Are atheists 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.

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.

I am not confused in the sense you imply. I am confused why atheists would reject the logical consequences of their atheism and still be atheists. But to each his own.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says Buddhists are wrong. It is not possible for matter and energy to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium. This is also the reason that the only solution to the first cause conundrum - something which is eternal and unchanging - can be no thing. Consciousness is no thing. It is incorporeal.

But since you brought up Buddhists... Siddhārtha Gautama didn't say there was no God. He was silent on God. Legend has it that he crossed over to the the side and that he was silent on God because God could not be explained in humans terms.

 

[ding]

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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

 

[ding]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

 

[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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

I don't have to believe anything. I know I am an atheist. And I know I believe in incorporeal things that did not come from corporeal things.

As Popeye would say "I yam what I yam".

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

Ding-a-ling is adamant in his religious beliefs, but is not satisfied with that. He must also try to discredit anyone who doesn't share his convictions. Of course, he knows very little about why or what others believe other than it must be bad.

 

[ding]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

You aren't the only atheist who believes in a life force.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

You aren't the only atheist who believes in a life force.

I never claimed to be.

 

[ding]

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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

Yes.

He believed life is dislocated (dukkha). He believed that birth brings about the dislocation.

He believed the cause of of the dislocation is desire (taṇhā). The wrong desire. We crave worldly things.

He believed the cure lies in overcoming the wrong desire.

He believed the way to the cure was through the eightfold path.

 

[ding]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

You aren't the only atheist who believes in a life force.

I never claimed to be.

Then this isn't about you.

 

[ding]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

I don't have to believe anything. I know I am an atheist. And I know I believe in incorporeal things that did not come from corporeal things.

As Popeye would say "I yam what I yam".

You misspelled confused.

 

[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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

Yes.

He believed life is dislocated (dukkha). He believed that birth brings about the dislocation.

He believed the cause of of the dislocation is desire (taṇhā). The wrong desire. We crave worldly things.

He believed the cure lies in overcoming the wrong desire.

He believed the way to the cure was through the eightfold path.

So you are saying he believed in God? Which God? How so?

 

[WinterBorn]

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

You aren't the only atheist who believes in a life force.

I never claimed to be.

Then this isn't about you.

I never claimed it was all about me. I have simply stated what I believe. You seem determined to correct me on what I am.

 

[ding]

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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

Yes.

He believed life is dislocated (dukkha). He believed that birth brings about the dislocation.

He believed the cause of of the dislocation is desire (taṇhā). The wrong desire. We crave worldly things.

He believed the cure lies in overcoming the wrong desire.

He believed the way to the cure was through the eightfold path.

So you are saying he believed in God? Which God? How so?

There is only one creator. Call him whatever you like. He only wants you to call him so that he can heal your dislocation.

That's as far of the path as the OP that we are going to go. If you want to discuss it more, make your own thread. I'll post in it.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That you have a problem with my beliefs as an atheist is not my problem. Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be. But since I do not believe in god, I fit the description quite well.

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

I don't have to believe anything. I know I am an atheist. And I know I believe in incorporeal things that did not come from corporeal things.

As Popeye would say "I yam what I yam".

You misspelled confused.

If I were confused, that might be funny. I am not confused. You are the one who has been bound and determined to convince me I am something I am not.

 

[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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

Yes.

He believed life is dislocated (dukkha). He believed that birth brings about the dislocation.

He believed the cause of of the dislocation is desire (taṇhā). The wrong desire. We crave worldly things.

He believed the cure lies in overcoming the wrong desire.

He believed the way to the cure was through the eightfold path.

So you are saying he believed in God? Which God? How so?

There is only one creator. Call him whatever you like. He only wants you to call him so that he can heal your dislocation.

You made the claim that Siddhārtha Gautama believed in God. I asked for clarification as to which God. You claimed Siddhārtha Gautama believed in God and then proceeded to try to explain Buddhism.

 

[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.

Siddhārtha Gautama was a Hindu reformist. He believed that it had become fettered. Theology, ritual, authority, grace, mystery and tradition are components of religion. He believed they had become overbalanced. Where the form had replaced the meaning. He didn't reject them. He rejected the imbalance. He was a called the rebel child of Hinduism. He asked his followers, "did I ever teach you that God existed?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I ever teach you that God didn't exist?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world is eternal?" They said, "no." He asked them, "did I teach you the world isn't eternal?" They said, "no." He then asked them, "what have I taught you?" They said, you have taught us suffering and the end of suffering."

He was a rationalist and a moralist. He taught that people should work out their own salvation with diligence. He was not against Hinduism. He was against the corruption which had entered into Hinduism and wanted to get back to what was important in Hinduism. He believed we crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us. Which is very true. We are free to pursue pleasure, wealth, fame and power but none of those things will satisfy us because we were made for more.

So I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was not a materialist. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assertion that Siddhārtha Gautama was an atheist.

Did Siddhārtha Gautama believe in God?

Yes.

He believed life is dislocated (dukkha). He believed that birth brings about the dislocation.

He believed the cause of of the dislocation is desire (taṇhā). The wrong desire. We crave worldly things.

He believed the cure lies in overcoming the wrong desire.

He believed the way to the cure was through the eightfold path.

So you are saying he believed in God? Which God? How so?

There is only one creator. Call him whatever you like. He only wants you to call him so that he can heal your dislocation.

That's as far of the path as the OP that we are going to go. If you want to discuss it more, make your own thread. I'll post in it.

In the context of this discussion, about Buddhism, your claim that there is only one creator. Is this what Siddhārtha Gautama believed or what you believe.

 

[ding]

Again... I don't have a problem with your beliefs. I am not bothered by them in the slightest. If you want to believe you are an atheist who doesn't believe he is a materialist, more power to you.

It doesn't bother you that I am an atheist who believes in incorporeal things but does not thing they originate from the corporeal? It does not bother you that I am an atheist but not a materialist? Funny, you spents pages and pages arguing that I was not a good atheist. Then you started an entire thread because of who I say I am.

You aren't the only atheist who believes in a life force.

I never claimed to be.

Then this isn't about you.

I never claimed it was all about me. I have simply stated what I believe. You seem determined to correct me on what I am.

But you did.

Apparently you are bothered by the fact that I do not fit your idea of what an atheist should be.