"Exclusive materialist atheist"

[Seismosaurus]

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.

[PixyMisa]

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.

[Seismosaurus]

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.

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.

[Cold one]

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.

[PixyMisa]

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

[JoeEllison]

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

[the PC apeman]

I am an atheist materialist who believes that non physically verifiable entities are not available for consideration.

Another Planet X vote.

[Darat]

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.

[linusrichard]

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.

[tsg]

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.

[Nogbad]

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.

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 :)

[tsg]

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 :)

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.

[juniper_ann]

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.

[Tumblehome]

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.

[Darth Rotor]

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.
This framework allows one to approach George Carlin's comedy routine "A Place for My Stuff" from a divine perspective. :D

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

DR

[sthomson]

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).

[Tricky]

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 believe that too, since the evidence for it is overwhelming. Still, I don't deny the possibility of being wrong.

[Darat]

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.

[wdimac]

non physically verifiable entities

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....

[Hokulele]

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?

[H'ethetheth]

I'm not jumping into this can of worms. I jumped into it once, and I have now accepted that I don't have a clue about what material means, or physical for that matter, let alone physically verifiable. I will just remain with skeptical and pragmatical, thanks very much. I voted planet X.

[JAStewart]

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

[hammegk]

Wow. At the moment there are 5 actual materialists here. A good definition is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103081 courtesy of poster Robin. :)

The less said about the 32 illogical dualists, the better. :p

[sthomson]

Wow. At the moment there are 5 actual materialists here. A good definition is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103081 courtesy of poster Robin. :)

I dunno about that definition. Historically, a materialist would probably have to believe that gravity was caused by a particle (remember, no action at a distance), and that photons are particles with mass and volume. I suppose we can redefine the meaning of "material" to be "observable", but why not just give ourselves a new name?

[PixyMisa]

Wow. At the moment there are 5 actual materialists here. A good definition is at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103081 courtesy of poster Robin.Nope.

Take the number two. It's not a physically verifiable entity. Is it impossible? No, that doesn't even make sense. Does it exist? Well, the concept of the number two certainly exists.

So we vote planet X.

[Oroborus]

I accept the possibility but believe in the improbability of a God.

[PixyMisa]

I dunno about that definition. Historically, a materialist would probably have to believe that gravity was caused by a particle (remember, no action at a distance), and that photons are particles with mass and volume. I suppose we can redefine the meaning of "material" to be "observable", but why not just give ourselves a new name?
Because while photons have some different attributes to particles such as protons and electrons, they are essentially the same stuff, and are interconvertible within the limits of things like the laws of thermodynamics and CPT symmetry. That's all that materialism says: there's one sort of stuff, and it makes stars and rocks and us - and our conscious awareness is a product of the interactions of this non-conscious stuff.

QM (and Relativity too) unveiled some surprises about how this stuff behaves, but it doesn't change the meaning of materialism, so we don't need to change the name. Though "stuffism" does sound attractive. ;)

[Silentknight]

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.
Exactly.

I'm an atheist, yes, however I'm a skeptic first and foremost. Atheism is just one possible conclusion one can arrive at using a skeptical methodology. All atheism means is that I don't believe in any worshiped beings called gods. More specifically in my case, I have my own ideas about what gods, souls, angels, and demons are, which as you might suspect are in complete conflict with the theistic worldview. To put it another way, I reject the theistic definitions of god and the gods.

What does god mean to me? God is creation itself, not the creator. Gods are people. You are god, I am god; we are all gods in the sense that we are each responsible for shaping our world and how we see it. God represents the best and the worst that humanity is capable of. Angels and demons are people as well, representing the sides opposite the line between good and evil drawn down the middle of each of us. Souls are one and the same as our minds, and our minds are simply a subset of the physical workings of our material brains. There is nothing supernatural, because nothing supernatural is necessary.

As a skeptic, I believe only so far as there is evidence to show me. I reject absolute certainty, and I remain open to the possibility that I may be wrong. Being wrong, after all, means learning something new. I wouldn't assert that there isn't something more out there in the universe that is beyond our comprehension. In fact, I would say that there are such things, given that we have only explored an infinitesimal percentage of the universe. If however we were to discover or encounter such an entity one day, I believe the most reasonable thing to do would be to learn as much as we can about it, and possibly from it. Not get on our knees and start sending up worship and prayers.

[bruto]

Planet x here. I'm not entirely convinced that material is possible.

[Dancing David]

I am a materialist nihilit.

There is no evidence for anything outside of materialism, there is no evidence for any gods or other hokum.

It is possible, just not likely at this point.

[Robin]

I voted 1.

If souls, gods, God, demons etc exist and even if they are not physical they are presumed to have causal power over physical objects and therefore would be at least potentially physically verifiable.

[Furi]

I no a pigeon, why you tryin' put a hole aroun' me

Can't I just be an Atheist and leave it at that.
Is there a Atheist code like the Furcode or something I could just apend it to my sig, then the theists would no what type of ebul skwryl yiffer they are talking to.

[Matt the Poet]

I’m definitely an atheist (or rather an ‘a-care-ist’ – if there is a Controlling Intelligence in any meaningful sense Its motives are likely to be so alien to me that there’s no point me worrying about whether I’m asserting my belief in It often enough, or doing so on the right day in the right building with the right group of people, or doing stuff with my penis of which It disapproves etc. etc. so basically **** that noise).

2nd half is a tad trickier, though. I’m a limited organism, a collection of chemicals come together, as far as I can tell, via a partially random (and let’s not have that conversation now) process that allows them to perpetuate their collective existence successfully in a particular, limited and, from a cosmic perspective, incredibly rare environment. It seems rather unlikely that everything that goes on in the universe would be in principle physically intelligible to me.

[Seismosaurus]

I find it intriguing that plumjam claims every atheist he knows here fits his definition of an exclusive materialist, when in fact only one in five of the respondents voted for that.

[XBoxWarrior]

Planet X........

the only choice.

[PixyMisa]

I find it intriguing that plumjam claims every atheist he knows here fits his definition of an exclusive materialist, when in fact only one in five of the respondents voted for that.
Well, according to Martillo that just means we're not materialists.

[hammegk]

At this time, 13 Physicalists/Materialists; two Idealists (besides me, since I didn't vote), and 49 (what I'd consider) Dualists.

Both the 13, and the 2, surprise me. :)

[JoeEllison]

What always bothers me about these discussions is the simple fact that something that cannot be verified is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. Believing in things that don't exist is generally a foolish and misguided way of going about your life, and I'm not sure why anyone gives credence to the concept.

[Jeff Corey]

Materialist, atheist, determinist. But if any reliable data come down the pike that seriously challenge those positions, I 'll look at them.
That's what we do on Planet X.

[Complexity]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.

[Seismosaurus]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.

Even if it proves him wrong about something?

[tsg]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.

By making this post, I'm afraid you already have. :D

[Lamuella]

I entirely accept the possibility of any number of things that are not physically verifiable. Any of them could be true.

However, if they are not physically verifiable then their existence has no definite impact upon me or the way I live my life.

Thus, I will continue to act as if they did not exist until better evidence presents itself.

[dglas]

I rather like to think of myself as an inclusive materialist humanist. Anyone is welcome to join me in the real world.

So much more positive, don'tcha think? :)

Doesn't mean I don't understand and respect the power of ideas, but let us not confuse language constructs with supernatural entities, mmmmkay?

Personally, I doubt very much if I'd even notice "spiritualists" if they just went there and stayed there. But, for some gosh-darn reason, they seem to feel the need to try to bring their "spirituality" into the material realm. They, it seems, are not happy being "spiritual." They gotta try, by very materialist means, to make us all crazy.

Peace, and Win Powerball!!

[ThatSoundAgain]

I'm a 2. Of course I can't rule such things out, that'd put the onus on me to show that they're impossible, and frankly I'd like to use as little of my precious time as possible contemplating the non-essential. If these things are indeed truly inverifiable, that means that they're entirely irrelevant.

That said;

Is there a Atheist code like the Furcode or something I could just apend it to my sig, then the theists would no what type of ebul skwryl yiffer they are talking to.

This intrigues me, what does it mean?

[PixyMisa]

You're better off not knowing what "ebul skwryl yiffer" means. ;)

But what Furi is referring to is things like geekcode (http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html), a string of letters and symbols that denote your beliefs/preferences/knowledge in some field.

So we could have:

At = atheist. At- = weak atheist. At+ = strong atheist. At++ = evangelical atheist. At+++ = militant atheist.
T = theist. T- = deist. T+ = devout theist. T++ = evangelical theist. T+++ = fundamentalist fruitcake. Tdis = discordian. Tfsm = Pastafarian. Tfsm++ = I make my own pasta. Tfsm-- = I don't believe in it at all, but it annoys my Tbap+++ neighbours.
Ag = agnostic. You can be an AgAt or an AgT.
Ev = evilutionist.

F = formerly. Fc = formerly Christian.
C = cultural. Cj = culturally Jewish.

And so on. So I could be an At Tdis-- Tfsm-- Fc+ Cj- Ev++

[ThatSoundAgain]

Thank you, Misa. I like the code idea.

I do know the meaning of "Yiffer", and "Skwryl" I can hazard a guess. As for "Ebul", is it a distortion of "evil"? Googling the term with any of the other only yields this thread.

[Tricky]

You're better off not knowing what "ebul skwryl yiffer" means. ;)

But what Furi is referring to is things like geekcode (http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html), a string of letters and symbols that denote your beliefs/preferences/knowledge in some field.

So we could have:

At = atheist. At- = weak atheist. At+ = strong atheist. At++ = evangelical atheist. At+++ = militant atheist.
T = theist. T- = deist. T+ = devout theist. T++ = evangelical theist. T+++ = fundamentalist fruitcake. Tdis = discordian. Tfsm = Pastafarian. Tfsm++ = I make my own pasta. Tfsm-- = I don't believe in it at all, but it annoys my Tbap+++ neighbours.
Ag = agnostic. You can be an AgAt or an AgT.
Ev = evilutionist.

F = formerly. Fc = formerly Christian.
C = cultural. Cj = culturally Jewish.

And so on. So I could be an At Tdis-- Tfsm-- Fc+ Cj- Ev++

Too much work. It's easier to say what you mean than trying to learn all the abbreviations. And really, the abbreviations are but an artifact of bygone days when you paid for space in the newspaper by the word. We have plenty of bandwidth now.

And I'm really glad I'm not on the dating scene any more. I'd be terrified of winding up with a Solipsistic Whiny Fruitcake.

[rocketdodger]

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.

Seismosaurus you should have included this option, because it really is at the heart of good materialism.

Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.

You might call that "impossible" but it is clearly a different kind of "impossible" than "can be demonstrated impossible using logic, etc," so I don't even like to use the same term.

[hammegk]

Seismosaurus you should have included this option, because it really is at the heart of good materialism.
ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.


Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.
The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.

You might call that "impossible" but it is clearly a different kind of "impossible" than "can be demonstrated impossible using logic, etc," so I don't even like to use the same term.
Quibble, dance, dodge. ;)

[rocketdodger]

ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.

No, it does not. Stop lying.


The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.

So what?

The consideration of the potential existence of such entities is. What good does it do to say "we can't say anything at all about X, but it may or may not exist?"

[bruto]

The potential existence of such entities ( to be more precise, god and freewill) do not depend on our current, or future, ability to verbalize their attributes.
Perhaps not, but their relevance does.

[hammegk]

No, it does not.
So you may assert. As always, everyone can make up their own minds as to which viewpoint is correct.


Stop lying.
I'm not. I fully believe what I say. Chill out. :)

Perhaps not, but their relevance does.
And indeed that is the question. If you choose to believe god and freewill have 0% relevance, you should have no trouble with your next choice; i.e. they don't exist. At that point, welcome to Materialism.

The concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria remains dualist.

[Stitch]

Even if it proves him wrong about something?

Let's be honest, that isn't too hard.

[Seismosaurus]

Its not that we think such and such is impossible, or possible, its just that given our current mental capabilities and environment we are incapable of framing an idea of such entities period.

But they are still either possible or they're not, right? I mean, it's not like "possible", "not possible" and "inconceivable!" are three different things.

Let's be honest, that isn't too hard.

Well... I've only really "discovered" plumjam on the thread that inspired this one, so I won't comment on that.

[tsg]

ROFL. Including that proviso make the position dualism.

You're going to have to be more specific what you mean by "dualism".

[rocketdodger]

But they are still either possible or they're not, right? I mean, it's not like "possible", "not possible" and "inconceivable!" are three different things.


I think it is. You can't prove something to be possible or impossible unless you can have knowledge of it.

I mean, maybe you are right, because saying "non-physically verifiable entity" is something, and we can certainly think such a thing is impossible.

My point, though, and I think this is what tsg was saying too, is that "non-physically verifiable entity" is merely a term we give to something that we can't know anything about, and the real thing the term stands for (which we can't even call a thing, or anything at all for that matter) can't be judged possible or impossible.

[tsg]

I think it is. You can't prove something to be possible or impossible unless you can have knowledge of it.

I mean, maybe you are right, because saying "non-physically verifiable entity" is something, and we can certainly think such a thing is impossible.

My point, though, and I think this is what tsg was saying too, is that "non-physically verifiable entity" is merely a term we give to something that we can't know anything about, and the real thing the term stands for (which we can't even call a thing, or anything at all for that matter) can't be judged possible or impossible.

To further clarify, yes, they are either possible or impossible, but we can't know which it is. Not knowing that it is impossible is not the same as knowing it is possible.

[Nick227]

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.

Could I ask, do you consider a thought to be a physically verifiable entity? You can monitor brainwaves but I'm not sure about individual thoughts.

Nick

[AkuManiMani]

-What is "material" and what does it consist of?

-In light of your answer to the above question, what does it mean to be a "materialist"?

[Robin]

Can't vote - I won't participate in something related to or inspired by plumjam.
You just did.

[Robin]

-What is "material" and what does it consist of?
The question is only relevant to classical Materialism. Modern Materialism, since d'Holbach at least, does not define itself in terms of "material".
-In light of your answer to the above question, what does it mean to be a "materialist"?
Well for example d'Holbach begins "Systems of Nature" with:
Man has always deceived himself when he abandoned experience to follow
imaginary systems.--He is the work of nature.--He exists in Nature.--He
is submitted to the laws of Nature.--He cannot deliver himself from
them:--cannot step beyond them even in thought
I have long made a review of various Materialist positions and have concluded that they boil down to:
Materialism :
Any event that is not deterministic is necessarily arbitrary.
Any mental entity is a functional composite of non-mental entities

[hammegk]

I have long made a review of various Materialist positions and have concluded that they boil down to:

"Materialism :
Any event that is not deterministic is necessarily arbitrary.
Any mental entity is a functional composite of non-mental entities."

Please see http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103081 for an ongoing discussion on those points. :)