[Thrash]

Not sure where else to put this, but...

Are atheism and materialism inherently connected, in that you cannot have one without the other (more so I mean, if you are an atheist, are you a materialist by default?)?

If not, then why?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Are atheism and materialism inherently connected, in that you cannot have one without the other (more so I mean, if you are an atheist, are you a materialist by default?)?

Which atheist (disbeliever or non-believer), and which materialist (strict or loose definition of "matter", inclusive (unprovable things may be true) or exclusive (unprovable things are definitely false))?

[Thrash]

What is the difference between "disbeliever" and "non-believer"?

I suppose exclusive materialism...

I had never really thought of materialism as being seperated into two distinct fields....
my definition (which is "mine", and therefore is not technical, so it is probably wrong, or being misconstrued with something else) of a materialist is basically a person who believes only in material. They don't believe in any sort of "supernatural" being or anything like that.
So, I guess that fits under the "exclusive" category?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Thrash

What is the difference between "disbeliever" and "non-believer"?

A non-believer lacks a belief ("I don't believe my neighbor has a dog"), and unbeliever has a belief in non-existence ("I am certain my neighbor doesn't have a unicorn")

I had never really thought of materialism as being seperated into two distinct fields....
my definition (which is "mine", and therefore is not technical, so it is probably wrong, or being misconstrued with something else) of a materialist is basically a person who believes only in material. They don't believe in any sort of "supernatural" being or anything like that.
So, I guess that fits under the "exclusive" category?

What you mean is what's important here. I don't know what definitions of "materialism" might be legit, but I was trying to find out how *you* meant it so I could address your question.

Someone who believes only in the material, and doesn't believe in the supernatural, obviously, could only believe in a God who was material and not supernatural. If God can be described that way, than nothing in your definition precludes a theistic materialist.

A atheist non-materialist is certainly possible. One need only believe in something other than materialism while simultaneously not believing in / disbelieving a god.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

A non-believer lacks a belief ("I don't believe my neighbor has a dog"), and unbeliever has a belief in non-existence ("I am certain my neighbor doesn't have a unicorn")

What you mean is what's important here. I don't know what definitions of "materialism" might be legit, but I was trying to find out how *you* meant it so I could address your question.

Someone who believes only in the material, and doesn't believe in the supernatural, obviously, could only believe in a God who was material and not supernatural. If God can be described that way, than nothing in your definition precludes a theistic materialist.

A atheist non-materialist is certainly possible. One need only believe in something other than materialism while simultaneously not believing in / disbelieving a god.

The definitions (of the different "believers") seem to essentially end with the same outcome, right? In that case, would it matter significantly? If I don't belive that my neighbor has a dog, doesn't it follow that I believe that a dog owned by my neighbor is non-existent? But, I suppose if I had to pick one it would be an "unbeliever".

How can a "god" exist that is not in some way associated with supernaturalism?

So.... an example of a atheist non-materialist would be perhaps a Buddhist, or someone associated with a "godless" religion?

Either way.... when I think of materialist.... hmmm... I think of someone like Richard Dawkins, who seems to conclude that there are no other "forces" besides chemical or natural.



Am I making sense, or talking in circles?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Thrash

The definitions (of the different "believers") seem to essentially end with the same outcome, right? In that case, would it matter significantly? If I don't belive that my neighbor has a dog, doesn't it follow that I believe that a dog owned by my neighbor is non-existent? But, I suppose if I had to pick one it would be an "unbeliever".

Does your neighbor have a dog:
"yes"
"no"
"not to my knowledge".

Believer, unbeliever, non-believer

How can a "god" exist that is not in some way associated with supernaturalism?

By defining a God that does. Of course, defining "supernatural" itself seems a subjective target.

So.... an example of a atheist non-materialist would be perhaps a Buddhist, or someone associated with a "godless" religion?

Sure. Or someone who believed in psychic powers (non-material phenomena)

Either way.... when I think of materialist.... hmmm... I think of someone like Richard Dawkins, who seems to conclude that there are no other "forces" besides chemical or natural.

Am I making sense, or talking in circles?

I think you are making sense... but your definitions should answer at least one of your questions.

Someone who doesn't believe/disbelieves in non-material forces would have to be agnostic/atheist (unless they conceive a material god). Someone who does believe in non-material forces does not need to be a theist.

[acrossthesirion]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Not sure where else to put this, but...

Are atheism and materialism inherently connected, in that you cannot have one without the other (more so I mean, if you are an atheist, are you a materialist by default?)?

If not, then why?

Spinoza

In short, for Spinoza, god is literally everything (matter) since there is only one substance that makes up everything. This is just an example of someone who might claim to be a materialist, but also not be an atheist (I'm not exactly what you would call Spinoza...).

But as Jerry's pointed out, what you mean by "God" is going to determine whether or not you accept that Spinoza is not an atheist.

[Chrysostom]

There exist plenty of non-atheistic materialists (or naturalists, or physicalists, or whatever) -- among Mormons, for instance. There are even certain Christian thinkers who hold to modified forms of materialist thought. Similarly, the line between pan(en)theism and atheism can become extremely blurry in some places, and there you often have non-materialistic atheists.

Why are you curious?

[Thrash]

Hmmm, guess this is ok since I posted the thread... I don't like to resurrect.

The reason I was asking was because I was, at the time, taking a philosophy of religion course and the professor was discussing atheism and materialism as though they went hand in hand. Though, I suppose he was doing so for the sake of convenience, and was mostly talking about the new-atheist regime that is becoming more and more popular (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc....).

Basically we were discussing the possibility, going on with the line of thought of these, that essentially if there is no other than material, no other than body, than mind is simply a term denoting chemical processes reacting and producing feeling (which to my knowledge is a completely unproven assertion which many hold fast to) and the illusion of thinking.

I say the "illusion" because it seems to follow that if we solely based upon physical processes, and based upon stimuli reacting then we ultimately have no choice.
I am a Christian; I have no choice.
i ran the red light: I have no choice.
I impregnated a young female; I had no choice.

Maybe this is taking the illustrations to an extreme, but who do you navigate with such a worldview?

Would an atheist have to agree, by the imperfect way I have defined "atheist", with this? How could they refute it?
By saying we can control our chemical processes? How can we control stimuli/response? How can we control mental chemical processes? With mokre chemical processes? Or perhaps with a "mind"? What is mind if not physical?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Basically we were discussing the possibility, going on with the line of thought of these, that essentially if there is no other than material, no other than body

There's no evidence of any.

than mind is simply a term denoting chemical processes reacting and producing feeling (which to my knowledge is a completely unproven assertion which many hold fast to) and the illusion of thinking.

I'm not sure about a few word choices in this sentence. The brain-mind connection is pretty simple to establish.

I say the "illusion" because it seems to follow that if we solely based upon physical processes, and based upon stimuli reacting then we ultimately have no choice.
I am a Christian; I have no choice.
i ran the red light: I have no choice.
I impregnated a young female; I had no choice.

I suppose then you have no choice regarding feeling that you have a choice.

Maybe this is taking the illustrations to an extreme, but who do you navigate with such a worldview?

The same way you do with any other. The fact that your choices are deterministic doesn't mean they don't happen.

Would an atheist have to agree, by the imperfect way I have defined "atheist", with this? How could they refute it?

An atheist (proper definition) would need only deny God. An agnostic (extrapolated) would agree that the above is what the evidence supports: and nothing can be known for which no evidence exists.

By saying we can control our chemical processes? How can we control stimuli/response? How can we control mental chemical processes? With mokre chemical processes? Or perhaps with a "mind"? What is mind if not physical?

Ahh. This at least sounds of philosophy.

Forget what your mind is for a moment. Your soul, chemicals in your brain, hamsters on a wheel... the mechanics are not important.

When you got up this morning and decided whether to zip-then-fasten or fasten-then-zip your pants, what made you choose one over the other.

If after you did that, we put you back in your closet and wiped your memory and any changes to your mind back to the point where you made that decision a hundred times: would you decide the same every time or different sometimes?

If "the same", then your decision is based entirely on the state of the universe at that moment (including the state of your mind). Whether that is a brain or a soul doesn't change your "no choice" problem.

If "different", then the "deciding factor" seems to be random. So it's still not a choice.

You have choice: but that choice isn't free. It's determined by who you are and how you are thinking and what information you have at that moment.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ahh. This at least sounds of philosophy.

Forget what your mind is for a moment. Your soul, chemicals in your brain, hamsters on a wheel... the mechanics are not important.

When you got up this morning and decided whether to zip-then-fasten or fasten-then-zip your pants, what made you choose one over the other.

If after you did that, we put you back in your closet and wiped your memory and any changes to your mind back to the point where you made that decision a hundred times: would you decide the same every time or different sometimes?

If "the same", then your decision is based entirely on the state of the universe at that moment (including the state of your mind). Whether that is a brain or a soul doesn't change your "no choice" problem.

If "different", then the "deciding factor" seems to be random. So it's still not a choice.

You have choice: but that choice isn't free. It's determined by who you are and how you are thinking and what information you have at that moment.

Would the reason I decided to fasten and zip or zip and fasten be dependent on what felt the easiest to me? As in bodily.
I personally, because of my pants ( I wear tightish jeans) fasten first, then zip because it actually makes the process easier. So, I believe I chose this through experience.
I suppose if my mind was wiped and whatnot I might arbitrarily choose one, though I might change after discovering that there was an easier way. I would notice the difficulty and solve the problem.

OK... if "the same" then I have no choice, because the mind, universe, soul, stimuli is in control, in which I have no choice. But what is my "soul" or mind has qualities, such as logic or reasoning, or simply the way reality is seen, which define what I would do, even if I am doing something I have no recollection of? In other words, I suppose even then I would be dictated by logic or reason, unless I simply chose to defy logic and reason. What then? What if I purposefully defy what is logical or reasonable? What it I zip-and-fasten even though stimuli dictates it is easier, I know through reason ad understanding by metaphysical truths (by this I mean by seeing the world in a time/space metaphysics, which we all are bound by) it would be easier?

[AlphaSigma]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Basically we were discussing the possibility, going on with the line of thought of these, that essentially if there is no other than material, no other than body, than mind is simply a term denoting chemical processes reacting and producing feeling (which to my knowledge is a completely unproven assertion which many hold fast to) and the illusion of thinking.

Are you referring to "consciousness" as a chemical process that reacts and producing feeling?

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Thrash

Hmmm, guess this is ok since I posted the thread... I don't like to resurrect.

The reason I was asking was because I was, at the time, taking a philosophy of religion course and the professor was discussing atheism and materialism as though they went hand in hand. Though, I suppose he was doing so for the sake of convenience, and was mostly talking about the new-atheist regime that is becoming more and more popular (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc....).

Basically we were discussing the possibility, going on with the line of thought of these, that essentially if there is no other than material, no other than body, than mind is simply a term denoting chemical processes reacting and producing feeling (which to my knowledge is a completely unproven assertion which many hold fast to) and the illusion of thinking.

I say the "illusion" because it seems to follow that if we solely based upon physical processes, and based upon stimuli reacting then we ultimately have no choice.
I am a Christian; I have no choice.
i ran the red light: I have no choice.
I impregnated a young female; I had no choice.

Maybe this is taking the illustrations to an extreme, but who do you navigate with such a worldview?

Would an atheist have to agree, by the imperfect way I have defined "atheist", with this? How could they refute it?
By saying we can control our chemical processes? How can we control stimuli/response? How can we control mental chemical processes? With mokre chemical processes? Or perhaps with a "mind"? What is mind if not physical?

The short is answer is, well, that's the truth, so suck it up.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by AlphaSigma

Are you referring to "consciousness" as a chemical process that reacts and producing feeling?

I am not sure. After thought, I suppose this is most definitely checmical (feeling and reactions to stimuli). But is consciousness above this? As in "thinking"?

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

The short is answer is, well, that's the truth, so suck it up.

So what you are saying (and possibly what I am realizing through interaction in this thread) is that, even if we mean this to a very lesser extent than some claim, we really have a lot less free will than we believe?