• 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.

Why aren't all atheists materialists?

Gawdzilla said:
So what's the difference between a supernatural being and a god?
Click to expand...

I personally don't make the distinction. Many people do, you will have to ask them.

ETA: Not quite true. More accurate, I let other people define the difference for me.
 
Last edited:
ideogram said:
I personally don't make the distinction. Many people do, you will have to ask them.

ETA: Not quite true. More accurate, I let other people define the difference for me.
Click to expand...
But you said:
One can believe the supernatural exists without believing that gods exist,
Click to expand...

How do you say that if you don't draw a distinction between the two?
 
Christian said:
The same conclusion that leads to atheism should also lead to materialism? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

Because a lack of belief in a god doesn't imply anything else.

An illustrative example is buddhists. They're atheists; but they believe in batcrap reincarnation stuff.
 
Last edited:
ideogram said:
One can believe the supernatural exists without believing that gods exist, because materialism is not the only possible reason a person might believe that gods don't exist.
Click to expand...

Gawdzilla said:
How do you say that if you don't draw a distinction between the two?
Click to expand...

Because some people do. If you want to discuss my personal beliefs, yes, I am an atheist and a materialist. If you want my input on why not all atheists are materialists, I would say it is because they draw this distinction.
 
soylent said:
Because a lack of belief in a god doesn't imply anything else.

An illustrative example is buddhists. They're atheists; but they believe in batcrap reincarnation stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. And I think that is logically inconsistent. That they don't know this or won't accept it, is a different matter.
 
ideogram said:
Because some people do. If you want to discuss my personal beliefs, yes, I am an atheist and a materialist. If you want my input on why not all atheists are materialists, I would say it is because they draw this distinction.
Click to expand...

Gawdzilla said:
So you don't have a good reason. Understood.
Click to expand...

I don't have a good reason for my beliefs? As in, can I present a set of assumptions and a logical framework for why I believe what I believe? No, I don't think I can. And even if I could, that wouldn't be why I believe what I believe.

I don't have a good reason for why not all atheists are materialists? This is my observation. What reason do I need to make this observation?

As for whether Buddhists are logically consistent or not, you would have to ask one.
 
ideogram said:
I don't have a good reason for my beliefs? As in, can I present a set of assumptions and a logical framework for why I believe what I believe? No, I don't think I can. And even if I could, that wouldn't be why I believe what I believe.

I don't have a good reason for why not all atheists are materialists? This is my observation. What reason do I need to make this observation?

As for whether Buddhists are logically consistent or not, you would have to ask one.
Click to expand...

Okay, you find somebody that wants to argue that **** with you, fine. I'm heavily engaged with a coat of paint that transitioning from semi-liquid to solid. That's the more interesting at this nexus.
 
Christian, you said in your previous thread that your hypothesis could not be discarded via logical reasoning alone. What do you think can be accomplished via logical reasoning alone?
 
I don't know, but I find those definitions of materialism explicitly posted and/or implicitly assumed throughout this thread to be extremely vacuous, and I'll not have any of it. Still don't believe in anything that goes by the name "God", though.
 
ideogram said:
Christian, you said in your previous thread that your hypothesis could not be discarded via logical reasoning alone. What do you think can be accomplished via logical reasoning alone?
Click to expand...

Logic has precise rules. One can be logically consitent or not. Humans accomplish the most with logic. You are framing my assertion wrong.

If I say the car is red. I can't refute this via logical reasoning alone. I have to actually observe the car. But if I say, if the car is red then it must run fast. Then I don't need to observe the car. I can refute the claim via just logical reasoning.
 
Lord Emsworth said:
I don't know, but I find those definitions of materialism explicitly posted and/or implicitly assumed throughout this thread to be extremely vacuous, and I'll not have any of it. Still don't believe in anything that goes by the name "God", though.
Click to expand...

Can you post a definition that you think is appropriate?
 
Christian said:
Logic has precise rules. One can be logically consitent or not. Humans accomplish the most with logic. You are framing my assertion wrong.

If I say the car is red. I can't refute this via logical reasoning alone. I have to actually observe the car. But if I say, if the car is red then it must run fast. Then I don't need to observe the car. I can refute the claim via just logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

Okay. There are some claims which are logically inconsistent, but that depends on the assumptions you make, do you agree?

In mathematics, it is possible to construct different logically consistent sets of claims based on different assumptions. Then whether a statement belongs to the "true" set of claims would depend on which assumptions you made. The classic example is non-euclidean geometry. Again, I don't know what you really understand and don't understand, so forgive me if I am telling you something you already know.

The reason we argue over definitions is because these are our assumptions. It is always possible to claim a given statement is "true" (logically consistent) if we choose our assumptions or definitions correctly. Most people aren't going to argue over the definition of "car", but as you saw in the last thread we can argue endlessly over the definition of "atheist".

Similarly, I can posit a definition of "deity" by which there are supernatural entities which are not deities. I suspect that Buddhists use this definition. What can be logically inconsistent about a definition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom