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.

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

You have shared NOTHING to reject, you only lie about what you claim to have shared.

 

[WinterBorn]

I am asking people if they believe an atheist can believe that they can have a lifeforce that did not originate from the material world.

How do you conceptualize a “lifeforce”?
Is it a “soul” that is supposed to be separate from the material body?

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

If "lifeforce" is defined as a force that animates a soul, then I do not believe in a lifeforce. But life force (two words) has a different meaning. And I also recall sticking with the phrase "I believe in incorporeal things that do not originate in the corporeal" to avoid such confusion.

The phrase incorporeal things that do not originate in the corporeal means spirits, WB.

If you don’t believe in spirits then you are a materialist or naturalist.

Does it? Is that a standard definition or one you made up? You have been shown to make things up and even lie when it suits you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

 

[ding]

I am asking people if they believe an atheist can believe that they can have a lifeforce that did not originate from the material world.

How do you conceptualize a “lifeforce”?
Is it a “soul” that is supposed to be separate from the material body?

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

Some believe that their “soul” is their personality, which develops from and is driven by biological energy.

Right. They would be considered materialists or naturalists.

And a materialist/naturalist is not necessarily a “hard atheist” who believes there is no God or supernatural force.
An agnostic can be considered a “soft atheist” who simply is not a theist.

And Facebook has like 56 gender options.

I think people are uncomfortable with their atheism and need to feel like they are more than what the logical conclusion of their beliefs mean.

Such as love is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain as a result of evolution.

 

[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.

Ask an athiest if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

 

[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.

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

thermal equilibrium is the temperature at which there is no usable energy to do work, and that ONLY happens at absolute zero, which is impossible to attain in the real world. But you knew that already!

Nope.

A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium when there is no unbalanced forces acting on any part of system or the system as a whole.
A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium when there is no Chemical reaction within the system and also there is no movement of any chemical constituents from one part of the system to the other.

 

[denmark]

How do you conceptualize a “lifeforce”?
Is it a “soul” that is supposed to be separate from the material body?

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

Some believe that their “soul” is their personality, which develops from and is driven by biological energy.

Right. They would be considered materialists or naturalists.

And a materialist/naturalist is not necessarily a “hard atheist” who believes there is no God or supernatural force.
An agnostic can be considered a “soft atheist” who simply is not a theist.

And Facebook has like 56 gender options.

I think people are uncomfortable with their atheism and need to feel like they are more than what the logical conclusion of their beliefs mean.

Such as love is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain as a result of evolution.

You are oversimplifying the “love” emotion(s).
Why? Ignorance of scientific psychology?

 

[Karl Rand]

I am asking people if they believe an atheist can believe that they can have a lifeforce that did not originate from the material world.

How do you conceptualize a “lifeforce”?
Is it a “soul” that is supposed to be separate from the material body?

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

Some believe that their “soul” is their personality, which develops from and is driven by biological energy.

This ancient (tedious?) discussion about the ‘two realms’ often avoids one possibility.The mind as a purely physical object can operate at a purely abstract level some claim is in itself non-material. Consider for instance the kinds of abstraction a nuclear physicist indulges in that’s pure maths or the speculations a cosmologist might indulge in about possible universes. The fact such abstractions happen within a physical location, the brain, from my perspective doesn’t make them any less ‘spiritual’.
As to the ‘soul’ separating from the physical body at. death or during so called out of body experiences my view is the almost universal human fear of ceasing to be - death of the ego - is so terrifying a vast body of theological and mystical gibberish has been invented to calm those fears. The vanity of believing you in particular deserve to live forever?
On top of that it’s been very convenient for those in power to convince their ‘subjects’ pain and suffering during this lifetime will be rewarded after death. Still works very effectively with Muslims convinced of the rewards they’ll receive for martyrdom.
As to this question of a ‘life force’ not originating from the material world I suggest the question should be thrown back on itself. Where, for instance, is this life force supposed to have originated and what proof would be required?

 

[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.

thermal equilibrium is the temperature at which there is no usable energy to do work, and that ONLY happens at absolute zero, which is impossible to attain in the real world. But you knew that already!

Nope.

A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium when there is no unbalanced forces acting on any part of system or the system as a whole.
A system is said to be in thermal equilibrium when there is no Chemical reaction within the system and also there is no movement of any chemical constituents from one part of the system to the other.

You are in the wrong thread. Go create a thread for this.

 

[ding]

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

Some believe that their “soul” is their personality, which develops from and is driven by biological energy.

Right. They would be considered materialists or naturalists.

And a materialist/naturalist is not necessarily a “hard atheist” who believes there is no God or supernatural force.
An agnostic can be considered a “soft atheist” who simply is not a theist.

And Facebook has like 56 gender options.

I think people are uncomfortable with their atheism and need to feel like they are more than what the logical conclusion of their beliefs mean.

Such as love is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain as a result of evolution.

You are oversimplifying the “love” emotion(s).
Why? Ignorance of scientific psychology?

I’m not. I am starting from the two positions. Matter was created by spirit. Or spirit was created by matter. There is no middle ground.

 

[Karl Rand]

You are oversimplifying the “love” emotion(s).
Why? Ignorance of scientific psychology?

It’s just too scary? Instance recent research into brain states during ‘religious experiences’
Neurotheology: The relationship between brain and religion (From Iran of all places)

Off topic but I can’t help asking why a Koala & ‘Denmark’? A Danish imigrant to Oz?

 

[ding]

I am asking people if they believe an atheist can believe that they can have a lifeforce that did not originate from the material world.

How do you conceptualize a “lifeforce”?
Is it a “soul” that is supposed to be separate from the material body?

The definition of lifeforce is the force that animates the soul.

Some believe that their “soul” is their personality, which develops from and is driven by biological energy.

This ancient (tedious?) discussion about the ‘two realms’ often avoids one possibility.The mind as a purely physical object can operate at a purely abstract level some claim is in itself non-material. Consider for instance the kinds of abstraction a nuclear physicist indulges in that’s pure maths or the speculations a cosmologist might indulge in about possible universes. The fact such abstractions happen within a physical location, the brain, from my perspective doesn’t make them any less ‘spiritual’.
As to the ‘soul’ separating from the physical body at. death or during so called out of body experiences my view is the almost universal human fear of ceasing to be - death of the ego - is so terrifying a vast body of theological and mystical gibberish has been invented to calm those fears. The vanity of believing you in particular deserve to live forever?
On top of that it’s been very convenient for those in power to convince their ‘subjects’ pain and suffering during this lifetime will be rewarded after death. Still works very effectively with Muslims convinced of the rewards they’ll receive for martyrdom.
As to this question of a ‘life force’ not originating from the material world I suggest the question should be thrown back on itself. Where, for instance, is this life force supposed to have originated and what proof would be required?

I’ll mark you down as a materialist.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Ask an athiest if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

 

[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.

Ask an athiest if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

There is no middle ground. You are trying to exist in the middle ground. Either existence was created through natural processes and all spirituality exists due to material interactions or the material world was created by spirit.

 

[ding]

I can actually make a logical argument for both cases. What I cannot make a logical case for is the middle ground.

 

[Karl Rand]

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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

But there are so many kinds of atheism. It’s best to define and hopefully agree to a term’s meaning at the beginning of any discussion. (as Ayn Rand of all people warned)

 

[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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

But there are so many kinds of atheism. It’s best to define and hopefully agree to a term’s meaning at the beginning of any discussion. (as Ayn Rand of all people warned)

There is no logical case for the middle ground.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

But there are so many kinds of atheism. It’s best to define and hopefully agree to a term’s meaning at the beginning of any discussion. (as Ayn Rand of all people warned)

I posted the Merriam Webster definition early in the discussion.

The Oxford English dictionary provides the same definition.
from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I challenged ding to provide a link to another definition, but he did not.

I do not believe in any god or deity. Therefore I am, by definition, an atheist.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

But there are so many kinds of atheism. It’s best to define and hopefully agree to a term’s meaning at the beginning of any discussion. (as Ayn Rand of all people warned)

There is no logical case for the middle ground.

Whether you see a logical case for middle ground, or even that there is any middle ground is irrelevant.

I have provided you with two sources for my definition of "atheist". I fit the definition.

 

[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.

Ask an atheist if he or she believes that man as a collective has a spiritual nature. That's where you really have to start.

Good thread, though. Could really expand in. Maybe you guys already did, I dunno, I just skimmed through the thread.

It could be if people would stop taking it personal.

It could have been an excellent discussion, if people would stop trying to redefine the meaning of the word "atheist" or lying about what was said to further their argument.

But there are so many kinds of atheism. It’s best to define and hopefully agree to a term’s meaning at the beginning of any discussion. (as Ayn Rand of all people warned)

I posted the Merriam Webster definition early in the discussion.

The Oxford English dictionary provides the same definition.
from: atheist | Definition of atheist in English by Oxford Dictionaries
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I challenged ding to provide a link to another definition, but he did not.

I do not believe in any god or deity. Therefore I am, by definition, an atheist.

And that’s all that matters to you.