Someone wouldn't be an atheists if there had not been any type of theists? You can't reject a belief without a belief to first reject.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

I don't know of any atheist, agnostic, or non-theist that claims that "materialism can answer everything".





There's a difference. We know that energy/matter exists and continues to alter through time, but we simply don't know with any kind of objective evidence as to whether a deity or deities exist. Therefore, even though we probably will never know exactly how our universe got started, what little evidence we do have seemingly points to the idea that energy/matter may well go back into infinity, and probably forward into infinity as well.

BTW, there's a very interesting article on the Big Bang and our quantum universe in the July issue of Scientific American. If interested, I can give anyone reading this a brief summary of the article.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

What I mean by,"materialism can answer everything" is that they believe that their is a material cause for everything and only matter exists.


I agree there is a difference but they still have faith in materialism. If they don't know the answer to something they still have faith that when we find the answer that it will be a material one.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Most cosmologists and physicists that I have read make no such assumption. Every single one that I can think of that's commented on the possible causation(s) of the Big Bang state that a theistic explanation cannot be discounted.




Not really. The reality is that we look for cause and effect relationships whereas there's an attempt to determine the cause, and if there was any evidence that suggests a theistic cause, then we'd certainly look carefully into that. However, such evidence is lacking. One should remember that the belief in a deity or deities is based on faith and not objective evidence.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

why didnt you say this five posts ago....sums up what you are expressing rather nice...

I understand this but a materialist is someone that has faith that the only thing that exists is matter. So, obviously they have faith that there unanswered questions will be answered by materialism. They don't know that matter is the only thing that exists because if they did then they would already have the answers to their questions. I'm not really trying to make the argument that it is a religious faith but it still is a faith. They overlook this. They assume that since matter does exists that it is the only thing that exists.


Materialism isn't based on objective evidence either. If it was then that would mean that matter has been observed to be the only thing to exist. It hasn't been. It has been observed to exist but not observed to be the only thing to exist. To observe that we would have to be certain that everything that exists has been observed.

Also, objective evidence has to do with observing objects(material things). If you were to observe God objectively then that would mean that God is a material object. Saying that God hasn't been observed to exist objectively is kind of a circular argument in favor of materialism. It's like saying,"Matter is all that exists and therefore everything that exists has objective evidence to prove it's existence. There is no objective evidence that God exists. Therefore only matter must exist."

Actually, there has been no objective evidence that you exist either. The only thing of your existence that has been objectively observed is your body. There is no objective evidence that you are a self aware conscious mind. The only way anyone has ever came to the conclusion that you exist is that they know they exist by subjectively observing themselves and since they know they have a human body they assume that other human bodies have minds within them. You are a subject and not an object. It is the same with God. He is a subject and not an object. The only way you can observe him is to be him.

There isn't any evidence that exactly suggests a theistic cause but there is evidence that suggests that there is immaterial causes to things. In all of the history of science there hasn't been one single case where there has been evidence that suggests a material cause to things. We look carefully into material causes even though the evidence is lacking. When we study the material world we always find immaterial causes to whatever we study. We always discover natural laws acting on matter. The cause is never matter itself. We have even discovered that it is natural laws that cause the very existence of matter. So, matter's existence and how it behaves is caused by natural laws. The existence of natural laws in itself shows that there is more to reality than just matter. These laws work in harmony together to cause the universe to be almost like a living thing. The universe isn't dead matter but active living matter with finely tuned laws that causes the universe to work in an orderly fashion. This is why science works in the first place. If these laws were not working in harmony there would be total chaos in the universe instead of perfect order. These laws working in harmony and perfect order suggests to me that there is one "lawgiver". This law giver could be God.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

Because I'm an idiot! Duh!

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

That's simply not true. First of all, "materialism" is not an "ism" but merely refers to that which exists in one form or another that is discernable somehow through our senses. Secondly, in order for us to know all "the answers" we would have to be omniscent, which we clearly aren't. The unfortunate reality is that your first premise above, which is quite faulty, sets up a paradigm that also has errors in it as I'll note.






We only KNOW that which exists that we can somehow detect with our senses. IOW, we cannot assume something exists without reason to suggest it exists. So, contrary to what you're saying, ideally we don't assume anything. Again, you're working under a false paradigm.





I've never heard any scientist say this and I have been in science for over 40 years. Again, you're working under a false paradigm.





There's evidence that we do indeed exist, but you should be aware of the word "evidence" versus "proof". In science, we almost never use the word "proof", but we use the word "evidence" a great deal. Therefore, is there evidence I exist? Of course there is. Is there evidence that I have a "conscious mind"? Of course there is. Ever hear of an e.e.g.? What does it measure? Brainwaves, which are composed of energy that can be measured to a certain extent.




Notice how you've jumped to a conclusion. Where's your evidence for a deity and how would you possibly know that there's only one? What you have done is to violate that which you falsely criticized scientists of doing, namely making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.




How do you know there's only "one"? Why do you assume there must be a "lawgiver"? When you use that term, you distort the discussion simply because our mind is conditioned to believe that if there' s "law" there must be a "lawgiver". Again, that's simply an assumption on your part.

In science, we are strongly discouraged from drawing tentative conclusions that are not backed by evidence, so what evidence can you provide that suggest there is a deity that made our universe and, if such a deity indeed exists, what evidence can you provide that it's just one?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

you know of those games in arcades where they take a rubber mallet and hit the mole..i think it may be called whack a mole..not sure..anyway...i am looking for one of those hammers to get that green jumpy thingy...lol

If you mean an "ism" as in Naz"ism" then I agree with you but materialism is a philosophy. Here are some definitions I've found.

The philosophical theory that matter is the only reality.

The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance.

The claim that only material (physical) things exist. Often used in PHILOSOPHY OF MIND in contrast to the claim that mental objects and events cannot be reduced to physical objects and events.

The doctrine that existence is only composed of energy, matter and other types of particles.

The philosophical position that nothing exists except matter and that there are no supernatural dimensions to life.

The belief that life is due entirely to biochemical interactions, without the intervention of supernatural forces

The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

The doctrine that the only reality is matter; that the universe is not governed by intelligence or purpose but only by mechanical cause and effect.

Did you notice the words philosophy, doctrine, and belief? Materialism is a philosophy, a doctrine, and a belief. It is something that requires faith. Why? Because it hasn't been proven that matter is the only thing in existence! Of course we would have to be omniscient to know all the answers! That's my point! All the big answers are unknown! No one knows if there is a God and no one knows if matter is the only thing in existence! They are both philosophical positions that are based on faith! I have faith that some of those answers will most likely have something to do with a God! Because of that atheists say I believe in a god of the gaps! Atheists are materialists! They have faith that all of the answers will be answered by materialism! Therefore they believe in the matter of the gaps!


Ok, does materialists KNOW that matter is the only thing to exist? If so, then materialists KNOW there is no god and like you said they would be omniscient. So, does materialist KNOW there is no god and are they omniscient or do they assume by there philosophical world view that there is no god?


I don't recall ever saying that scientists have said that. I was referring to materialist atheists. Also, I didn't say they said that. I said it is like they say that. The point I was making is that materialism by definition assumes the nonexistence of God because the doctrine of materialism says that only matter exists. So, it is kind of a circular argument to say that only matter exists because there is no god and there is no god because only matter exists.


Yes, I've heard of an e.e.g. Measuring brainwaves is evidence that brainwaves exist. It doesn't show any evidence that there is some kind of inner life within those brainwaves. How do they know there is actual consciousness when they measure those brainwaves? They don't physically see consciousness. So, why should they assume that consciousness is there? Physically there is only brain waves. Materialism doesn't even scientifically predict that minds will be found to exist.


I didn't jump to any conclusions. This isn't some kind of scientific conclusion or theory. I'm just explaining my philosophical position. It could just as easily be said that materialists are jumping to conclusions that matter is the only thing to exist. Since we don't know everything that exists yet. Where is there evidence that matter is the only thing that exists? Both are starting points. Not conclusions. They start with the philosophical position that matter is all that exists and I start a the philosophical position that more than matter exists. My evidence to a Deity? Why do I have to provide evidence for something I freely admit is my philosophical position. I never said that It has been proven to me that there definitely is a god. There are things in this world that make me think that most likely there is one but I can't prove it as a fact. Just like materialist can't prove that matter is the only thing that exists as a fact. I don't claim to be able to prove that there is a god beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm just trying to make the point that materialism is in the same boat. When did I falsely criticized scientists? I don't even recall talking about scientists.


I don't know there is only one. I just said it suggests to me that there is. I didn't say I know there is. I guess there could be an infinitely huge governing body behind the laws of nature. But they work so well together that they might as well be one. Would it be an assumption on my part if I said that there is no god so natural laws don't require a law giver or does only believers in God assume things?

Let me get this straight. You want me to provide scientific evidence for something that is unknown! The existence or nonexistence of God is unknown. Science doesn't touch that question. Philosophy touches that question. Science is religiously and philosophically neutral. The whole time I've been talking about materialists atheists(a philosophy just like Deism) and since you been thinking that I'm talking about scientists you are proving my point that there is a double standard. Materialists atheists accuse Deists and Theists of filling in the gaps of knowledge with our philosophy by putting our interpretation on scientific facts when they do the same thing. They bring their philosophic assumptions to the lab just as much as we do. When we do it they say it is unscientific and when they do it they say it is science. Since science is philosophically neutral it is suppose to be like this: theism=philosophy materialism=philosophy science=science philosophy(theism or atheism)+science=world view but they have a double standard like this:materialism=science materialism=atheism science=atheism theism=philosophy theism+science=gap of the gaps. Why is this so hard to understand?

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."