Why materialists are predominantly materialists

[Bunburryist]

Why don't you try and describe to me a non-material something. Anything at all. I'll wait.

Dan Barker makes the excellent point that a soul, spirit, etc., is always defined in terms of what it is not ("non-material", "immaterial", etc.) as opposed to what it "is".  Consciousness and free will (if the latter even truly exists) are mysterious, but saying that there are non-material things responsible for such is kind of a "soul of the gaps".

My problem with the whole phrase "non-materialist" is that it sort of implies that materialism is the given, relative to which anything else is "non" material.  I may casually label myself a "non-materialist," but that is simply a sloppy way of saying I don't believe in a material reality.  It's not that I think, "Okay, this is a material reality, and there's something else, more, that is, well, non-material."  For me, there's no material reality to start with.  I do have many experiences, but none of them are "made of matter," as "aspects of matter," have aspects that are also aspects of matter, exist in a world in which matter exists, etc.