Are atheists materialists?

[Taz]

They don't necessarily reject everything spiritual.

They have no basis for believing that their so-called spiritualism is anything more than electrochemical responses in the brain.

I reject today's interpretations of god(s) but don't reject all spiritualism.

 

[Taz]

Ok, saw the link. But I don't see myself in this, and it's from fucking FRANCE!!!! Ils sont tous fou les Français.

They are trying to say, for example, that anyone who is spiritual believes in Creationism, which is bullshit. I'm spiritual, I just see no proof for the theories put forth by today's religions. I think it's probably something else.

So you believe in Creationism?

I didn’t know it was from France, so you scored a point for that! But it seemed to me to be a fair comparison. Perfect? No. But probably pretty close.

There are probably SOME atheists who will agree with that list, but probably not very many, because it's a dumb list to tag on all atheists. Or anyone.

Can you list the things you disagreed with from the Materialism column?

1 through 7.
10, 11 and 13.

So you accept 8,9 and 12. Interesting.

Sort of. Evolution and probably alien intervention.

We also look for the why.

So I guess maybe really only 9, lol.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, there is a link embedded in the post right after the word website.

As opposed to people who believe in a higher power. People are not all bad or all good. You can’t focus on one thing and expect to see the full picture. That would be like me pointing to one thing about you and saying that’s Taz.

Ok, saw the link. But I don't see myself in this, and it's from fucking FRANCE!!!! Ils sont tous fou les Français.

They are trying to say, for example, that anyone who is spiritual believes in Creationism, which is bullshit. I'm spiritual, I just see no proof for the theories put forth by today's religions. I think it's probably something else.

So you believe in Creationism?

I didn’t know it was from France, so you scored a point for that! But it seemed to me to be a fair comparison. Perfect? No. But probably pretty close.

There are probably SOME atheists who will agree with that list, but probably not very many, because it's a dumb list to tag on all atheists. Or anyone.

I don't disagree that some atheists reject materialism. I disagree that rejecting materialism is logical for an atheist. It doesn't make any sense. Why? Because they believe in something that is intelligent and incorporeal that did not originate from a material being. Call it a life force. That isn't atheism.

Atheists simply don't believe in gods. They don't necessarily reject everything spiritual. Some probably do, but that's not a prerequisite for being an atheist.

Thank you. I am one of the ones in the previous discussion that brought this thread about.

I do not believe in a god. Therefore, ding insists that I must believe everything has a material, corporeal origin. That I believe in the incorporeal, and even spiritual, without believing in an omnipotent god means I am not an atheist.

In the previous thread, ding spent numerous pages claiming all atheists were materialists. That all atheists were either marxists or were supporting marxists, and that they only believed in the materialistic. I think he wishes it were so. It is so much easier when people fit into neat little boxes.

 

[Taz]

I just see no proof that leads to an invisible Big Guy who cares if we follow a book or not. It actually sounds completely ludicrous to me.

Your call. Your loss. It is your mistake to make.

Seriously though, an invisible superbeing in another dimension wants us to follow a book? Sounds cartoonish.

Does it sound any more cartoonish than your beliefs of reincarnation. Maybe it only sounds cartoonish because you don't look at it the way I do. I believe that God is more like mind than anything else. Does that sound cartoonish to you?

I think that reincarnation seems possible. And likely, given what we know.

Believing in an invisible being that wants us to follow a book seems very unlikely. And it makes no sense.

Again you are looking at God all wrong. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.

Let's try this. List what you reject from the Spiritual column.

9 is possible. The rest is not very solid.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing wrong in believing we are animals.
We eat, shit and fuk

Then we die

That is what I would consider to be the logical atheist worldview. It makes perfect sense to me that you would believe that. That was the point I was trying to make. Other people who claim to be atheists see it differently. So much so that I don't think they can be considered to be atheists.

We are animals and have animalistic needs
However, we are socialized animals who have needs that benefit the social group

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All materialists are atheists. Not all atheists are materialists. For example, Thomas Nagel is both an atheist philosopher and famously skeptical of materialist arguments in the philosophy of mind. I think it's generally questions about minds and consciousness that lead some atheists to reject certain materialist or physicalist views. Chalmers is another philosopher of mind who is both an atheist and not exactly a materialist. John Searle is a third.

Atheism is more closely connected to naturalism (both philosophical and methodological) than materialism.

Can you give an example of what an atheist who isn't a materialist would believe that would make him not a materialist?

Because I am sort of struggling with that one.

Why are you so obsessed with atheists? Nobody is gonna make you become one. Most don't care what you believe unless you try to force it on them. Did an atheist kick your dog?

The question came up in another discussion and I was surprised to discover their belief. It deserved its own thread because their response seemed inconsistent with their belief that there isn’t anything which is incorporeal which does not come from material beings.

It was almost as if they believed there was some life force at work which by my accounting is inconsistent with the atheist world view that nothing exists outside of the material world.

Got it. You are desperately trying to find something to discredit those who don't share your religious beliefs. Not sure why you would be worried about that.

It’s because far too many theists are arrogant authoritarians who seek to compel conformity and punish dissent.

Indeed, theists such as the OP are threatened by dissent and feel the need to attack that which they fear.

Threatened by those free from religion, the OP starts these ridiculous threads, succeeding in only exhibiting his ignorance of those free from religion.

 

[BULLDOG]

All materialists are atheists. Not all atheists are materialists. For example, Thomas Nagel is both an atheist philosopher and famously skeptical of materialist arguments in the philosophy of mind. I think it's generally questions about minds and consciousness that lead some atheists to reject certain materialist or physicalist views. Chalmers is another philosopher of mind who is both an atheist and not exactly a materialist. John Searle is a third.

Atheism is more closely connected to naturalism (both philosophical and methodological) than materialism.

Can you give an example of what an atheist who isn't a materialist would believe that would make him not a materialist?

Because I am sort of struggling with that one.

Why are you so obsessed with atheists? Nobody is gonna make you become one. Most don't care what you believe unless you try to force it on them. Did an atheist kick your dog?

The question came up in another discussion and I was surprised to discover their belief. It deserved its own thread because their response seemed inconsistent with their belief that there isn’t anything which is incorporeal which does not come from material beings.

It was almost as if they believed there was some life force at work which by my accounting is inconsistent with the atheist world view that nothing exists outside of the material world.

Got it. You are desperately trying to find something to discredit those who don't share your religious beliefs. Not sure why you would be worried about that.

It’s because far too many theists are arrogant authoritarians who seek to compel conformity and punish dissent.

Indeed, theists such as the OP are threatened by dissent and feel the need to attack that which they fear.

Threatened by those free from religion, the OP starts these ridiculous threads, succeeding in only exhibiting his ignorance of those free from religion.

It;s almost like he is trying to convince himself that he hasn't wasted years believing in a fairy tale.

 

[ding]

Ok, saw the link. But I don't see myself in this, and it's from fucking FRANCE!!!! Ils sont tous fou les Français.

They are trying to say, for example, that anyone who is spiritual believes in Creationism, which is bullshit. I'm spiritual, I just see no proof for the theories put forth by today's religions. I think it's probably something else.

So you believe in Creationism?

I didn’t know it was from France, so you scored a point for that! But it seemed to me to be a fair comparison. Perfect? No. But probably pretty close.

There are probably SOME atheists who will agree with that list, but probably not very many, because it's a dumb list to tag on all atheists. Or anyone.

I don't disagree that some atheists reject materialism. I disagree that rejecting materialism is logical for an atheist. It doesn't make any sense. Why? Because they believe in something that is intelligent and incorporeal that did not originate from a material being. Call it a life force. That isn't atheism.

Atheists simply don't believe in gods. They don't necessarily reject everything spiritual. Some probably do, but that's not a prerequisite for being an atheist.

Thank you. I am one of the ones in the previous discussion that brought this thread about.

I do not believe in a god. Therefore, ding insists that I must believe everything has a material, corporeal origin. That I believe in the incorporeal, and even spiritual, without believing in an omnipotent god means I am not an atheist.

In the previous thread, ding spent numerous pages claiming all atheists were materialists. That all atheists were either marxists or were supporting marxists, and that they only believed in the materialistic. I think he wishes it were so. It is so much easier when people fit into neat little boxes.

I’m not saying what you have to believe. I am saying your beliefs in something incorporeal beyond the incorporeal that originated from the corporeal is illogical.

You were so fake in your statements that you wouldn’t even say what you believed it was. You just knew there was something.

 

[ding]

Nothing wrong in believing we are animals.
We eat, shit and fuk

Then we die

That is what I would consider to be the logical atheist worldview. It makes perfect sense to me that you would believe that. That was the point I was trying to make. Other people who claim to be atheists see it differently. So much so that I don't think they can be considered to be atheists.

We are animals and have animalistic needs
However, we are socialized animals who have needs that benefit the social group

It doesn’t change anything. You don’t believe there is anything beyond the material world. You are true to your atheism.

 

[ding]

Your call. Your loss. It is your mistake to make.

Seriously though, an invisible superbeing in another dimension wants us to follow a book? Sounds cartoonish.

Does it sound any more cartoonish than your beliefs of reincarnation. Maybe it only sounds cartoonish because you don't look at it the way I do. I believe that God is more like mind than anything else. Does that sound cartoonish to you?

I think that reincarnation seems possible. And likely, given what we know.

Believing in an invisible being that wants us to follow a book seems very unlikely. And it makes no sense.

Again you are looking at God all wrong. No wonder it doesn't make sense to you.

Let's try this. List what you reject from the Spiritual column.

9 is possible. The rest is not very solid.

When I get back to the house we can discuss this more. But I’m calling BS on that right now.

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn’t know it was from France, so you scored a point for that! But it seemed to me to be a fair comparison. Perfect? No. But probably pretty close.

There are probably SOME atheists who will agree with that list, but probably not very many, because it's a dumb list to tag on all atheists. Or anyone.

I don't disagree that some atheists reject materialism. I disagree that rejecting materialism is logical for an atheist. It doesn't make any sense. Why? Because they believe in something that is intelligent and incorporeal that did not originate from a material being. Call it a life force. That isn't atheism.

Atheists simply don't believe in gods. They don't necessarily reject everything spiritual. Some probably do, but that's not a prerequisite for being an atheist.

Thank you. I am one of the ones in the previous discussion that brought this thread about.

I do not believe in a god. Therefore, ding insists that I must believe everything has a material, corporeal origin. That I believe in the incorporeal, and even spiritual, without believing in an omnipotent god means I am not an atheist.

In the previous thread, ding spent numerous pages claiming all atheists were materialists. That all atheists were either marxists or were supporting marxists, and that they only believed in the materialistic. I think he wishes it were so. It is so much easier when people fit into neat little boxes.

I’m not saying what you have to believe. I am saying your beliefs in something incorporeal beyond the incorporeal that originated from the corporeal is illogical.

You were so fake in your statements that you wouldn’t even say what you believed it was. You just knew there was something.

I never said I believed in something incorporeal that originated from the corporeal.

As for my being fake, since when is it fake to acknowledge there are things I do not know. You kept asking where I thought these incorporeal things came from. I was honest and said I do not know. Now that is being fake? LMAO

 

[Nia88]

Materlism has nothing to do with someone's faith. There are people of faith and no faith who are materialistic and vice versa.

I've met materialistic religious folks and materialistic atheist.

Me personally, since I've become an agnostic atheist, I've been more focus on life moments rather than materialistic things. I appreciate life more because I'm not chasing some fairy tale afterlife.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thank you! Well said.

 

[danielpalos]

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

In Idealism, mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and secondary. In philosophical materialism the converse is true. Here mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system, for example) without which they cannot exist. According to this doctrine the material creates and determines consciousness, not vice versa.

Materialist theories are mainly divided into three groups. Naive materialism identifies the material world with specific elements (e.g. the scheme of the four elements—fire, air, water and earth—devised by the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles). Metaphysical materialism examines separated parts of the world in a static, isolated environment. Dialectical materialism adapts the Hegelian dialectic for materialism, examining parts of the world in relation to each other within a dynamic environment.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, and other forms of monism.

Materialism - Wikipedia

The following is a table taken from an atheist website Main differences between materialism and spiritualism and compares materialism to spiritualism.

View attachment 234724

i prefer, secular and temporalists.

 

[well named]

I guess what I am struggling with is the atheist position that they aren't materialists when they don't believe in any consciousness outside of material beings. It seems rather like they are recoiling from the bed they made for themselves, so to speak. It's like they want to see a higher meaning to their existence than their belief system will allow. It's like they want the best of both worlds.

I think this is a misreading of the philosophy of mind.The mind-body problem goes back to at least Descartes, in the western tradition. I don't think it involves any questions of a higher meaning to life, or anything at all that touches directly on theism. Nor does it even hinge on the idea of "non-material" beings having consciousness. It's just an ontological problem (does consciousness involve "stuff" that is different from other physical stuff?), and it can appear as such to both theists and atheists alike. So for example difficulties facing a substance dualist are the same for theists as for atheists: if mind is not matter then how does mind interact with matter? What makes philosophy of mind interesting is not that it has any direct connection with religious questions, but rather that the phenomenal experience of consciousness is at once both the most familiar experience to us while also seeming quite enigmatic from the perspective of the natural sciences, at least in context of their historical development.

That said, I think developments in neurology, cognitive science, and even computer science and AI have made it seem less enigmatic now than it would have in Descartes' time, and it's probably not really more enigmatic than a bunch of other phenomena from modern physics.

I also think some of your consternation might be removed if you realized that a lot of what you are saying about atheists would be more correct if you just substitute the word naturalism for materialism. It's naturalism that entails the necessity of deflating phenomena of spiritual significance, rather than materialism per se. Materialism is about what kinds of "stuff" exist, hence your OP graphic's distinction between monism and dualism. But you shouldn't conflate dualism with a belief in the supernatural or monism with a rejection of the supernatural. The natural vs supernatural distinction is a different concept. A naturalist can hold that the natural universe contains more than one kind of stuff (eg. minds and matter), but that none of it is the result of any supernatural agent. Similarly, there are religious monists (Advaita Vedanta is a good example) who hold that the "physical" world is ultimately illusory, so that in reality only the spiritual world is real. They are monists but not exactly naturalists.

 

[WinterBorn]

Buddhists do not believe in a god. Therefore, they are, by definition, atheists. However, you would be hard pressed to say they are not spiritual or that they are materialists.

 

[ding]

I guess what I am struggling with is the atheist position that they aren't materialists when they don't believe in any consciousness outside of material beings. It seems rather like they are recoiling from the bed they made for themselves, so to speak. It's like they want to see a higher meaning to their existence than their belief system will allow. It's like they want the best of both worlds.

I think this is a misreading of the philosophy of mind.The mind-body problem goes back to at least Descartes, in the western tradition. I don't think it involves any questions of a higher meaning to life, or anything at all that touches directly on theism. Nor does it even hinge on the idea of "non-material" beings having consciousness. It's just an ontological problem (does consciousness involve "stuff" that is different from other physical stuff?), and it can appear as such to both theists and atheists alike. So for example difficulties facing a substance dualist are the same for theists as for atheists: if mind is not matter then how does mind interact with matter? What makes philosophy of mind interesting is not that it has any direct connection with religious questions, but rather that the phenomenal experience of consciousness is at once both the most familiar experience to us while also seeming quite enigmatic from the perspective of the natural sciences, at least in context of their historical development.

That said, I think developments in neurology, cognitive science, and even computer science and AI have made it seem less enigmatic now than it would have in Descartes' time, and it's probably not really more enigmatic than a bunch of other phenomena from modern physics.

I also think some of your consternation might be removed if you realized that a lot of what you are saying about atheists would be more correct if you just substitute the word naturalism for materialism. It's naturalism that entails the necessity of deflating phenomena of spiritual significance, rather than materialism per se. Materialism is about what kinds of "stuff" exist, hence your OP graphic's distinction between monism and dualism. But you shouldn't conflate dualism with a belief in the supernatural or monism with a rejection of the supernatural. The natural vs supernatural distinction is a different concept. A naturalist can hold that the natural universe contains more than one kind of stuff (eg. minds and matter), but that none of it is the result of any supernatural agent. Similarly, there are religious monists (Advaita Vedanta is a good example) who hold that the "physical" world is ultimately illusory, so that in reality only the spiritual world is real. They are monists but not exactly naturalists.

Spiritualists believe that everything was created by spirit. That the physical world - the stuff of matter - exists because the spirit willed it into existence. Such that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Naturalist or materialist don't believe that the physical world was created by spirit. They believe that the incorporeal - such as thought - arose through the material world. If they believe anything else then they are really talking about some vague life force (which is non-material spirit) which exists independent of the material world. I don't see how this is compatible with the belief of atheism which is a belief in no God. Because all they are doing is using another name for God.

I don't have any consternation. What I have is confusion for why they recoil at the logical conclusion of their atheism.

 

[ding]

Materlism has nothing to do with someone's faith. There are people of faith and no faith who are materialistic and vice versa.

I've met materialistic religious folks and materialistic atheist.

Me personally, since I've become an agnostic atheist, I've been more focus on life moments rather than materialistic things. I appreciate life more because I'm not chasing some fairy tale afterlife.

Not the same kind of materialism.

Yes, people are materialistic. It is one of the reasons the world is the way it is.

For the purpose of this discussion materialism means that there is no life force or God behind the creation of the material world.

 

[ding]

There are probably SOME atheists who will agree with that list, but probably not very many, because it's a dumb list to tag on all atheists. Or anyone.

I don't disagree that some atheists reject materialism. I disagree that rejecting materialism is logical for an atheist. It doesn't make any sense. Why? Because they believe in something that is intelligent and incorporeal that did not originate from a material being. Call it a life force. That isn't atheism.

Atheists simply don't believe in gods. They don't necessarily reject everything spiritual. Some probably do, but that's not a prerequisite for being an atheist.

Thank you. I am one of the ones in the previous discussion that brought this thread about.

I do not believe in a god. Therefore, ding insists that I must believe everything has a material, corporeal origin. That I believe in the incorporeal, and even spiritual, without believing in an omnipotent god means I am not an atheist.

In the previous thread, ding spent numerous pages claiming all atheists were materialists. That all atheists were either marxists or were supporting marxists, and that they only believed in the materialistic. I think he wishes it were so. It is so much easier when people fit into neat little boxes.

I’m not saying what you have to believe. I am saying your beliefs in something incorporeal beyond the incorporeal that originated from the corporeal is illogical.

You were so fake in your statements that you wouldn’t even say what you believed it was. You just knew there was something.

I never said I believed in something incorporeal that originated from the corporeal.

As for my being fake, since when is it fake to acknowledge there are things I do not know. You kept asking where I thought these incorporeal things came from. I was honest and said I do not know. Now that is being fake? LMAO

Thoughts are an example of the incorporeal originating from the corporeal. Which is how a materialist would see it.

A spiritualist would believe that everything in the physical world originated from spirit.

This all started when you recoiled at the thought that the love you feel for your family was just an electrochemical response in your brain that was the result of evolutionary forces. If you are truly an atheist, I don't see how you can believe anything different than the love you feel for your family is just an electrochemical response in your brain that is the result of evolutionary forces. That is the consequence of believing that everything arose from the corporeal and not spirit.

 

[BULLDOG]

I guess what I am struggling with is the atheist position that they aren't materialists when they don't believe in any consciousness outside of material beings. It seems rather like they are recoiling from the bed they made for themselves, so to speak. It's like they want to see a higher meaning to their existence than their belief system will allow. It's like they want the best of both worlds.

I think this is a misreading of the philosophy of mind.The mind-body problem goes back to at least Descartes, in the western tradition. I don't think it involves any questions of a higher meaning to life, or anything at all that touches directly on theism. Nor does it even hinge on the idea of "non-material" beings having consciousness. It's just an ontological problem (does consciousness involve "stuff" that is different from other physical stuff?), and it can appear as such to both theists and atheists alike. So for example difficulties facing a substance dualist are the same for theists as for atheists: if mind is not matter then how does mind interact with matter? What makes philosophy of mind interesting is not that it has any direct connection with religious questions, but rather that the phenomenal experience of consciousness is at once both the most familiar experience to us while also seeming quite enigmatic from the perspective of the natural sciences, at least in context of their historical development.

That said, I think developments in neurology, cognitive science, and even computer science and AI have made it seem less enigmatic now than it would have in Descartes' time, and it's probably not really more enigmatic than a bunch of other phenomena from modern physics.

I also think some of your consternation might be removed if you realized that a lot of what you are saying about atheists would be more correct if you just substitute the word naturalism for materialism. It's naturalism that entails the necessity of deflating phenomena of spiritual significance, rather than materialism per se. Materialism is about what kinds of "stuff" exist, hence your OP graphic's distinction between monism and dualism. But you shouldn't conflate dualism with a belief in the supernatural or monism with a rejection of the supernatural. The natural vs supernatural distinction is a different concept. A naturalist can hold that the natural universe contains more than one kind of stuff (eg. minds and matter), but that none of it is the result of any supernatural agent. Similarly, there are religious monists (Advaita Vedanta is a good example) who hold that the "physical" world is ultimately illusory, so that in reality only the spiritual world is real. They are monists but not exactly naturalists.

Spiritualists believe that everything was created by spirit. That the physical world - the stuff of matter - exists because the spirit willed it into existence. Such that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Naturalist or materialist don't believe that the physical world was created by spirit. They believe that the incorporeal - such as thought - arose through the material world. If they believe anything else then they are really talking about some vague life force (which is non-material spirit) which exists independent of the material world. I don't see how this is compatible with the belief of atheism which is a belief in no God. Because all they are doing is using another name for God.

I don't have any consternation. What I have is confusion for why they recoil at the logical conclusion of their atheism.

Your confusion is probably because you don't know what you are talking about. Buddhists believe the world always existed, and there is no need for a creator.