Quote:Yes, you're pointing out what we believe, if we only believe in material existence. But that's a pretty big if, and it's an assumption that you haven't justified, and not one that many of us are willing to share with you.

Do you believe in God/non-material reality beyond the physical world? If you answer yes then you're a theist or whatever else you are and if you answer no then you're a materialist, just the material natural world as you see it nothing else. You can still be open minded to the other possibilities a materialist as a theist can believe in God yet have some doubts. I'd materialism as seriously as I would take a belief in God or a religion, you choose a team and you stick with it. Someone will be right and someone will be mistaken.

Quote:No, actually: one could even believe in a soul without a god behind it.

God or a higher power, transcendent realm of consciousness or whatever it would be that would allow such entities to exist. You believe in something like that and say what it is or you don't believe anything like that. This leaves you with a belief in the material existence as it therefore what you have there is materialism. Though perhaps you're not really all convinced by this atheism business? It's just more fashionable to claim and go along with, gives you some intellectual credibility perhaps, I think there quite lot of self claimed atheists like that around but they're not really buying into it.

Quote: One could believe in all manner of things without a god behind it: god is not every possible non-physical thing

You don't believe in God or whatever other metaphysical equivalent to God that could exist or anything else particularly so you're left with physical matter. So what you have there is materialism. If you asserted a belief in something else you wouldn't be a materialist/naturalist.

Quote:, and there are more non-physical potentials than just god. There are sects of Buddhism that don't have god figures, but have nonmaterial teachings: you are simply demonstrably wrong, here.

I'm covering Buddhism, pantheism, monism and whatever else. You don't believe in any of those alternatives therefore you are a materialist, seeing as that's what you're left. The argument you have against the existence of God or the non-physical transcendent nature of existence is an argument favor of materialism, seeing as that is the only alternative.

Quote:It would help more if you'd actually bother to understand the position of the people you're talking to, rather than ramming them into categories they don't wish to share.

It could be I understand your position better than you do. I realize you don't know for a fact that materialism is true or not but I don't know for a fact whether God exists or not so we're in the same position just on opposite sides.

Quote:Again, I'm saying I don't know.

I don't know either. I didn't say anything about actually knowing that God exists.

Quote:There's always the third answer: I don't know. Why would I hold a position if I don't hold to either of the binary options you're attempting to force me into?

No-one, no-one currently alive anyway, actually knows whether or not God exists so that isn't a third answer just something that applies to everyone.

(January 16, 2014 at 8:21 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This is sort of like asking, 'What do you call something that is neither a rock nor not-a-rock?' If it isn't a rock, then it is automatically not-a-rock - there's nothing in the middle.

Boru

Perhaps, but what is a rock? Is it not as subjective as it is matter-of-fact?

If you can adequatey answer the question, I'll consider your label.

Quote:Perhaps, but what is a rock? Is it not as subjective as it is matter-of-fact?

If you can adequatey answer the question, I'll consider your label.

No, a rock is not subjective. It is a naturally occurring aggregate of minerals (ask any geologist). Thus, if something is NOT a naturally occurring aggregate of minerals, it cannot be a rock. Further thus, the categories of 'rock' and 'not a rock' are a universal set - there are no other labels possible.

Boru

(January 17, 2014 at 7:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Perhaps, but what is a rock? Is it not as subjective as it is matter-of-fact?

If you can adequatey answer the question, I'll consider your label.

No, a rock is not subjective. It is a naturally occurring aggregate of minerals (ask any geologist). Thus, if something is NOT a naturally occurring aggregate of minerals, it cannot be a rock. Further thus, the categories of 'rock' and 'not a rock' are a universal set - there are no other labels possible.

Boru

What would beings from another planet label "rocks" as, and would they have identical aggregate compositions to rocks found on Earth? If not, then we (Humans on Earth) may not agree that they are indeed "rocks" simply because they don't agree with our Earthly aggregate compositions. My point is, if I say I'm male, you'll assign what you know as "male" to me. If I omit my gender, you're left to define me by my actions/words/properties, and not as my "gender" or your chosen label for me would prescribe or dictate.

Quote:What would beings from another planet label "rocks" as, and would they have identical aggregate compositions to rocks found on Earth? If not, then we (Humans on Earth) may not agree that they are indeed "rocks" simply because they don't agree with our Earthly aggregate compositions.

If an alien comes along and quizzes you about rocks, get back to me.

Quote:My point is, if I say I'm male, you'll assign what you know as "male" to me. If I omit my gender, you're left to define me by my actions/words/properties, and not as my "gender" or your chosen label for me would prescribe or dictate.

You miss the point entirely. This isn't about subjective definitions or what I surmise about you via your actions, or even about labels.etc. It is about objective definitions and the exclusivity of some sets.

The question in the OP is unanswerable as written. What is not a theist is an atheist, there's no middle ground to be had. What doesn't fit the definition of a rock may be safely classed as 'not a rock'.

Boru

People get really uncomfortable around a "Non-conformist" don't they?

For being "free" thinkers there are sure some "stuck" thinkers here. Now that's a label.

Quote:People get really uncomfortable around a "Non-conformist" don't they?

But what IS a non-conformist? Suppose alien beings from the planet Ozmulakk have different notions of conformity, how will we know whether to get uncomfortable or not?

Quote:For being "free" thinkers there are sure some "stuck" thinkers here. Now that's a label.

But you can't tell if someone is a free thinker or a 'stuck' thinker - for all you know, they're fibbing about their gender.

Boru

(January 17, 2014 at 7:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:People get really uncomfortable around a "Non-conformist" don't they?

But what IS a non-conformist? Suppose alien beings from the planet Ozmulakk have different notions of conformity, how will we know whether to get uncomfortable or not?

Quote:For being "free" thinkers there are sure some "stuck" thinkers here. Now that's a label.

But you can't tell if someone is a free thinker or a 'stuck' thinker - for all you know, they're fibbing about their gender.

Boru

You've illustrated my point perfectly. What does a label do but corner a person/object? If I call myself an 'atheist' you'll assign to me that I reject the claims of theism, and the opposite if I call myself a 'theist'. If I avoid the label, then you're left with seeing me for what I am, and not for what your label 'says' I am according to that label. You may later label me as a result of your observations, but the label is something YOU create for me, and is not a necessarily an accurate descriptor of me.

(January 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm)It Is i Wrote: If I call myself an 'atheist' you'll assign to me that I reject the claims of theism, and the opposite ]if I call myself a 'theist'

No, the disbelief in gods comes first, 'atheist' describes that position.

If you are 7' tall, you will be labeled as a tall person. If you face Mecca 5 times a day and pray to Allah, that behavior will define you as a Muslim.

You can say all day long that you don't want to be labeled as a tall person, or a Muslim, but your attributes will still define you as a tall Muslim.

And, if one of your attributes is that you do not currently have an active belief in at least one god, that attribute is called....wait for it....atheism.

[quote If I avoid the label, then you're left with seeing me for what I am, and not for what your label 'says' I am according to that label. You may later label me as a result of your observations, but the label is something YOU create for me, and is not a necessarily an accurate descriptor of me.
[/quote]

You will still be seen as what you are.

And if one of the many attributes that define who you are is that you do not a belief in at least one god, you are an atheist. Atheist defines only one attribute of every attribute that make you up as a person, it does not define your entirety as a person.

You sound way to hung up on the baggage that the atheist label may have attached. Get over it.

(January 17, 2014 at 8:00 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You can say all day long that you don't want to be labeled as a tall person, or a Muslim, but your attributes will still define you as a tall Muslim.

Precicely because those 'attributes' have been attached to the label. My entire point is... labels are LIMITING. Maybe the 'tall' person is actually 'fill in the blank' (something entirely otherwise), and can't be seen for what he truly is because he's had a label applied by others who want to corner him. BTW, I have no 'hang-up' or 'baggage' associated with labels - I simply 'reject' them.

ETA: Oops, did I just place a label on you? Limiting isn't it?