Atheist beliefs

[PixyMisa]

What, exactly, is the point of a poll that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What, exactly, is the point of a poll that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think?

I think we are in agreement here, even if others are not.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I imagine it won't be any different from religious people.

 

[roger]

What, exactly, is the point of a poll that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think?

I'll start a poll asking what people think that people think about what the point of a poll is that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think.

Or should we perhaps start a poll asking if people think that people think I should start such a poll?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I used gut feeling. *shrug* No one's being graded on this.

You misunderstand. This is the internet. Life or death struggles over the proper way to make tea are waged every day, so anything that's remotely serious deserved an out-and-out war.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'll start a poll asking what people think that people think about what the point of a poll is that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think.

Or should we perhaps start a poll asking if people think that people think I should start such a poll?

I think we should have a poll on your idea of having a poll on whether to have a poll.

 

[The Atheist]

That would make me a strong material atheist.

Exactly where I am.

Are you attempting to say that anyone who is not a materialist is delusional?

It is all just navel-gazing. You cannot make falsifiable, definitive statements about the ultimate nature of reality on some philosophical non-explorable level. I think that things like "consciousness" are just emergent properties of our physical brain, but that doesn't mean that I am am materialist.

It does.

Materialism and Idealism are unfalsifiable philosophical positions, and collapse into one another regardless.

Bollocks.

Materialism is 100% falsifiable. One god, one miracle, one example of telepathy...

You sample size is too small. Just because a couple of buddhists claim to be atheists doesn't mean they are, nor does it mean that all others are. Buddhists believe in a great many supernatural things and deities.

Take note of Susan-MB1's sig line about reading what is actually written. I didn't say that all Buddhists were atheist, I said they can be. A sample of one proves that point.

What kind of poll is this? Should we be guessing based on our personal anecdotal experiences or trying to find the most evidence based data set?

If you have data, post it, otherwise, a guess based on personal experience is fine.

This ain't the UN, ya know.

Yeah, you left off the 'I have no idea option'.

That would be no vote.

What, exactly, is the point of a poll that asks people not what they think, not even what they think other people think, but what they think the statistics are on what other people think?

What is the point of this entire discussion forum, if it comes to that?

As I just noted to skeptigirl, this isn't the UN. It also isn't a college, university, government or council - it's a discussion board.

If you have nothing to discuss, why join in?

 

[qayak]

I didn't say that all Buddhists were atheist, I said they can be. A sample of one proves that point.

(Highlighting mine)

You are mistaken. Your words (from the OP which I responded to) "Buddhists are atheists, but certainly not materialists."

 

[The Atheist]

(Highlighting mine)

You are mistaken. Your words (from the OP which I responded to) "Buddhists are atheists, but certainly not materialists."

Point to you, my mistake.

I meant to convey that some are, not all of them.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Before joining forums, I don't think I had ever considered materialism and cannot think of anywhere the concept featured in my life, although I suppose I had some vague idea that materialists were those who were only interested in the monetary value of things. However, I find it very interesting to discover that I must be 100% materialist..... and by the time I arrive at the end of 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy', I might well have a comprehensive understanding!

 

[Beerina]

If you suggest that "spiritual" is just a loaded code-word for "we don't know, yet", then I suspect a lot of fence sitters will be cleared out.

 

[athon]

I believe that's BS myself, because while lots of us may believe things which are wrong, we're able to change our minds when presented with evidence.

Just a point I wanted to pick up here (it's a trumpet I seem to blowing a lot lately). But this seems like a bit of a tautology.

Evidence isn't an automatic, objective quality that we find floating about in the universe. It's what we call observations that influence our beliefs. If I see a fossil buried in the rock, I'll call that evidence for evolution. If a Creationist sees it, their faith might preclude them from calling it evidence. You can argue they're wrong for a variety of reasons, but it only becomes evidence to them once it changes their belief.

So, yes, we can all believe things are wrong, but it's a tautology to say we can change our minds when presented with evidence. Everybody can do that - that's why they'd then call it 'evidence'.

Athon

 

[athon]

Materialism is 100% falsifiable. One god, one miracle, one example of telepathy...

Huh? How does any of this falsify materialism?

Telepathic communication would no more falsify materialism than Newton's 'action at a distance' for gravity did.

Care to explain?

Athon

 

[novaphile]

Hmm...

It looks to me that two very different concepts are being mixed together, quite deliberately, in the poll.

For the record, I'm an Atheist, I've held my own belief system since I was kicked out of religious instruction in primary school. (For asking about obvious contradictions in the Bible).

I'm also (from what I've just read) a materialist. (i.e. I only believe in the natural world, I don't believe in anything supernatural).

However, it would take a lifetime to list what I do "believe" because I deal with the world based on a set of assumptions, based on what I've experienced before.

I've heard that this is one of the things that is so terrifying about severe earthquakes... we all unconsciously "believe" that the ground isn't going to jump up and down, and throw buildings at us. When it happens, it strikes a person's belief system (?) at a fundamental level.

Just for the record though... I don't believe that it's impossible for things we recognise as "life" to have travelled through space.

I don't "believe" that we have any evidence for aliens visiting here.

I have wondered if the reason we don't see signals being sent from other stars, may not be that there are too many ways for intelligent life to create conditions that are to hostile for life to survive, or worse, that there are all sorts of cosmic reset mechanisms, like gamma ray bursts, that just locally sterilise everything from time to time.

 

[KS_SKEPTIC]

Yeah, but shouldn't be defined on what materialism is? To me being materialistic is just wanting to have a lot of stuff like say having a lot of clothes or a lot cars. And to that end, I don't understand why atheism would lead to this kind of materialism.

And Christianity teaches against materialism as well. The parable of the rich guy having to give up everything in order to enter heaven illustrates this.

"Christians are not atheists of course, but certainly are materialists."
All TV and radio evangelist are begging for money (under the guise of religion) all the time!!!

They don't go 5-Minutes without asking for money or trying to sell you something!!!

 

[novaphile]

As for other people who call themselves Atheists? I can't say...

BTW. I couldn't answer the poll.

I'm relatively sure about what I think/feel about things, but really have no way of commenting about the beliefs of others.

Just a thought...

It may help a poll like this in future if:

(a) you limit it to a question that people can answer authoritatively about themselves; and,

(b) you define key terms up front.

I've noticed at least one poster who is thinking about materialism as "people who want stuff". If that's what you meant, I missed it.

 

[The Atheist]

So, yes, we can all believe things are wrong, but it's a tautology to say we can change our minds when presented with evidence. Everybody can do that - that's why they'd then call it 'evidence'.

Athon

Yes, but it comes back to whether the evidence is reliable or not, and used in reliable ways.

Huh? How does any of this falsify materialism?

Telepathic communication would no more falsify materialism than Newton's 'action at a distance' for gravity did.

Care to explain?

Athon

If it's without material origin, it isn't material.

Maybe it's not the best example?

BTW. I couldn't answer the poll.

I'm relatively sure about what I think/feel about things, but really have no way of commenting about the beliefs of others.

Just a thought...

It may help a poll like this in future if:

(a) you limit it to a question that people can answer authoritatively about themselves; and,

No, I don't want to know what members here think - it's a skewed sample.

I repeat - there is no statistical information, so I'm asking for opinion.

(b) you define key terms up front.

Probably, but it's a discusiion forum, not the UN.

I've noticed at least one poster who is thinking about materialism as "people who want stuff". If that's what you meant, I missed it.

The person who said that is now wiser for having asked.

That's another benefit of forums.

 

[FedUpWithFaith]

Is materialism defined here somewhere?

I am a physicalist in the sense that I believe there is logical natural explanation for everything but I don't believe the most fundamental essence of everything is matter and energy. I believe the essence of everything is based on information, logic/mathematics, and computation.

 

[The Atheist]

...I don't believe the most fundamental essence of everything is matter and energy.

What other choices are there?

 

[athon]

Yes, but it comes back to whether the evidence is reliable or not, and used in reliable ways.

For sure. It's a small quibble, I know, but given how often I've heard 'science uses evidence' as a defining feature, while religion doesn't, I think we need to communicate it differently. The difference isn't in that religious people don't use evidence to support their beliefs, but rather that the way they evaluate it for its reliability in predicting things is poor.

If it's without material origin, it isn't material.

Maybe it's not the best example?

Perhaps there's a better one, but I simply don't know how you could define it. I've never heard materialism being defined by a scientist as if it is a distinct, supportable concept. At least outside of discussions like this, which try to compare it with idealism.

Before you can falsify it, you need a good working definition.

Science isn't materialistic simply because it can only describe how what we observe relates to one another. That's it. The reason why it doesn't say 'it's all in our imagination' is because that's non-parsimonious, and therefore not helpful in any way. For the same reason, science has long given up trying to describe what was once called the prote hyle (the ultimate building block of everything, like the most prime material). It's impossible to do, so physicists only try to describe the properties of their observations and make no assumptions about what lies beneath it.

Athon