Simple Reasons for Any Rational Person to Reject Materialism
Materialism is not a Revealed Religion , it is a man-made religion. To err is human, and if one person can make an error, many persons that make a world view can make errors as many times, please. Right, please?
Regards
I’ve never been sure why modern materialists are so confident that David Hume has shown their position to be correct. And neither reading his work, nor explanations of him, has helped to explain it. In fact, it’s led me to the opposite conclusion.
Take, for instance, the claim that we can dismiss traditional notions of causation (and, therefore, dismiss theistic arguments like the Kalam) on the grounds that Hume “showed” that we can’t trust the common sense of causation. Of course, it’s always important to note that Hume himself didn’t take the position that he “showed”, but there is a bigger problem here.
What Hume actually showed is that, given materialism, there’s no explanation for the fact that inductive reasoning (and thereby science) actually works.
What is amazing is that so many have responded by soberly reporting that causation doesn’t exist. Clearly, causation does exist. What’s actually been proved here…
View original post 296 more words
paarsurrey“By trying to demonstrate an untenable position of the opposing belief you seem to think that through a process of elimination the ”Last Man Standing” as it were, will be Christianity.”
But that is what Atheists are also doing exactly; by simply proving “Christianity” as false; they think Atheism/Materialism will prove to be true; never giving any evidence, which the atheist demand of others, that the “one true God does not exist”.
paarsurrey@ Arkenaten
What is your concept of a moron? Please define you own concept without copy/pasting from a dictionary.
I am sure it will most fit on the Atheists, in my opinion; if you would reflect truly.
Paarsurrey says?
I agree with you.
August 1st, 2013 at 11:03 am“Every time someone declares that “science hasn’t found evidence for God” (apparently ignorant of the fact that science only looks for the material) is assuming that the material is the only thing out there to be studied.”
How correct you are? I agree with you.
August 1st, 2013 at 11:04 am“In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the statement “there’s no evidence for God” by anyone who didn’t end up insisting that evidence needs to be physical. ”
This is also correct.
August 1st, 2013 at 11:05 am“nd, as I’ve argued many times in the past, there is no good reason to believe in materialism, and every reason to dismiss it as self-contradictory, lacking evidence, and counter to what we know.”
Absolutely correct.
If materialism is true, theism is false.
If that strikes you as rather obvious, I should add that many don’t seem to understand the implications of this. I’m speaking, as some of you may have guessed, of those who insist on assuming materialism when evaluating whether or not theism is true. If that’s one’s modus operandi, atheism is a foregone conclusion, and only thing left to be done is to drop the facade that we’re actually investigating theism.
At first blush, this may seem a rather obvious mistake to make–that very few would fall into this trap. I’d probably agree, were it not for the fact that I’ve encountered this approach more often than any other challenge to theism.
Every time someone declares that “science hasn’t found evidence for God” (apparently ignorant of the fact that science only looks for the material) is assuming that the material is the only…
View original post 200 more words
I give below some posts by our friend Debilis which I have liked very much. I want to share them with the viewers:
July 29th, 2013 at 7:53 am
Are you aware of the circulus in probando fallacy?
More to the point, are you aware that you are committing it?
This reasoning process you are defending is as follows:
1. Religious claims are false.
How do you know this?
2. Religious people are wrong, and cannot think clearly.
How do you know this?
3. They believe claims that are false.
How do you know this?
4. Because religious claims are false.
Do you see how we’re going around in a circle? You’re assuming the thing you need to be proving. Also important is the fact that there is no point at which any questioning of materialism is happening at all in here.
This is why circular reasoning is also dogmatic.
Debilis“I can’t understand your words” is now a logical response to the pointing out of a logical fallacy?
I apologize if my vocabulary is to large for you to follow, but the point remains valid. “Religious people are wrong because God doesn’t exist and God doesn’t exist because religious people are wrong” is bad logic–and should be completely dismissed.
It is also dogmatic thinking.
Mocking the fact that I use words that you don’t know doesn’t change this reality.
paarsurreyI agree with you.
This exactly is what the Atheists are doing in these blogs; they move in circles and cannot get out of them.
Paarsurrey says:
Thanks for the response; this will afford me a chance to review the original article by debilis @ <http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/> under the topic <Just Don’t Think About It>.I wrote following post on <Just don’t think about it: A response>; the blog by Makagutu; please click on the dates below to follow the discussion:
paarsurrey says:
I quote:
“Please tell me, how does positing god did it answer the question he posed?”The one true “God did it” in a sense is a summary for all the stages that took place after when He commanded the words “to be”; for an ordinary man in the street who has minimum interest in the scientific details.
Debilis writes with good reasons.
paarsurrey says:
Quoting the words:
“god is a vague a word without meaning”.Then replace “God” with Allah. Please
paarsurrey says:
Quoting the words:
““God caused it” is not a halt to inquiry at all.And say it doesn’t halt inquiry is to be intellectually dishonest.”
There is no dishonesty in it; as I wrote earlier it is in a sense a brief reply to an ordinary person who has least interest and no capacity to understand all the scientific details. Even if somebody tells such persons the details; they cannot understand them; it is beyond their comprehension.
paarsurrey says:
Quoting the words:
“claims of materialism is circular”
They remain within the circle of matter; can’t look beyond it; while reality is not limited within the matter or the physical.
Their vision is limited within matter.; they should broaden their vision, in my opinion.paarsurrey says:
I would like to say that the conclusions drawn are not correct.
The Word Revealed is intended for guidance of man in ethical, moral and spiritual realms. Bible is not in its original text; the debris of time has added much to it and with translation after translation the original meanings have been lost to much extent.Anyway it was not intended as a text book of science; and those who want to take it as such are wrong.
The founders of religions like Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad were practical men; they remained committed to the cause they were sent with from the one true God for uplift of human beings in ethical, moral and spiritual domains.
They never uttered a word even against science or the scientists; that is a separate field dealing in the material and physical things; they left it open for those who were dealing in them.
So the founders of religion did no block any field of inquiry rather they opened it wide.
Things belonging in the physical or material domains are to be left with the experts in these fields; those belonging in ethical, moral and spiritual realms are to be dealt with the verses of the Word Revealed.
There is absolutely no contradiction there, in my opinion.
You have met Debilis, our resident apologist whose main occupation is either to attack the claims of materialism or New Atheists without supporting his claims. To engage with him on his posts is usually a slippery affair because one can hardly ever pin point what it is he is defending. Having said that, let us look at this post.
There seem to be two basic explanations for the origin of all physical reality (i.e. the universe):
1. God caused it
2. There is no explanation
He starts with a fallacy of false dilemma, one has to choose either of the two of answers. He is led to this problem by assuming that the sum of all reality must have a beginning. Once on the path he has taken, to get out of it, one has to resort either to superstition or consult reason on his path.
After leading…
View original post 880 more words
The followers of Atheism ask others to provide irrefutable evidence but if the same question is asked from them; they don’t come up with any; that makes atheism having no ground to hold.
If one demolishes a building; that only produces rubble; it does not construct another building.
If Atheists sometimes point out a mistake in a creed of a religion, that is a positive point; but that does not mean that Atheism is right.
One can see from the following posts:
Arkenaten Says:
July 13, 2013 at 3:22 pm | Log in to Reply
Provide evidence of your god.
One believes in so many things very naturally; for instance one believes one has a father and a mother very naturally; one does not need a proof unless there is a reasonable ground for that.
I believe in the one true God very naturally and don’t need to find any evidence for that.
I believe that I exist; I never needed any evidence for my existence.
Did you find any evidence that the one true God does not exist?
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The same situation could be observed from the comments on the article< http://fidedubitandum.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/the-extraordinary-claims-of-materialism/ > between Arkenaten and Debilis:
paarsurrey 