Are atheists materialists?

[ding]

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

Offend me? lol Not at all. No, I am not defined by your beliefs. Neither are my beliefs redefined or changed because you wish to change or expand the definition of "atheist". But I have no qualms about correcting you when you misstate my beliefs, or attempt to redefine the term.

Why do you care that I am an atheist who believes in things incorporeal? You cannot say that you do not. You have argued for many pages and even started multiple threads in which your issues with my beliefs were discussed.

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. Solzhenitsyn

Yet again, you are trying to redefine the term "atheist". Nothing in the accepted definition of the word addresses any higher meaning or belief in the incorporeal. The definition is what it is. It is defined as one who does not believe in any deity. Nothing more.

I'm not the one redefining it.

 

[ding]

Yes. It's really quite simple and obvious at least it was to me AFTER I heard it said.

And?

I answered it in post #328, but now I will ask you if you know why standards exist?

Define "standards".

Standards: a level of quality or attainment.

But you aren't going to find the answer in the definition.

You will have better luck answering the question I asked by answering why was George Washington buried on a hill or which president wore the biggest shoes.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

 

[ding]

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

Offend me? lol Not at all. No, I am not defined by your beliefs. Neither are my beliefs redefined or changed because you wish to change or expand the definition of "atheist". But I have no qualms about correcting you when you misstate my beliefs, or attempt to redefine the term.

Why do you care that I am an atheist who believes in things incorporeal? You cannot say that you do not. You have argued for many pages and even started multiple threads in which your issues with my beliefs were discussed.

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

That also does not change the fact that I am an atheist.

Believe what you want. The mover that moves your soul is inconsistent with atheism.

 

[WinterBorn]

Offend me? lol Not at all. No, I am not defined by your beliefs. Neither are my beliefs redefined or changed because you wish to change or expand the definition of "atheist". But I have no qualms about correcting you when you misstate my beliefs, or attempt to redefine the term.

Why do you care that I am an atheist who believes in things incorporeal? You cannot say that you do not. You have argued for many pages and even started multiple threads in which your issues with my beliefs were discussed.

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. Solzhenitsyn

Yet again, you are trying to redefine the term "atheist". Nothing in the accepted definition of the word addresses any higher meaning or belief in the incorporeal. The definition is what it is. It is defined as one who does not believe in any deity. Nothing more.

I'm not the one redefining it.

No? You are the one claiming I am not an atheist or that my beliefs are false.

 

[WinterBorn]

Offend me? lol Not at all. No, I am not defined by your beliefs. Neither are my beliefs redefined or changed because you wish to change or expand the definition of "atheist". But I have no qualms about correcting you when you misstate my beliefs, or attempt to redefine the term.

Why do you care that I am an atheist who believes in things incorporeal? You cannot say that you do not. You have argued for many pages and even started multiple threads in which your issues with my beliefs were discussed.

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

That also does not change the fact that I am an atheist.

Believe what you want. The mover that moves your soul is inconsistent with atheism.

I do not believe in god. That is the sum total of the definition.

 

[ding]

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

That also does not change the fact that I am an atheist.

Believe what you want. The mover that moves your soul is inconsistent with atheism.

I do not believe in god. That is the sum total of the definition.

I don't care that you believe in spirits and life forces. So I absolutely can say that. I don't believe it is true. I know you believe it is true. Just as I believe it is false. The truth will be discovered eventually or maybe not. I'm good either way.

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. Solzhenitsyn

Yet again, you are trying to redefine the term "atheist". Nothing in the accepted definition of the word addresses any higher meaning or belief in the incorporeal. The definition is what it is. It is defined as one who does not believe in any deity. Nothing more.

I'm not the one redefining it.

No? You are the one claiming I am not an atheist or that my beliefs are false.

I am claiming that the mover of a soul which animates the soul is inconsistent with atheism.

 

[WinterBorn]

And?

I answered it in post #328, but now I will ask you if you know why standards exist?

Define "standards".

Standards: a level of quality or attainment.

But you aren't going to find the answer in the definition.

You will have better luck answering the question I asked by answering why was George Washington buried on a hill or which president wore the biggest shoes.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

I do not see any inconsistency at all.

You are not hung up on labels? LMAO!! Now THAT is funny. You have spent how many pages arguing with my own definition of my beliefs, but you are not hung up on labels? 99% of your arguments have been all about labels.

 

[WinterBorn]

You don't believe what is true? That I believe in the incorporeal? That I don't believe in a deity?

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it. Solzhenitsyn

Yet again, you are trying to redefine the term "atheist". Nothing in the accepted definition of the word addresses any higher meaning or belief in the incorporeal. The definition is what it is. It is defined as one who does not believe in any deity. Nothing more.

I'm not the one redefining it.

That atheists believe that everything didn't proceed from the material world. You can call it whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact that you believe that human life has a higher meaning.

That also does not change the fact that I am an atheist.

Believe what you want. The mover that moves your soul is inconsistent with atheism.

I do not believe in god. That is the sum total of the definition.

No? You are the one claiming I am not an atheist or that my beliefs are false.

I am claiming that the mover of a soul which animates the soul is inconsistent with atheism.

I do not believe in god. I believe that there are incorporeal things in the universe. You insist that anything incorporeal is god. I do not agree.

 

[ding]

I answered it in post #328, but now I will ask you if you know why standards exist?

Define "standards".

Standards: a level of quality or attainment.

But you aren't going to find the answer in the definition.

You will have better luck answering the question I asked by answering why was George Washington buried on a hill or which president wore the biggest shoes.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

I do not see any inconsistency at all.

You are not hung up on labels? LMAO!! Now THAT is funny. You have spent how many pages arguing with my own definition of my beliefs, but you are not hung up on labels? 99% of your arguments have been all about labels.

I know you don't.

 

[Taz]

The Pope is a materialist.

 

[WinterBorn]

Define "standards".

Standards: a level of quality or attainment.

But you aren't going to find the answer in the definition.

You will have better luck answering the question I asked by answering why was George Washington buried on a hill or which president wore the biggest shoes.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

I do not see any inconsistency at all.

You are not hung up on labels? LMAO!! Now THAT is funny. You have spent how many pages arguing with my own definition of my beliefs, but you are not hung up on labels? 99% of your arguments have been all about labels.

I know you don't.

And yet, you insist that you are "planting seeds" that you think will change my beliefs. You insist on labeling my beliefs.

Of course, I understand why you do it. You have made several blanket statements that you want to apply to all atheists. My beliefs do not fit those blanket statements. And rather than admit your claims do not fit, you try to make the claim that I am not an atheist.

 

[ding]

the mover of a soul which animates the soul is inconsistent with atheism.

Standards: a level of quality or attainment.

But you aren't going to find the answer in the definition.

You will have better luck answering the question I asked by answering why was George Washington buried on a hill or which president wore the biggest shoes.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

I do not see any inconsistency at all.

You are not hung up on labels? LMAO!! Now THAT is funny. You have spent how many pages arguing with my own definition of my beliefs, but you are not hung up on labels? 99% of your arguments have been all about labels.

I know you don't.

And yet, you insist that you are "planting seeds" that you think will change my beliefs. You insist on labeling my beliefs.

Of course, I understand why you do it. You have made several blanket statements that you want to apply to all atheists. My beliefs do not fit those blanket statements. And rather than admit your claims do not fit, you try to make the claim that I am not an atheist.

I believe that if one believes that there is a mover of their soul which animates their soul they are not atheists.

 

[WinterBorn]

the mover of a soul which animates the soul is inconsistent with atheism.

I asked because you have a habit of using your own definitions.

The standard for atheism is not believing in any god or deity. That is the sum total of the meaning of the word.

I wasn't going there with that. What I am discussing is feedback.

Standards exist for reasons. When we normalize our deviance from a standard predictable surprises will eventually occur. These predictable surprises provide the feedback and make the reason why the standard existed in the first place obvious and known.

This is the basis for my statement that truth is discovered; that error cannot stand. It is a conflict and confusion process so to speak. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. This process is how objective truth is discovered.

So instead of taking this conversation personal. Try taking a wider view of the process.

Like I said before, the mover that moves your soul is what it is. You can call it God or you can call it life force, but it is inconsistent with atheism that no such force exists.

I'm not the one hung up on labels. You are.

I do not see any inconsistency at all.

You are not hung up on labels? LMAO!! Now THAT is funny. You have spent how many pages arguing with my own definition of my beliefs, but you are not hung up on labels? 99% of your arguments have been all about labels.

I know you don't.

And yet, you insist that you are "planting seeds" that you think will change my beliefs. You insist on labeling my beliefs.

Of course, I understand why you do it. You have made several blanket statements that you want to apply to all atheists. My beliefs do not fit those blanket statements. And rather than admit your claims do not fit, you try to make the claim that I am not an atheist.

I believe that if one believes that there is a mover of their soul which animates their soul they are not atheists.

Have I said that I believe that?

 

[edthecynic]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says Buddhists are wrong. It is not possible for matter and energy to exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

The TLoT says no such thing, but you knew that already. The only temperature at which there is no usable energy to do work, thermal equilibrium, is absolute zero and the 3rd Law says it is impossible to reach absolute zero in the real world.

 

[edthecynic]

I believe that if one believes that there is a mover of their soul which animates their soul they are not atheists.

Music moves my soul and I know there was no music before the composer physically existed and even after the composer is physically gone the music still moves my soul.
So please explain to me exactly why I can't be an Atheist!

 

[edthecynic]

Your beliefs that you are an atheist who believes in a life force are illogical. That is what you are confused about. Those concepts are mutually exclusive. All you have done is substitute a different word for God. Probably because you recoil from the consequences of your own beliefs.

Just as you have substituted God for Energy. So you also recoil from the consequences of your own beliefs.

 

[edthecynic]

Life force is just another way of saying God. Therefore, believing a life force exists and believing there is no God are beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

A life force could also be energy, it does not have to be some humanized spirit.

 

[edthecynic]

I believe there is only one spirit and it is God. What you would call a Life Force.

And what IS called energy. You have simply personified physical energy and made it a spirit.

 

[edthecynic]

Where does that consciousness come from?

Physical awareness.

 

[edthecynic]

You did not tell me how you knew it did not originate from the corporeal.

Yes he did, he said he didn't know, he just believes.
Why can't you accept his answer?