Are atheists materialists?

[edthecynic]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

That's right, existence begets essence, not the other way around, as Theists claim but have no REAL WORLD concrete proof like music!

If you think I am wrong, give one REAL WORLD example where a provable nonmaterial anything created something physical.

 

[ding]

So if I have a belief that I should look both ways before crossing the street you would see that as subjective or relative?

I would see that as irrelevant to my question.

That you feel the need to categorize people by whether they believe they should look left then right, and separate them from those who look right then left, would be a more accurate analogy for my question.

It's a belief. The question is is it an objective belief or a subjective belief.

And you were planning on answering my question when?

It is a matter of convenience. I could say you are a naturalist or a materialist or an atheist because it is easier to say that then it is someone who does not believe that consciousness created existence.

I could literally say the same thing about you and your simplified definition of an atheist. Atheists don't really want to discuss their beliefs. They want to discuss their disbelief. You can't know something by what it isn't, you can only know it by what it is. I tried to explain to you - unsuccessfully - that the key distinction between atheism and theism is what created existence. That is the seminal event.

And still, you do not answer my question.

My belief is that a deity does not exist. Not much to discuss. If I said I do not collect stamps, would you want me to discuss not collecting stamps?

I disagree that the beginning of existence is a seminal event for our beliefs or lack thereof. It happened in the distant past, regardless of which source you believe. That the universe exists is what is relevant. How I live my life is the seminal event. Each interaction with the universe, and especially the lives in it, is the continuous seminal event that defines my life. Not some interstellar example of physics or a myth concerning a hidden deity that waved his hands and made everything appear.

I did answer your question. Your question was why do I feel the need to categorize people. I don't do it the way you think I do. I gave you a very honest and thoughtful answer. See posts #294 and 296.

 

[WinterBorn]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

 

[ding]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

That's right, existence begets essence, not the other way around, as Theists claim but have no REAL WORLD concrete proof like music!

If you think I am wrong, give one REAL WORLD example where a provable nonmaterial anything created something physical.

I've shared many way in which I have confirmed it. You have rejected them all.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

If someone is moved by music, how do you know the source of that? You say, according to an atheist it must merely be a chemical reaction. But when told, by an atheist, that they believe in the incorporeal, you want to deny that they are atheists, despite the fact they do not believe in a deity.

 

[ding]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

 

[WinterBorn]

I would see that as irrelevant to my question.

That you feel the need to categorize people by whether they believe they should look left then right, and separate them from those who look right then left, would be a more accurate analogy for my question.

It's a belief. The question is is it an objective belief or a subjective belief.

And you were planning on answering my question when?

It is a matter of convenience. I could say you are a naturalist or a materialist or an atheist because it is easier to say that then it is someone who does not believe that consciousness created existence.

I could literally say the same thing about you and your simplified definition of an atheist. Atheists don't really want to discuss their beliefs. They want to discuss their disbelief. You can't know something by what it isn't, you can only know it by what it is. I tried to explain to you - unsuccessfully - that the key distinction between atheism and theism is what created existence. That is the seminal event.

And still, you do not answer my question.

My belief is that a deity does not exist. Not much to discuss. If I said I do not collect stamps, would you want me to discuss not collecting stamps?

I disagree that the beginning of existence is a seminal event for our beliefs or lack thereof. It happened in the distant past, regardless of which source you believe. That the universe exists is what is relevant. How I live my life is the seminal event. Each interaction with the universe, and especially the lives in it, is the continuous seminal event that defines my life. Not some interstellar example of physics or a myth concerning a hidden deity that waved his hands and made everything appear.

I did answer your question. Your question was why do I feel the need to categorize people. I don't do it the way you think I do. I gave you a very honest and thoughtful answer. See posts #294 and 296.

Those were very good answers as to how. But I asked why.

 

[ding]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

If someone is moved by music, how do you know the source of that? You say, according to an atheist it must merely be a chemical reaction. But when told, by an atheist, that they believe in the incorporeal, you want to deny that they are atheists, despite the fact they do not believe in a deity.

Again all you have done is change the name of the mover. That mover is. Regardless of what name you call the mover or I call the mover. The mover is. There's not an alternative reality. There is a final state of fact. There aren't multiple truths. There are multiple perception of truth. But regardless of anyone's perception, that mover is.

 

[WinterBorn]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

 

[ding]

It's a belief. The question is is it an objective belief or a subjective belief.

And you were planning on answering my question when?

It is a matter of convenience. I could say you are a naturalist or a materialist or an atheist because it is easier to say that then it is someone who does not believe that consciousness created existence.

I could literally say the same thing about you and your simplified definition of an atheist. Atheists don't really want to discuss their beliefs. They want to discuss their disbelief. You can't know something by what it isn't, you can only know it by what it is. I tried to explain to you - unsuccessfully - that the key distinction between atheism and theism is what created existence. That is the seminal event.

And still, you do not answer my question.

My belief is that a deity does not exist. Not much to discuss. If I said I do not collect stamps, would you want me to discuss not collecting stamps?

I disagree that the beginning of existence is a seminal event for our beliefs or lack thereof. It happened in the distant past, regardless of which source you believe. That the universe exists is what is relevant. How I live my life is the seminal event. Each interaction with the universe, and especially the lives in it, is the continuous seminal event that defines my life. Not some interstellar example of physics or a myth concerning a hidden deity that waved his hands and made everything appear.

I did answer your question. Your question was why do I feel the need to categorize people. I don't do it the way you think I do. I gave you a very honest and thoughtful answer. See posts #294 and 296.

Those were very good answers as to how. But I asked why.

You are asking me to answer a false premise. When did you stop beating your wife? That's a favorite line of atheist's, right?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

If someone is moved by music, how do you know the source of that? You say, according to an atheist it must merely be a chemical reaction. But when told, by an atheist, that they believe in the incorporeal, you want to deny that they are atheists, despite the fact they do not believe in a deity.

Again all you have done is change the name of the mover. That mover is. Regardless of what name you call the mover or I call the mover. The mover is. There's not an alternative reality. There is a final state of fact. There aren't multiple truths. There are multiple perception of truth. But regardless of anyone's perception, that mover is.

No, I did not.

 

[ding]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Not at all. I just understand how the process works. We are constantly receiving feedback from the "life force."

 

[ding]

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.

No you started this thread because your BS got thoroughly exposed by Existentialism.

It was proven to you that, for example, the composer has to physically exist FIRST before a composition that remains after the composer's physical existence ends still spiritually moves the listener long after! There is nothing inconsistent in the Atheist's world view with Existentialism. You as a Theist are just not honest enough to admit it, and as a Theist you never will be.

And it still proceeded from the material world.

Besides, under the atheism worldview being moved by music is just a chemical reaction in the brain. There is no higher meaning to anything.

If someone is moved by music, how do you know the source of that? You say, according to an atheist it must merely be a chemical reaction. But when told, by an atheist, that they believe in the incorporeal, you want to deny that they are atheists, despite the fact they do not believe in a deity.

Again all you have done is change the name of the mover. That mover is. Regardless of what name you call the mover or I call the mover. The mover is. There's not an alternative reality. There is a final state of fact. There aren't multiple truths. There are multiple perception of truth. But regardless of anyone's perception, that mover is.

No, I did not.

Do you believe you determine who or what the mover is?

 

[WinterBorn]

And you were planning on answering my question when?

It is a matter of convenience. I could say you are a naturalist or a materialist or an atheist because it is easier to say that then it is someone who does not believe that consciousness created existence.

I could literally say the same thing about you and your simplified definition of an atheist. Atheists don't really want to discuss their beliefs. They want to discuss their disbelief. You can't know something by what it isn't, you can only know it by what it is. I tried to explain to you - unsuccessfully - that the key distinction between atheism and theism is what created existence. That is the seminal event.

And still, you do not answer my question.

My belief is that a deity does not exist. Not much to discuss. If I said I do not collect stamps, would you want me to discuss not collecting stamps?

I disagree that the beginning of existence is a seminal event for our beliefs or lack thereof. It happened in the distant past, regardless of which source you believe. That the universe exists is what is relevant. How I live my life is the seminal event. Each interaction with the universe, and especially the lives in it, is the continuous seminal event that defines my life. Not some interstellar example of physics or a myth concerning a hidden deity that waved his hands and made everything appear.

I did answer your question. Your question was why do I feel the need to categorize people. I don't do it the way you think I do. I gave you a very honest and thoughtful answer. See posts #294 and 296.

Those were very good answers as to how. But I asked why.

You are asking me to answer a false premise. When did you stop beating your wife? That's a favorite line of atheist's, right?

No, I am not. I asked why you choose to ignore a very simple definition of the word "atheist" and choose to categorize people based on your perceptions of their beliefs. And then argue that they are not what they claim, despite their beliefs fitting the definition of the word perfectly.

 

[ding]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Are yo going to answer my question... Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

 

[WinterBorn]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Not at all. I just understand how the process works. We are constantly receiving feedback from the "life force."

YOu are free to believe that you have planted seeds that will sprout sometime in the future and bring me back to the fold. Feel free to hold your breath.

 

[ding]

It is a matter of convenience. I could say you are a naturalist or a materialist or an atheist because it is easier to say that then it is someone who does not believe that consciousness created existence.

I could literally say the same thing about you and your simplified definition of an atheist. Atheists don't really want to discuss their beliefs. They want to discuss their disbelief. You can't know something by what it isn't, you can only know it by what it is. I tried to explain to you - unsuccessfully - that the key distinction between atheism and theism is what created existence. That is the seminal event.

And still, you do not answer my question.

My belief is that a deity does not exist. Not much to discuss. If I said I do not collect stamps, would you want me to discuss not collecting stamps?

I disagree that the beginning of existence is a seminal event for our beliefs or lack thereof. It happened in the distant past, regardless of which source you believe. That the universe exists is what is relevant. How I live my life is the seminal event. Each interaction with the universe, and especially the lives in it, is the continuous seminal event that defines my life. Not some interstellar example of physics or a myth concerning a hidden deity that waved his hands and made everything appear.

I did answer your question. Your question was why do I feel the need to categorize people. I don't do it the way you think I do. I gave you a very honest and thoughtful answer. See posts #294 and 296.

Those were very good answers as to how. But I asked why.

You are asking me to answer a false premise. When did you stop beating your wife? That's a favorite line of atheist's, right?

No, I am not. I asked why you choose to ignore a very simple definition of the word "atheist" and choose to categorize people based on your perceptions of their beliefs. And then argue that they are not what they claim, despite their beliefs fitting the definition of the word perfectly.

Why do you care what I believe? Does it offend you? Are you defined by my beliefs?

 

[WinterBorn]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Are yo going to answer my question... Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

People seek the truth for a variety of reasons.

 

[ding]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Not at all. I just understand how the process works. We are constantly receiving feedback from the "life force."

YOu are free to believe that you have planted seeds that will sprout sometime in the future and bring me back to the fold. Feel free to hold your breath.

Thank you. It will be what it will be. There won't be multiple realities. I believe it will be one way, you believe it will be another. Time will decide.

 

[ding]

So there are two ways I can describe an atheist; by what they don't believe or by what they do believe. Saying they don't believe in the existence of God is the negative form of their belief and tells me nothing of what they do believe. The positive form of what an atheist believes is that they believe everything proceed from the material world, the natural world.

I could just as soon say I don't love this woman but it doesn't tell you what woman I love. I am quite certain you will dismiss everything I said and I'm Ok with that. I'm planting seeds.

You are planting nothing.

As for your two methods of describing atheists, how you describe them does not change them in the least. Nor does it change the definition of the word. And the definition of the word "atheist" does not describe how they view the world or its origins, other than to say they do not believe a deity was involved.

Only time will tell. It takes a while for a seed to sprout.

Exactly, things are what they are. There is a final state of fact. Objective truth is arrived at through a conflict and confusion process. That's what we're doing here now.

Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

You obviously think very highly of the effect your words have on others. For someone who refuses to listen, and demands that accepted definitions are incomplete, you certainly expect others to accept your definitions and to listen.

Are yo going to answer my question... Do you know why truth is discovered? Not how... why?

People seek the truth for a variety of reasons.

That isn't the question I asked. Independent of people, do you know why truth is discovered?