"Religious bigotry" is an overused term.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well said. And I realize that I am oversimplifying things.

Nevertheless.... when you say "I think there's not a lot of difference between agnostics and atheists.", I have to agree based on your definition of an atheist. Now I would like to read your definition of an agnostic.

When you say: "If they were to experience anything like Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' they'd believe in God without having to adjust their basic outlook one whit." I understand your point. But most atheists I have known are dead sure that there is no God and use every opportunity to ridicule believers. It seems to me that such an experience would be shattering to an atheist since it would turn their world view upside down and completely disprove the "there is no such thing as a spiritual world" mindset.

In other words, when one says "spirituality is nothing more than emotion", isn't that a statement of belief, to a degree? How can one definitively prove such a thing?

I agree. I also said materialism is a discipline, which means it takes effort. That I think is where something like faith comes in. But it's not really comparable to faith in the existence of the super natural.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Democritus was known more as an atomist, which is what Newton actually became.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac....emocritus.html

Yes, it's astounding how much they taught themselves about atomic theory just from observing matter with the naked eye and applying reason. They had a sophisticated understanding of atoms even by our standards.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Well, there's a lot more to Epicurianism than materialism, as these 40 tenets demonstrate. But this is what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

I like Schopenhauer's response to materialism, despite Churchland's counter-response.

Schopenhauer wrote that "...materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." (The World as Will and Representation, II, Ch. 1). He claimed that an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced. "Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time." (ibid., I, §7)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I like Schopenhauer's response to materialism, despite Churchland's counter-response.

Schopenhauer wrote that "...materialism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." (The World as Will and Representation, II, Ch. 1). He claimed that an observing subject can only know material objects through the mediation of the brain and its particular organization. The way that the brain knows determines the way that material objects are experienced. "Everything objective, extended, active, and hence everything material, is regarded by materialism as so solid a basis for its explanations that a reduction to this (especially if it should ultimately result in thrust and counter-thrust) can leave nothing to be desired. But all this is something that is given only very indirectly and conditionally, and is therefore only relatively present, for it has passed through the machinery and fabrication of the brain, and hence has entered the forms of time, space, and causality, by virtue of which it is first of all presented as extended in space and operating in time." (ibid., I, §7)

For me materialism is just a contrast, a background against which I etch my own outlook and I suppose faith. I think materialism is a great place to start. There's an aspect to it that is comforting.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

For me materialism is just a contrast, a background against which I etch my own outlook and I suppose faith. I think materialism is a great place to start. There's an aspect to it that is comforting.

I like most of the philosophies, because they're all contrasts against one or several of the other philosophies.

Materialism is noteworthy and worthy of study and consideration. I find myself more attracted to phenomenology and pragmatism, but materialism is not to be dismissed lightly. It is worthwhile.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Lebowski, I love you man, but you are reflecting a common misunderstanding of atheists.

Why don't you preface your disagreements with ME this way? Hmm? ;-)

[Archaea]

You're not bi-curious?