that God exists or that the description of Him exists?).

You’d agree, however, that we generate our descriptions of the universe through chemical processes within our brain and that they don’t exist by themselves; that the descriptions are contingent on a physical process.

Either way, I think the conflict is one of definition. You think descriptions are real yet not part of material reality.

By “ideal,” I meant to say that things like morality aren’t just social constructs (many atheists, including some of the best in history and many on this forum, agree that they are social constructs), but are real. When arguing that something is better than another thing, you have to have a standard by which to judge (an ideal, goal, etc.). You can’t say that capital punishment is more moral than something else without a standard. If the moral standard isn’t real, then it’s just a personal feeling. AGB’s standard seemed to be that his ancestors used to think that it was a good policy, but that he doesn’t.

I hope you can see the contrast I was trying to make.

 

[nguirado]

Him again:

There is nothing in there for me to respond to (regarding the conversation we were having). We were arguing about an admittedly tangential issue to the things in your list. I have no opinion about your list itself, simply the erroneous arguments you brought up to justify your position. Perhaps others might respond to the discussion you now wish to return to. I guess we’re done then.

Two last things. “Information” (as I explained) did not refer to what you appear to think it was referring to (“this form is blue”). Please look it up for your own edification if you truly wish to attempt to understand the nature of reality. It may just be one of the most important concepts coming out of physics in the last century.

Space-time curvature is the final nail in the coffin of the “materialism-dualism” coffin (or has been for the past century). The mathematics of general relativity (called differential geometry) was revolutionary precisely because it could describe curvature intrinsically, without resorting to extraneous dimensions. Thereby, it provided a framework and a language for describing the entire universe without recourse to anything outside of it, which is what that fallacious argument ultimately rests on. I thought my unsubtle hints to that effect might spur you to look this up.

Quote:
All of the physics terms you’re using are meant to describe physical reality.
The point I’m trying to make is that the historical sequence of events is opposite to what you state above. Physical reality is defined (and redefined annually) by theists as that which is described by secular means (physical science for instance). It’s the first step in an apologetic’s argument for a “god of the gaps”.

Quote:
By “ideal,” I meant to say that things like morality aren’t just social constructs (many atheists, including some of the best in history and many on this forum, agree that they are social constructs), but are real.
Social constructs are very real. And there you go again with the inaccurate phrasing - An atheist wouldn’t say that morality is just a social construct. He would say that say that morality is a social construct. There is a universe of difference between those two viewpoints.

You might earn the right to employ that “just” or the “merely” when referring to scientific descriptions of nature and/or society when you gain an actual understanding of what those descriptions are.

 

[nguirado]

Me again:

Thrawn, with all respect, mathematical modeling of physical phenomenon is still description. It models a physical reality. I also include energy in physical reality. If you want to say that that’s not materialism, you can. It’s not what I mean by it. We can respect these definitional differences.

On the morals issue. Saying that morality is a social construct means that it’s a collective opinion. It could have come about as people discovered best practices or as a formalization of a genetic urge. It still doesn’t exist independently of a person’s or social opinion (and chemical processes).

I don’t want to discuss the God of the gaps right now, but there really only needs to be one gap to allow for God. It’s not like we can count up the gaps and declare that one is winning. As it stands, we have two gaps: The first is the creation of the universe itself and the second is the existence of life.

 

[nguirado]

This is the last post. If you guys want to respond directly, go ahead.

mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1509962&postcount=140

 

[hammerbaz]

Christopher Hitchens makes some outragous points on the Catholic Church, but i am going to have to agreewith 1 thing he says.

he points out there is not 1 action that a aethiest could not do because he doesnt have faith in god that a Catholic does due to his belief in god. Therefore, yes of course they can be non materialistic, they can have strong, positive morals.

does it mean their motivation behind the morals Catholic, no, well not in their mind.