U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Earth. For now.
1,227 posts, read 1,776,970 times
Reputation: 1264

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mythunderstood View Post
Atheism/=Materialism
That's encouraging. By most measures, I am an atheist. But by most measures, I am certainly NOT a materialist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:16 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,731,342 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by mythunderstood View Post
Atheism/=Materialism
Right, but materialism would naturally exclude theism.

One could reach atheism on several different grounds, but my was anchored by materialism. For me, I had to change my position at least a little to remain intellectually honest. Now I consider myself agnostic, though others may still consider me an atheist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:16 PM
 
1,114 posts, read 1,026,229 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Right, but materialism would naturally exclude theism.

One could reach atheism on several different grounds, but my was anchored by materialism. For me, I had to change my position at least a little to remain intellectually honest. Now I consider myself agnostic, though others may still consider me an atheist.
I have no doubt that you are an agnostic, as am I. But that only addresses your viewpoint on knowledge (whether or not you you believe that gods can be known.) As far as whether or not you have a belief in the existence of gods is what makes you a theist/atheist. If you currently have no belief in any god, then you would be defined as an atheist, in addition to being agnostic (since one addresses belief and the other, knowledge). I am an agnostic atheist myself. Always open to the possibility of gods, but just not convinced to believe in any (as of yet).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 05:58 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 10,943,672 times
Reputation: 3547
Quote:
Dark matter is known because it creates gravity and gravitational lensing of background radiation. Otherwise, it is invisible, can pass through other matter and is undetectable.
Gravitational lensing occurs in response to mass, yes? Something can not be immaterial and still have mass.

On the other hand, something could be "invisible" to our telescopes by not reflecting light (or other wavelengths) back so we can see it. Something could be "invisible" just because it is out of range of any light to reflect, or it could be a property of the composition of the material that it absorbs such energy or allows it to pass though unreflected or scatters the reflection so that we never see a coherent image projected. Something could be "invisible" because it is occluded by a much brighter object. Of course, it could also be magic! Do you really think that is likely?

What this all comes down to is whether or not you think it makes any sense to try to shoehorn a god into every gap in human understanding. I personally don't find this any more compelling than any other god of the gaps argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 06:47 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,940,531 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Dark matter is known because it creates gravity and gravitational lensing of background radiation. Otherwise, it is invisible, can pass through other matter and is undetectable.

So by definition, it is a phenomena not caused by material interaction. It is NOT "material interaction, if by that you mean two material objects interacting together. It is a non-material agent causing a phenomena that can interact with the material world. That is pretty much all that is known about it.

There is about 4X more dark matter in the universe than normal matter. So the vast majority of the "stuff" in the universe isn't ordinary matter.
And most of what you consider material interaction is electro-static forces at work. That doesn't make them non-material any more than interacting via gravity does. Are x-rays immaterial in your view, since they only interact via EM forces and pass through most matter undetected? A hundred years ago, they fit every criteria you're applying to dark matter today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:01 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,731,342 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
Something can not be immaterial and still have mass.

.
Unless that "something" is dark matter. That is almost the definition of dark matter, and that is almost all that is known about dark matter.

Dark matter is immaterial and yet has gravity, from which we can infer mass.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:13 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,731,342 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
And most of what you consider material interaction is electro-static forces at work. .
On what basis do you make this claim?


Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC View Post
That doesn't make them non-material any more than interacting via gravity does. Are x-rays immaterial in your view, since they only interact via EM forces and pass through most matter undetected? A hundred years ago, they fit every criteria you're applying to dark matter today.
If we were to claim that the only thing in the universe that exists is X, and then we discovered something that was not X, would that not falsify the claim?

Yet when we claim the only things in the world that exists are material things, and then we discovere something that is not a material thing, we don't say that materialism has been falsified. Instead, we change the definition of materialim to include the newly found discovery.

At some point in time, electromagnetic radiation may not have been included in the concept of material things. I don't know. But assuming arguendo that you are correct, upon discovery of electrmagnetic radiation it would have been proper to say materialism has been discredited.


So let me ask you: When you claim that only material things exists, what do you mean by "material things"? And if science discovers something that falls outside of that definition, are you willing to concede that your theory has been falsified, or are you going to change the definition of materialism to incorporate the new discovery?

Put more simply, is the claim "the only things that exist are material things" falsifible? If so, doesn't the existence of dark matter falsify it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 10,943,672 times
Reputation: 3547
I have never seen a reputable scientist claim that dark matter is immaterial, please give me a cite. The definitions of dark matter I have seen is that is is MATTER (by definition, not immaterial) which is dark to us - and I explained in my previous post how something could be dark (not reflective, not close to a light source, or occluded in some way) but nevertheless material. Common air is invisible to the naked eye - light passes right through it, but it is nevertheless composed of matter. Matter = mass = gravity. How can you claim that something which has gravity is not material?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 06:28 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,731,342 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
I have never seen a reputable scientist claim that dark matter is immaterial, please give me a cite. The definitions of dark matter I have seen is that is is MATTER (by definition, not immaterial) which is dark to us - and I explained in my previous post how something could be dark (not reflective, not close to a light source, or occluded in some way) but nevertheless material. Common air is invisible to the naked eye - light passes right through it, but it is nevertheless composed of matter. Matter = mass = gravity. How can you claim that something which has gravity is not material?
It's not that dark matter is dark. It's not that is unreflective. It doesn't interact with light at all - it neither emits, absorbs, nor reflects light, or any of the other kind of electro magnetic radiation.

From the high-watts at NASA:

Quote:
So far, it looks like there are both baryonic and non-baryonic types of dark matter. Some dark matter may be composed of regular matter (ie., baryonic), but simply not give off much light. Things like brown dwarf stars would be in this catagory. Other non-baryonic dark matter may be tiny, sub-atomic particles which aren't a part of "normal" matter at all. If these tiny particles have mass and are numerous, they could make up a large part of the dark matter we think exists. If true, then it's possible that most of the matter in the Universe is of some mysterious form that we cannot yet even identify!

The Nature of Dark Matter - Introduction


If it's not normal matter, it's not material. If it some new mysterious form that we can not yet even identify, it is not material.


When you say "all there exist in the universe is material", that statement has to be falsifiable to mean anything.

If we find some mysterious form of substance that isn't part of normal matter at all, IT FALSIFIES THE CLAIM.

Otherwise, you simply change the definition of "material" to include each new immaterial discovery that you make, and that's not intellectually honest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-13-2011, 06:11 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 10,943,672 times
Reputation: 3547
There is a lot of MAYBE in your quote there and it certainly isn't the same as saying dark matter is immaterial as part of the definition as you claimed. Right in what you quoted it also says "Some dark matter may be composed of regular matter (ie., baryonic), but simply not give off much light." As for the other "may be not normal matter" it is simple conjecture, no? Not to mention that possibly "not normal matter" could of course still be a form of matter that is simply unknown at the moment. I don't see anything there saying that dark matter is immaterial. We don't have enough data for that claim to hold water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top