I certainly do not agree to that. It isnt “like” a religion either.
You’ll have to forgive me, I didnt know I was wading into part of an overall agenda you are devoted to pushing. Referencing some of the other threads you posted in I see it now, Im content to move on from this and let those other discussions bear thier fruit.

Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now? You are certainly free to dilute the word religion so that all human endeavours are religions, but its clear you are doing so only to prop up this false equivalency.
Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted. I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism. Your problem with certain individuals is not relevent to Materialism being or not being a religion. Its a conflation you are making in order to once again, prop up this false equivalency.
You reiterate this point twice more before the end of your post. It is irrelevant, but it does show a devotion of your own to this false equivalence of yours. Is it your religion? My guess is that you would be happy to call it religion if it meant that in so doing you get to continue treating Materialism (and atheism, which I suspect is what this is really about.) as a religion as well.
I get it, there is a cleverness, an amusing irony to calling someone who does not believe in religion a religious person but your claim is none the less quite fallacious.
Anyway, since your argument is clearly with certain people rather than Materialism or atheism I suggest you take it up with them. From what I can tell (Im new to the forum) you will be accommodated.
Thanks for the discussion :)

Materialism:

A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Religion:

Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Religious:

Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. — Michael Ossipoff

This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:

de·vo·tion
dəˈvōSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.

Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. No where in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things. But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.
Intentional or not, this a false equivalency. Materialism is not a religion.

You are just choosing to look at it generically, there is still a fact of the matter as to why the ball rolled. You say it “adds no real information”, but it certainly does. It would add the information of what was actually happening. This is not changed by your infinite other possible nudges. Sure, they were potential nudges, but not the ones that happened.
It is simply not accurate to say the ball has a propensity to fall, or that our view of things bottoms out at some generic level and we cant or could never be specific. You are just choosing to be less accurate, choosing to not get too specific.
So you want this discussion to be unmoored from logic, sense and causality. Thats fine, its some kind of thought experiment, but as you pointed out I am missing the point.
In what way is it useful? You mentioned something from nothing and unstables particles...but we have ways of determing those things, those are questions physicists answer with precisely things like quantum mechanics and mathmatics. Why is it that you think these tools are insufficient?
What is the advantage of operating from the basis you are suggesting?

Quantum mechanics — apokrisis

I have never heard that QM shows us the impossibility of eliminating all disturbances, I was under the impression that QM is still struggling to lock down exactly whats happening at the level it focuses in.
Ok, so it sounds like you already knew the answer to your question. At the QM level the ball doesnt get pushed, at the level we most interact with it does.

But that is the easy presumption that is under attack here. Most people probably do find no reason to even question the possibility of being able to eliminate every possible source of perturbation in some physical system. — apokrisis

It is certainly not a presumption on my part. I in fact cannot think of a reason why it would be impossible.
You seem like you want me to accept simething that you feel is possible as something that is true. It takes more than something to just be possible in order for me to accept that it is true. This doesnt seem like a particularly high or difficult standard.
Im open minded to all possibilities, but I need a good reason to accept the possibility is actually true and I told you that I cannot think of a good reason to accept that it is impossible to eliminate all disturbances. Do you have one?

I am guessing you would resist that alternative view strongly. The question becomes why? With what good justification? — apokrisis

You guessed wrong unfortunately. Sorry.
Until today I hadnt given it much thought. If it turns out to in fact be impossible, i cant imagine why I would strongly resist.

Could you imagine ceasing to care about the individual pushes and instead accepting that the generic impossibility of eliminating all disturbances is this deep truth? — apokrisis

I cant think of a reason that it would be impossible.

Its not necessarily either. Each are factors that could have had a part or whole in the displacement of the ball bearing. There are reason(s) why the ball bearing was displaced, and with enough sophistication in the instruments of measure (whatever they may be) these reasons can be revealed and your question answered.
It neednt be any more complicated than that, and I dont see a reason to have a presumption of an underlying universal explanation.

I think at its most fundamental level, its basis, logic is what we call our description of the way reality works. The physical world has consistent patterns and sequence. An order. Logic is our way of describing it, hence math (which i think of as sort of purely logical.) is what physicists use to make sense of things, and why QM is so perplexing (it stops following the logic we have been using to describe it). We cant understand the logic of it, we dont have the full picture/equation. When we do figure it out, there will be logic to it.

Your children aren't your property. They as humans have rights from birth. Machines tend to be someone's property. — ssu

I didnt say they were property. I didnt say or imply the children didnt have rights, i said they only have rights that we grant them, like all people.

This would imply that with a variety of judges there is the possibility of a variety of judgements. Also, it means judgement is determined by the code of conduct adhered to by the judges. — BrianW

Precisely.

“Respect for other views than your own.“
I don’t know about that, some views are not worthy of respect.
Also, you listed healthy critique against yiur own view last. I think it should be first, its the most important thing to do of your own views. And I think you are missing the point if you are doing it merely to prevent attacks against you. You should be doing it to make sure your view makes sense and is a good view to have.

Well, ONE of us needs to play devils advocate here...
So, what dominion does one have over its own creations? When a human produces a child, the child is subject to the will of the parent, sometimes even the state. Why would it be different for this android? When you create a car or electronic device, it is yours to do with as you please, likewise with the android.
Also, rights are something granted, by citizenship of a nation or just as a member of mankind by other humans. If it is decided that something you created has no rights, then it doesnt have rights. On what basis would the creator be obligated to grant such rights? In addition, the creator would be morally obligated in that instance to NOT create the android, knowing that he would have essentially created a slave since rights may not be granted to his android.

Is it wrong to rob a human of its freedom? That is what you are doing if you flip that switch.

Yes, a much trickier question.
For the purposes of the question though, we need not parse the waters of what reason is and where it comes from, we only need to judge the instance according to whatever standards of reason those involved in the judging are in fact using.

Yes, I specifically kept the reference to “same as human” so that my response would cover anyones seperate thoughts on human free will. Whatever your views on human free will are, my answer will still apply. As i noted, the switch doesnt make a difference. When it is functioning as a human, we treat it like a human. When it isnt, we do not.

If it is switched into “cant resist commands” mode then the one giving the commands is responsible fir its actions, if the switch is in “same as human” mode then it is responsible for its own actions to the same degree a human would be.
The manufacturer would be responsible for their product in the same way as its other products. If the switch was unreliable, easy to hack or otherwise dangerous then they would have some part to play in assigning responsibility for any actions it commits. I would imagine they would have a lot less responsibility if the android was in” same as human” mode, just like a knife manufacturer bears little responsibility when someone stabs themselves or someone else.

It is as free, deserving of freedom and deserving of human rights as a human.
The fact that it has a switch changes nothing. Humans have switches too. They are biological rather than mechanical, but there are drugs and physical alterations made to the brain that can rob someone of their ability to resist commands, or at least hinder it (though eventually I imagine we will know the brain well enough it would function exactly like the switch or switches of the android, of course naturally we know the androids switches because we built them.).
I would turn the question right around, why WOULDN’T it have the same freedom
And rights as a human?

Ah I see. Well it would depend on how the concept is being applied to the development of experiences. Likewise, the significance that role conception plays is going to depend on the specific instance as well. The reasonableness will be judged according to how it has been applied.
I suppose im saying that the measure of reasonableness is something that exists separately from the processes we apply it to. Even some things that seems antithetical to reason, such as passionate emotions lets say, can be part or wholly reasonable, judged by each individual instance.

I think it can obviously either or. It could be both at the same time.
Do you mean to make a distinction between something happening in ones imagination and the act of imagining itself? Im afraid I dont understand the point of the question.
I can imagine two people in a room, and two people entering from a door so that now there are 4 people in the room. Logical. I could imagine the exact same thing but two MORE people walk in and now I imagine there are 7. Illogical.
Doesnt it simply matter what is being imagined?

Sounds like we’ve had some similar exposure.
I think rather than whats missing, I think its about whats present, which I would broadly categorise as some sort of tribalism. People have gotten to the point where they live in these bubbles, the same talking points over and over is a symptom of people clinging even closer to the sharing of ideology (having an ideology in common with others) than they do for the ideology itself.
These bubbles, or echo chambers, seem to be more present and stronger than any other time in my adult life.
Whats missing? I cant see anything that used to be there that isnt now, to be honest.
Did the public used to have a bigger attention span? The tiny, bite sized news feeds might be evidence of that perhaps?

Thanks, seems like a lively place

Just teach them good critical thinking. Morals will follow.

I see. Thanks, i was just curious, Im new and am still feeling the place out. Im open to any idea really, but not obnoxious, pointless grandstanding and propaganda. Seen those types before, as we all have. Good riddance.

Ok, i understand.
Why does reason have to be a human created thing? Aren’t you just assuming that? I don’t see why it couldnt be like morality, a standard set or created by god IF he existed.

Im curious about the guy who got banned for racist views. The quote provided indicates he was talking about black people being less intelligent than white people, was this in reference to The Bell Curve, or other research into race and IQ? Or was the person making a more standard racist categorisation about black people being little more than animals or their lower intelligence stems from their natural inferiority to whites or whatever garbage?

I'm not claiming a God exists, or that any doctrines that arise from that belief need to be believed. However, should a God exist, it seems reasonable and sensible to propose that it is, or may be, above logic. — Jake

Big difference between it being reasonable and sensible that it IS, and that it MAY BE.
Do you intend the former to be a claim you are making or was it more of a semantical slip?
Also, when you say “logic”, do you mean strictly in the sense of making valid reference (such as in mathematics ie given the values assigned to the numbers “1” and “2”, 1+2=3) or do you mean something more?

Oops, firgot to tag you in that last post.

It would depend on what you mean by god, but I think I see what you are getting at. You would be describing a deistic position by calling it god, not a theistic position. Theism defines god over and above a first cause/mover, it assigns one or more attributes/characteristics in addition to being the first mover.
Deism is the term to describe what I think you have in mind in this discussion, deism is what the cosmological argument does a decent job of making a case for.

Im made no comment in the reasonableness of the argument, you are simply mis-applying it. It is an argument about a first cause or mover. It is a reasonable, imo, argument for first mover/cuase. Theism, take your pick, does NOT follow from it.

I agree with you on your points to Rank Amateur, there is no connecting tissue betweeen the first mover and sny theistic god that I know of and in fact many great philosophers have tried and failed to bridge that gap. If Rank Amateur knows the argument, he should know that as well.

You actually cherry picked that bit out now that I look back.
Why did you do that? Why didnt you address the other points that I made in the same post?

The sense of following evidence and logic to the truth is not what atheism is. Atheist does not include ANY beliefs. Those are the province of each individual. Atheism just means “without belief”. Thats it. Anything over and above that is specific to another position or argument is what it is, but it isnt atheism.

Sorry, Christoffer. Apologies.

The term atheist does not refer to anyones dedication to the truth. That is not what it describes Christoff. Following the truth is one thing, atheism another. I know a flat earther who is an atheist. The term says nothing about a mode of thought or pursuit of any kind unless it is specifically loaded to do so.
In order to make headway in this discussion, you need to stop conflating atheism with a particular atheist you might have in mind. Everyone does.

Atheism isnt a claim about anything. It is not a system of any kind, nor a way of viewing the world. You guys are getting it wrong on both sides here.
Atheism means “without belief”, that its literal meaning. The “a” means “without”, the “theism” means belief.
Theism means “belief”.
Its easy to look up the origins of the word.
In philosophy academia, certain arguements use variations or specific extrapolations on the base word. Most of you are conflating it all together, which is leading to people making confused arguments.
Atheism is specifically the lack of a belief about something. To call it a belief is to not understand what the word means. (The words “atheism” OR “belief”.)
If the question is “do you believe in god?”, and your answer is anything other than “yes”, then you are an atheist. Yes, even if you are undecided, an agnostic, you can still be an atheist. Not mutually exclusive.
If you are defining athiest/atheism in any other way, you are using an idiosyncratic definition that is in service to a specific position you hold or argument you are making. This will only lead to confusion as everyone proceeds to talk past each other. Yes, even you fence sitters (not intended as derogatory, merely descriptive) who are trying to equate the reasoning of the two positions. There are two things, the position someone holds and the how or why of that position. Atheism and theism are positions, states of belief, reasoning only comes into play when either of them encounter a proposition.
So Atheists, stop claiming ground you dont hold with the word you are using to describe your position. Science is not atheism, atheism has no method. Science does.
Theists, im sorry but the burden of proof is on you. The reasoning process starts with the claim you choose to make whatever it may be. When you call yourself a theist, you are saying “I believe”, but you have to say in what you believe in order to have a discussion about it. Be that an exercise in reason or faith is of course up to you.
Agnostic types (its hard to tell exactly what term applies to each of you, but hopefully “agnostic-ish covers it), stop trying to equate the reasoning betweeen two positions when no such reasoning exists. You have no dog in the fight until a proposition is stated and the reasoning process begins, THEN you can bitch about “militant” atheism if it rears its head, or if the process on either side of the proposition ends up beimg two equal acts of unreasonableness or reasonableness.
You will all find that if you operate from this basis, your discussions will be much more productive, assuming understanding is the goal rather than grandstanding or preaching (which is not restricted to the theistic position).

Hmmm, I wouldnt call that theism. You are basically proffering first cause/unmoved mover?
The nature of such a thing need not be a god, it could just as easily be an alien, or a cosmic byproduct of something unknown.
Does it ruin the spirit of your challenge to be more specific?

Ill give it a shot. What god are we talking about, and what theism would you mean here..any belief in god or gods? Do I get to pick one and show it is unreasonable or do you have something specific in mind?

Well, he is saying “unreasonable” according to reason as atheists define it. Apparently he has some other version but hasnt bothered to define it.
Perhaps he has the foresight to see that answering my query will lead to him actually having to defend his position here. If so, I am comfortable concluding that engagement is not his goal here.