• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Exclusive materialist atheist"

Which category fits you?

  • I am an atheist materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are impossible

    Votes: 25 25.0%

  • I am an atheist materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are not impossible

    Votes: 37 37.0%

  • I am an atheist non-materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are impossible

    Votes: 4 4.0%

  • I am an atheist non-materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are not impossi

    Votes: 2 2.0%

  • On Planet X, god is an atheist materialist who believes that he is impossible

    Votes: 32 32.0%
  • Total voters
    100

Seismosaurus

Philosopher
Seismosaurus
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
6,092
Reading through the thread about how negative atheism is supposed to be, plumjam asserts several times that every atheist he has ever met in this forum is a materialist and a believer in "Exclusive materialism. A materialism which denies the possibility of supposedly non physically verifiable entities like souls, gods, God, demons etc.."

Well, to plumjam - I am an atheist who doesn't subscribe to that viewpoint. So there you go, from now on you'll always have to say "Every atheist except one..."

To be serious, my view of life certainly does nothing to rule out the possibility of gods, souls, demons, etc. And most every atheist I have talked to (some hundreds if not thousands by now I would think) certainly never expressed that viewpoint. So I was curious, and thought I would see if plumjam's view actually does represent the people on this forum.
 
Last edited:
Not sure that any of those options suits. I'm an atheist - until evidence comes along to change my mind - materialist ditto, and I believe that gods, souls, demons etc are every bit as real as Narnia, Middle Earth, Oz etc.

So I voted planet X.
 
PixyMisa said:
Not sure that any of those options suits. I'm an atheist - until evidence comes along to change my mind - materialist ditto, and I believe that gods, souls, demons etc are every bit as real as Narnia, Middle Earth, Oz etc.

So I voted planet X.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether you believe that souls exist. The question is whether you believe that they are IMPOSSIBLE.

The viewpoint you described also fits me perfectly. I voted option 2 because although I believe that souls are as fictional as Narnia, I accept the possibility that I am wrong in that belief. I have no idea offhand what it would take to convince me that god exists, but the evidential burden is really irrelevant; I accept the possibility of god.

plumjam repeatedly asserted that every atheist he has ever met believes that god, souls, demons, etc are an impossibility. That's not me, nor does it fit most any atheist I've ever known.
 
Last edited:
I would like to also say that I fit into option 2 but that evidence of one does not in my mind prove evidence of another. With the exception possibly of proving satan would prove his opposite ie god, proof of the soul does not prove a god much less a specific God.
 
Seismosaurus said:
The question is not whether you believe that souls exist. The question is whether you believe that they are IMPOSSIBLE.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I got that, but the idea somehow got waylaid between brain and post. Not enough chocolate. :(

I'll try again:

Materialism is by far the most useful basis we have found for understanding the universe. We have no way of proving that materialism is true; we just know that it works well as an assumption. And given that assumption, things that are intrinsically physically unverifiable cannot be meaningfully said to exist.

Gods, souls and demons are in the exact same class of things as Narnia, Middle Earth, and Oz. Not necessarily logically impossible, but quite clearly things that people made up, and there is no reason to believe that they have any existence other than as concepts.
 
Last edited:
Actually, if you note the phrasing used, it is sort of a trap. There's a difference between "not verified" and "not verifiable". Note also the silliness of the whole "physically verified" line... "physically" is the only way ANYTHING can be verified, by definition.

Some people think that they are being clever when they attack materialism. Generally, they are being just foolish in a complicated way. :D
 
I am an atheist materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are not available for consideration.

Another Planet X vote.
 
Well when someone can produced a coherent version of dualism (or trism etc.) I'll happily look at that until then I'm sticking with my belief that reality is just made of stuff.
 
I think an exclusive materialist would have to be a Dawkins 7, and I'm a Dawkins 6+, so that's out. With respect to a "soul" or something like that, I'm probably a Dawkins 2.5, so am I a materialist? I am not sure.

EDIT: I think a materialist would have to be a 6 or 7 with respect to both God and a "soul," so I think I'm not a materialist. People who know more can feel free to correct me.
 
Last edited:
I am an atheist materialist who believes non physically verifiable entities are something that we can't, by definition, know anything about including whether or not it is possible for them to exist.

And by "we" I am including those who claim they do.
 
tsg said:
I am an atheist materialist who believes non physically verifiable entities are something that we can't, by definition, know anything about including whether or not it is possible for them to exist.

And by "we" I am including those who claim they do.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. There are also aspects of the universe, string theory, 14 dimensions, multi-verse theory etc., that are not at this point verifiable but may well be possible. I am more of a 5+ on the Dawkins scale and I think maybe a 2 here - but voted Planet X because it amused me so to do :)
 
Nogbad said:
I would agree with that. There are also aspects of the universe, string theory, 14 dimensions, multi-verse theory etc., that are not at this point verifiable but may well be possible. I am more of a 5+ on the Dawkins scale and I think maybe a 2 here - but voted Planet X because it amused me so to do :)
Click to expand...

It depends on what definition of "certitude" you use. I would say I am as certain that there is no god as I am that there is no Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny. If that makes me a 7, then so be it. As far as the question in the OP, saying something does not exist is not the same as saying it can't exist.
 
Last edited:
Planet X.

I am an atheist agnostic pragmatic materialist. I have no opinion on whether non physically verifiable beings are possible, but they are irrelevant to my life. I don’t let things affect my life unless I (at the very least) have evidence of their existence.
 
I go on the premise that supernatural stuff is impossible; we just don't know it for sure yet.

I went with Planet X, partly because I wanted to vote for one of the best P-X options I've seen.
 
Darat said:
Well when someone can produced a coherent version of dualism (or trism etc.) I'll happily look at that until then I'm sticking with my belief that reality is just made of stuff.
Click to expand...
This framework allows one to approach George Carlin's comedy routine "A Place for My Stuff" from a divine perspective. :D

Tumblehome said:
I went with Planet X, partly because I wanted to vote for one of the best P-X options I've seen.
Click to expand...
I concur with your assessment: a superb Planet X option.

DR
 
Last edited:
I voted non-materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are impossible. I think my undertanding of "materialist" is different than everyone else's. I can not believe that all things in the universe are composed of matter (it's impossible, with the advances in quantum physics).
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Well when someone can produced a coherent version of dualism (or trism etc.) I'll happily look at that until then I'm sticking with my belief that reality is just made of stuff.
Click to expand...
I believe that too, since the evidence for it is overwhelming. Still, I don't deny the possibility of being wrong.
 
Oh I'm certain ;) I could be wrong. Have to admit I can't see how, in my day-to-day life, finding out that some form of non-monism is correct would change anything. For example my morality doesn't come from my belief in stuff so that wouldn't be changed! It wouldn't make me believe in any particular god or provide any evidence for the existance of any of the mainstream definitions of god or gods that I'm aware of.
 
non physically verifiable entities
Click to expand...

Not that they couldn't exist, but if they are not verifiable in any way, shape, or form then they must have no effect on my life or the world around us so why bother postulating such a thing?

Or to put it another way, the question is silly....
 
I am extremely exclusive, you should see my standard per diem rate.

I am quite materialistic, see above.

I am an atheist, not that it affects my rates at all.

If it is physically non-verifiable, why should I care one way or another?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom