Are atheists materialists?

[edthecynic]

I can prove it to myself. I can literally explain all the reasons I believe God exists. You will reject each and everyone but I can actually put forth a basis for belief.

No, you can only delude yourself that your reasons are valid even when they aren't.

 

[edthecynic]

So you are taking it on faith that a life force exists independent of the material world. Sounds like a religion to me.

Sounds like a Godless "religion" to me. If it is a "religion" why can't he still be an Atheist?

 

[edthecynic]

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?"

Nope, that would be "Life after Death!"

 

[denmark]

RE: Are atheists materialists?
⁜→ denmark, et al,

Yes, I do not think I could challenge that particular take on me; although I still think I have an open mind. After all, we can discuss attributes that we would like to be assigned to any deity, and even go rounds on the topic of what we do not know about the attributes and characteristics of a deity.

RE: Are atheists materialists?
⁜→ denmark, et al,

How could anyone actually know anything about a 'Supernatural Entity?"

It is sad that so few are honest. Most appear to support their cultural or family views.
I doubt ANYONE “knows” about any supernatural entity.

(COMMENT)

To know something about a manifestation, you have to be able to define it relative to a given reality. How do you do that?

That is like saying you know something about the Supreme Being? First, you have to tell me what a Supreme Being is, and how I would be able to distinguish it from a parlor trick.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think your position is “ignosticism”, based on a discussion i had with a practical philosopher.
A variant of agnosticism?

(COMMENT)

The term "God" is a very specific deity. That deity may be a different "principal object of faith" (faith-based) from religion to religion, but within the religion, characteristics of the deity seems to be clear.

It appears to me that the Supreme Being for the Catholics, is a kind of "associative" identity (The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost → multiple attributes that describe a single relationship with each person), as opposed to a "dissociative" identity disorder (multiple personalities → one benevolent, encouraging growth and development with time - while another - one dark, lethal, unforgiving and forcefully condemning).

Most Respectfully,
R

It is my current conclusion that we have NO KNOWLEDGE of ANY supernatural concept or definition from ANY religion.

All religions are based on uncomfortable & profitable ignorance where “authorities” pretend to explain existence to line their pockets with “donations” from emotionally insecure followers.

 

[denmark]

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.

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.

The “soul” concept is a theistic definition, as is your “mover”.

Atheists are not theist. You are correct.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

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.

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.

The “soul” concept is a theistic definition, as is your “mover”.

Atheists are not theist. You are correct.

And if the person in question believed in the possibility of a "life force", but not a soul, and did not mention anything about a "mover", that person would not be theistic.

 

[edthecynic]

Atheists believe the mind proceeds from the material world. Spiritualists believe the material world proceeded from mind/spirit.

Again, you are mistaking Existentialists for Atheists, obviously you think calling Existentialists Atheists bad mouths them, since you can't post any valid arguments disproving Existentialism.
There is no denying that the physical existing artist must precede his artistic creation, but there is no EVIDENCE that art precedes the artist!

 

[edthecynic]

Logic requires the solution to the first cause conundrum to be eternal and unchanging.

And that is ENERGY.

 

[edthecynic]

Because I think it is illogical for people who don't believe in a God to believe in a life force that is a spirit that animates their soul?

Consider this, believers in God have PERSONIFIED the spiritual, whereas believers in a life force have not.

 

[ding]

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

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?

Did you say you didn’t?

 

[ding]

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.

Thermal equilibrium does not mean absolute zero. Thermal equilibrium means uniform temperature.

 

[ding]

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!

You have a soul? Tell me about it?

 

[ding]

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.

God is no thing.

 

[ding]

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.

A lifeforce is no thing.

 

[ding]

Where does that consciousness come from?

Physical awareness.

Then you are a materialist like WB.

 

[ding]

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?

He has faith in a lifeforce then.

 

[ding]

Logic requires the solution to the first cause conundrum to be eternal and unchanging.

And that is ENERGY.

Nope. It can not be a thing. It can only be no thing.

 

[ding]

Because I think it is illogical for people who don't believe in a God to believe in a life force that is a spirit that animates their soul?

Consider this, believers in God have PERSONIFIED the spiritual, whereas believers in a life force have not.

Incorrect.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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?

Did you say you didn’t?

Oh, so absent my actually SAYING it, you assume that which is less likely to be the view of the average atheist.

Did you ask? Or did you just decide?

 

[denmark]

Because I think it is illogical for people who don't believe in a God to believe in a life force that is a spirit that animates their soul?

Consider this, believers in God have PERSONIFIED the spiritual, whereas believers in a life force have not.

What is a “life force”? The energy part of mass?