You’re not atheists.

An atheist does not believe in the existence of a theistic god (i.e. creator). An atheist is still free to believe (if they wanted) in a number of other unseen things eg ghosts, non-creator gods, devas, angels, spiritual beings, reincarnation, souls, etc etc etc.

Now I know many of you who class yourselves as atheist would never entertain belief in any of these things…. So why class yourselves as atheists? Someone who does not believe in anything spiritual – in anything that cannot be objectively and physically proven is called a materialist.

I wish people would state their position correctly. If you are a materialist please call yourself such – if you are an atheist that’s fine, say atheist.

(its just a little bugbear of mine :bugeye: )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My understanding of a materialist was someone who believed in the existence of matter only. By definition matter has mass. Is it not contemporary theory that photons do not have mass?

I could be wrong.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

LT if you don't mind my saying you're obsessed with the atheist word. Maybe you are being a little pedantic and trying to over define it. Atheism should be seem in the context of theist - a beleiver in god/s or devine being/s. To throw in angels, ghosts and souls is superfluous therefore.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If an animal likes to eat flesh does it have to eat all varieties of flesh to be described as a carnivore? Can a carnivore favour pork over beef yet still be a carnivore?

 

possibly because the term materialist, means more than one thing.

Encarta defines materialist

[1. somebody concerned about possessions: somebody who values material wealth and possessions rather than spiritual or intellectual things

2. supporter of philosophical materialism: a supporter of the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states can be explained as physical functions

Cambridge defines it

1 a : the belief that having money and possessions is the most important thing in life b : the belief that only physical matter exists and the spiritual world does not

it can easily be mis-interpreted

however in regard to atheism

Encarta defines atheist

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Cambridge defines it

someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

it cant really be mis-interpreted.

as a god is a supernatural thing, it really goes without saying that any other unseen things eg ghosts, non-creator gods, devas, angels, spiritual beings, reincarnation, souls, etc etc etc, will come under the same heading.
it would be infantile to think otherwise, we are not that stupid.

hence why we often ask the theist why they dont also believe in the FSM and the IPU. and any one off the millions of other gods the religious believe in.

 

geezer - my point exactly
who are these angel cult atheist that light travelling knows?

 

I dont mind you saying it , but it is not me that constantly uses it on this section of the forum.

 

But as we are on the religion sub section of a Philosophy section, it would be obvious that philosophical materialism is what is being reffered to..

One definition is the correct philosophical definition, the other is the vernacular. As thsi is allegedly the 'intelligent community', I suggest the philosophical meaning should prevail

I do not agree that it goes without saying.

 

true
i think I'm on the record as saying that the whole argument about god/s is a waste of time and energy
and yet i can't stop myself joining in!
best to see these words as what they are definitions open to interpretation

 

Try Buddhist


No theistic gods are held to exist but spritual beings, heavens and hells certainly are..


Misuse of the word atheism misleads and confuses people about athiestic religions such as this.


This could apply to Taoism as well....

 

LT, this isn't a valid discussion, as you have the definitions of the terms 'atheist' and 'materialist' hopelessly wrong.

Atheism means a lack of belief in god(s), and has nothing to say about any 'creator' qualification. That's just you loading the term.

The definition of 'materialist' has been posted, and it doesn't fit with your alleged definition.

Please try again with more accurate terms if you want to prove something.

 

Nice analogy!

 

I was under the impression that Buddhism is actually agnostic rather than atheist. I'm not an expert, but I do recall some passage when somebody asks Sidharta about God, and the enlightened one replies that people should not confuse themselves by asking questions that cannot be answered. Something like that. It's all part of the enlightenment thing.

In any case, it really seems to me that, on this forum, most people who define themselves as atheists are in fact materialists. But materialism is a bad word whereas atheism is still somewhat acceptable, or at least has an air of rebellion.

 

Even given the definition you want. Please explain how the millions of Buddhist atheists fit with your definitions (mis-definitions)

 

heck I'm with LT on this one Buddhism is theistic
I can't see buddhists describing themselves as atheists
its the spiritual beings that give em away

 

Herin lies the key!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Why bring Buddhism into this? What are you trying to prove? I don't think Buddhists believe in god per se, and has been said, are more agnostic than anything else.

Buddhism is about achieving a mental state, 'Nirvana', not about worshipping a god. Buddha isn't a deity, so I do't see what you are driving at, really. Do you have a point?

 

I have studied Buddhism, out of curiosity, and was quite surprised with two aspects of the religion: its utter pessimism, and its unbelievable complexity. I'm not sure about the former; maybe the religion is complex enough to hide its optimism. Whatever the case, what left me puzzled was, how could such a complex and, at least on the surface, so pessimistic a religion be so popular.

I came across the answer recently: someone claimed that most Buddhists don't really understand their religion. That is why they believe in gods and spiritual beings and what not. I feel almost tempted to say most Buddhists, if they really understood Buddhism, would promptly be converted to Christianity. But that would be an awful thing to say.

 

Is it pessimistic to believe that a higher state, nirvana, is attainable? If humans are able to achieve higher mental states would that not raise them above their fellows who haven't just like gods?

 

As I said, I find Buddhism too complex so maybe it is, after all, optimistic. Given my understanding of it though, the picture I have of Nirvana is quite frightening. It brings to my mind someone smoking pot for eternity, and basking in their self-centered pleasure. I much rather prefer a heaven filled with beautiful people, beautiful art, and lots of activity.