Is materialism a part of Atheism or Atheism a part of materialism?

[atanu]

"discrete"?

Yes. Yes. Like, for example, speech sounds seem discrete units but are produced as a continuous signal.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm afraid I am still not clear. What is this force? Are you saying it gets stored up for a future release? Or the force has the intelligence to understand what we subjectively call good/bad?

Just that bad acts committed by a person to another's detriment might cause bad things to happen in the future for that person. Same with good acts done for another. No "being" or deity involved.

 

[George-ananda]

Just that bad acts committed by a person to another's detriment might cause bad things to happen in the future for that person. Same with good acts done for another. No "being" or deity involved.

Without some type of non-physical intelligence that can recognize human moral decisions as good/bad how can that possibly be? I just don't hear atheists believing in non-physical intelligent forces very often. Otherwise this sounds like the kind of superstition most atheists reject and criticize.

I still maintain almost all atheists hold a materialist worldview.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm always open for debate, but not if it is expected that I 'agree' to an arbitrary 'default', or 'logical' etc stance of materialism. That, I don't agree with; it isn't accurately reflecting the facts of the argument.

So you want to debate but will start getting real nasty at whatever my 'tone' is if I say anything you disagree with?
Well, no thanks then mate. The whole point of a debate is that there is a difference of opinion.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't understand what you mean by 'karma (in the modern sense)'. I'm doubting this is something outside of materialism but I need to hear more.

What do you even mean by 'outside of materialism'? Materialism does not exclude anything.

 

[Bunyip]

Without some type of non-physical intelligence that can recognize human moral decisions as good/bad how can that possibly be? I just don't hear atheists believing in non-physical intelligent forces very often. Otherwise this sounds like the kind of superstition most atheists reject and criticize.

I still maintain almost all atheists hold a materialist worldview.

Most atheists like chocolate, that does not mean that there is a link. Same goes with materialism.

 

[Willamena]

What do you even mean by 'outside of materialism'? Materialism does not exclude anything.

That's very materialistic of you.

 

[Bunyip]

That's very materialistic of you.

Oh....thank the Gods for the gift of laughter.

 

[George-ananda]

Materialism does not exclude anything.

If a philosophical term does not exclude anything, then the term is meaningless. Everyone has to be a 'materialist' then. Please rethink.

 

[Bunyip]

If a philosophical term does not exclude anything, then the term is meaningless. Everyone has to be a 'materialist' then. Please rethink.

Why would a term have to exclude anything to have meaning? Please re-think.

 

[George-ananda]

Why would a term have to exclude anything to have meaning? Please re-think.

So what does 'materialism' say??

 

[Bunyip]

So what does 'materialism' say??

It doesn't say anything. It is a philosophical approach that advocates for looking for natural explanations.

I asked you why a term would need to exclude anything to have meaning, would you answer please?

 

[George-ananda]

It doesn't say anything.

That is what I mean by you rendered the term meaningless.

 

[Bunyip]

That is what I mean by you rendered the term meaningless.

What? How does it render a term meaningless if it doesn't exclude anything?
The term 'universe' does not exclude anything and has meaning. Same goes for many other terms, like everything, all, music,

What I am asking you is; Why do you think a term must exclude anything to have meaning?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now, the complex scientific things you listed are on the order of things like forces, dark matter, etc. in the definition above.

They aren't. Consider just one example: functional processes with causal efficacy.
"A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.

"systems biology is concerned with the relationship between molecules and cells; it treats cells as organized, or organizing, molecular systems having both molecular and cellular properties. It is concerned with how life or the functional properties thereof that are not yet in the molecules, emerge from the particular organization of and interactions between its molecular processes. It uses models to describe particular cells and generalizes over various cell types and organisms to arrive at new theories of cells as molecular systems. It is concerned with explaining and predicting cellular behaviour on the basis of molecular behaviour. It refers to function in ways that would not be permitted in physics. It addresses an essential minimum complexity exceeding that of any physical chemical system understood until now. It shies away from reduction of the system under study to a collection of elementary particles. Indeed, it seems to violate many of the philosophical foundations of physics, often in ways unprecedented even by modern physics." (emphases added)
Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (Eds.). (2007). Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier.

 

[George-ananda]

What? How does it render a term meaningless if it doesn't exclude anything?
The term 'universe' does not exclude anything and has meaning. Same goes for many other terms, like everything, all, music,

What I am asking you is; Why do you think a term must exclude anything to have meaning?

Nobody debates if the 'universe' exists. Is there such a thing as a person who is not a 'materialist' in your mind?

 

[Bunyip]

Nobody debates if the 'universe' exists. Is there such a thing as a person who is not a 'materialist' in your mind?

Yes of course, myself as an example.

Would you, please answer my question?

 

[George-ananda]

They aren't. Consider just one example: functional processes with causal efficacy.
"A functional component has many interesting attributes. First of all, it exists independent of the material parts that make it possible. Reductionism has taught us that every thing in a real system can be expressed as a collection of material parts. This is not so in the case of functional components...Fragmentability is the aspect of systems that can be reduced to their material parts leaving recognizable material entities as the result. A system is not fragmentable is reducing it to its parts destroys something essential about that system. Since the crux of understanding a complex system had to do with identifying the context dependent functional components, they are by definition, not fragmentable". (emphasis added; italics in original)
Mikulecky, D. C. (2005). The Circle That Never Ends: Can Complexity be Made Simple? In D. Bonchev & D. H. Rouvray (Eds.). Complexity in Chemistry, Biology, and Ecology (Mathematical and Computational Chemistry). Springer.

"systems biology is concerned with the relationship between molecules and cells; it treats cells as organized, or organizing, molecular systems having both molecular and cellular properties. It is concerned with how life or the functional properties thereof that are not yet in the molecules, emerge from the particular organization of and interactions between its molecular processes. It uses models to describe particular cells and generalizes over various cell types and organisms to arrive at new theories of cells as molecular systems. It is concerned with explaining and predicting cellular behaviour on the basis of molecular behaviour. It refers to function in ways that would not be permitted in physics. It addresses an essential minimum complexity exceeding that of any physical chemical system understood until now. It shies away from reduction of the system under study to a collection of elementary particles. Indeed, it seems to violate many of the philosophical foundations of physics, often in ways unprecedented even by modern physics." (emphases added)
Boogerd, F., Bruggeman, F. J., Hofmeyr, J. H. S., & Westerhoff, H. V. (Eds.). (2007). Systems biology: philosophical foundations. Elsevier.

This is all interesting but I think our difference is that you are interested in the question mostly from an advanced scientific perspective and I am interested in the subject from the perspective of religion and spirituality. What does all this tell me? Am I just a collection of matter (behaving sometimes in ways materialist physics is shown to be an unsatisfactory understanding) or is there something about us that is not material at all (i.e. Consciousness). That is the heart of the 'materialist versus spiritualist' debate in a religious/spiritual discussion (as I see it).

 

[Desert Snake]

Only for people which keep insisting that God and spirit are somehow not a material substance.

How are you defining material, materialism, and, who is insisting that, in what context?

 

[paarsurrey]

How are you defining material, materialism, and, who is insisting that, in what context?

Is an idea material one?
Regards