Does Atheism Equal Materialism?

[just a believing guy]

Does atheism equal materialism?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Does atheism equal materialism?

Not at all. In antiquity there were many philosophers who didn't devote themselves to a god, but lived ascetic lives. In fact, philosophical cynicism is a philosophy that focuses on virtues and a bit of asceticism (contrary to how we use the word.)

There are also many believers in a god, or God, who are incredibly materialistic. And though their main God may not be God Himself, they would swear they are theistic to their respective god(s) only.


Materialism is simply one of the many traps of this life. It shackles you to a rat race of finding an identity in an ever changing paradigm. Anyone can get caught in it.

 

[jardiniere]

Does atheism equal materialism?

If you are talking about the philosophy of materialism, the answer is not necessarily.

Recall, atheism is non-belief in gods, not non-belief in the supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does atheism equal materialism?

Nope. Spiritualism is growing quickly all across the board.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

If you ask a atheist they will say no.

But we as christians know the answer is yes. Atheism is really just about enjoying your life and doping whatever you want since life is pointless (in their eyes). And part of enjoying life is filling with meaningless stuff for any number of reasons (fitting in, showing off, being hip...etc). So to some degree its about materialism too.

BTW obviously anyone can be materialistic though, I seen lots of christian ones. But for some non-believers they tend to not see materialism as that bad of a thing.

 

[Lulav]

From Physical and LIfe Sciences to
the Kitchen Sink!
please be aware of the SOP​

 

[quatona]

Does atheism equal materialism?

About in the same way as theism equals Islam.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Neither sense of the word materialism is necessarily implied by atheism.

 

[Earatha]

Does atheism equal materialism?

No. There are atheists who believe in a soul and a metaphysical realm. There are atheists who believe in magic. The two aren't necessarily connected. There are entire religious traditions that don't believe in creator gods or supernatural agents.

 

[bhsmte]

Does atheism equal materialism?

Nope.

 

[quatona]

If you ask a atheist they will say no.

...and since atheists are the experts when it comes to explaining their convictions, you had better stopped right here.

Atheism is really just about enjoying your life and doping whatever you want since life is pointless (in their eyes). And part of enjoying life is filling with meaningless stuff for any number of reasons (fitting in, showing off, being hip...etc).

LOL

 

[just a believing guy]

Not at all. In antiquity there were many philosophers who didn't devote themselves to a god, but lived ascetic lives. In fact, philosophical cynicism is a philosophy that focuses on virtues and a bit of asceticism (contrary to how we use the word.)

There are also many believers in a god, or God, who are incredibly materialistic. And though their main God may not be God Himself, they would swear they are theistic to their respective god(s) only.


Materialism is simply one of the many traps of this life. It shackles you to a rat race of finding an identity in an ever changing paradigm. Anyone can get caught in it.

What's the situation today? Are the majority of atheists materialistic?

 

[just a believing guy]

Nope.

What do you mean by ''nope''?

 

[Dave-W]

Neither sense of the word materialism is necessarily implied by atheism.

No. There are atheists who believe in a soul and a metaphysical realm. There are atheists who believe in magic.

I think we need to have agreed upon definitions of both "materialism" and "atheism."

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What's the situation today? Are the majority of atheists materialistic?

I couldn't say. I would say with confidence that most everyone is materialist - including theists, philosophers and agnostics. But I think this is just a consequence of social degeneracy - not necessarily something that can be attributed just to one group.

There are atheists who may feel/be "free" to indulge in materialism, as well as other things, because there is no Judge over them. But, I am reluctant to say it is the case for atheists today, as a group, because there are so many philosophies that see materialism as a characteristic that retards your overall virtue.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I couldn't say. I would say with confidence that most everyone is materialist - including theists, philosophers and agnostics. But I think this is just a consequence of social degeneracy - not necessarily something that can be attributed just to one group.

There are atheists who may feel/be "free" to indulge in materialism, as well as other things, because there is no Judge over them. But, I am reluctant to say it is the case for atheists today, as a group, because there are so many philosophies that see materialism as a characteristic that retards your overall virtue.

It depends on your definition of materialist and which definition the OP means. If you mean obsessed with material wealth, it is not impossible that you are correct, though I think many preachers exaggerate the depth of the "problem."

If, however, by materialist you mean someone that thinks the root of reality is material, that is that all that is is material (parse that!), then you yourself are an example of the falsity of your statement. You don't believe this (I think); you think the root of reality is in the spiritual world, and so, I think, would most theists.

So the discussion is off the rails until the OP defines what question he/she is asking.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you mean by ''nope''?

Take a wild guess.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It depends on your definition of materialist and which definition the OP means. If you mean obsessed with material wealth, it is not impossible that you are correct, though I think many preachers exaggerate the depth of the "problem."

How is it not possible that I am correct (with emphasis on the "impossibility," necessarily)?

I specifically said that most people - religious, or not - are materialistic. Many do not realize it; the resulting philosophy usually drives toward people losing their "fortune," in some way, and "realizing" that a form of asceticism "retards virtues." That was philosophical protest for a long period of time, and ascetic based philosophies grew from those. I think "modernity" has broken it down into a duality: religious and cosmopolitan. And, they respectively represent asceticism and materialism duality that has become a commonly accepted paradigm.

If, however, by materialist you mean someone that thinks the root of reality is material, that is that all that is is material (parse that!), then you yourself are an example of the falsity of your statement. You don't believe this (I think); you think the root of reality is in the spiritual world, and so, I think, would most theists.

So the discussion is off the rails until the OP defines what question he/she is asking.

That is true, I don't know what the OP means, but by context I assumed he meant: persons who are all but defined by the physical, materials things they have (and don't have,) while maintaining a focus on more material things - especially for the purposes of making one's life better. This is why I said many people are materialistic, even some "ascetics."

The root of reality is an infinitely generating, self-aware, (et. cetera) entity known as the (Most High) God; that is my philosophy. But reality itself is a projection of something else going on - so reality itself isn't "material" to me. Even the spiritual world is a projection.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How is it not possible that I am correct (with emphasis on the "impossibility," necessarily)?

You misread me. I said "not impossible that you are correct". That is to say, "you could be right". I doubt the severity of the "problem", but you could be right. Sorry if the double negative confused matters.

That is true, I don't know what the OP means, but by context I assumed he meant: persons who are all but defined by the physical, materials things they have (and don't have,) while maintaining a focus on more material things - especially for the purposes of making one's life better. This is why I said many people are materialistic, even some "ascetics."

The root of reality is an infinitely generating, self-aware, (et. cetera) entity known as the (Most High) God; that is my philosophy. But reality itself is a projection of something else going on - so reality itself isn't "material" to me. Even the spiritual world is a projection.

Which is what I thought you'd say.

As noted by other posters, with respect to materialism meaning "there is nothing more than the physical", I'd wager most atheists are materialists. However, there are some that believe in ghosts and the afterlife and what not. (I haven't met any, but ...) The point is that atheism is simply the name for people who don't believe in deities. Whatever else they believe you simply must ask.

As to materialism meaning a pursuit of wealth, I suspect that people are people. That is, I'd guess that the percentage of altruists and money-grubbers have the same proportion among theists and atheists.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You misread me. I said "not impossible that you are correct". That is to say, "you could be right". I doubt the severity of the "problem", but you could be right. Sorry if the double negative confused matters.


Which is what I thought you'd say.

As noted by other posters, with respect to materialism meaning "there is nothing more than the physical", I'd wager most atheists are materialists. However, there are some that believe in ghosts and the afterlife and what not. (I haven't met any, but ...) The point is that atheism is simply the name for people who don't believe in deities. Whatever else they believe you simply must ask.

As to materialism meaning a pursuit of wealth, I suspect that people are people. That is, I'd guess that the percentage of altruists and money-grubbers have the same proportion among theists and atheists.

OK I think we are saying more or less the same thing. The "impossible" issue had me confused from the foundation. Thanks for the clarification.