What do you have to be?

[CliveStaples]

That's true, of course. But it is not what I was up to.
I mean if you'd claim "I think, there is no god" it would have further implications. If you'd say, for example, "I think there is no god, but I think there is an ultimate truth" (idealistic) you couldn't argue against god, because god is part of an idealistic worldview, too. You could only argue in your idealistic system and propably wouldn't get a result (except, of course, "I believe", "I favour"...)
Therefore, I think, an atheist can't be an idealist and has to be a materialist (If he/she is interested in creating a worldview full of integrity).

That seems completely wrong. Just because God has to be Idealist (i.e., He is immaterial) doesn't mean that Idealists must assent to his existence. That's like saying that because unicorns are material objects, materialists can't object to their existence.

[Metonymie]

That's true, of course. But it is not what I was up to.
I mean if you'd claim "I think, there is no god" it would have further implications. If you'd say, for example, "I think there is no god, but I think there is an ultimate truth" (idealistic) you couldn't argue against god, because god is part of an idealistic worldview, too. You could only argue in your idealistic system and propably wouldn't get a result (except, of course, "I believe", "I favour"...)
Therefore, I think, an atheist can't be an idealist and has to be a materialist (If he/she is interested in creating a worldview full of integrity).

That seems completely wrong. Just because God has to be Idealist (i.e., He is immaterial) doesn't mean that Idealists must assent to his existence. That's like saying that because unicorns are material objects, materialists can't object to their existence.

That's not what I meant.
I mean any philosophy with a god in it (like plato's or like a religion), is an idealistic one. You can't argue with plato's theories that the christian god doesn't exist.

[CliveStaples]

That's not what I meant.
I mean any philosophy with a god in it (like plato's or like a religion), is an idealistic one. You can't argue with plato's theories that the christian god doesn't exist.

Well, sure. But that's not because of their Idealism. It's because of their Theism. Of course you can't be an atheist if you subscribe to a Theist worldview.

[Metonymie]

That's not what I meant.
I mean any philosophy with a god in it (like plato's or like a religion), is an idealistic one. You can't argue with plato's theories that the christian god doesn't exist.

Well, sure. But that's not because of their Idealism. It's because of their Theism. Of course you can't be an atheist if you subscribe to a Theist worldview.

Oh...
you're right. I shouldn't have used the term "god".

But I guess you can say, that any idealism is "divine" in a way.
That's at least how I see it.
If you take Plato and leave the parts out in which he actually mentions god, you could say it is atheistic.
But his theories about the higher spheres (or levels or however it's called in english) have something supernatural anyway.
And I claim, as an atheist you can't accept Plato (even without god), because it wouldn't fit into a worldview full of integrity.

P.S.
I propably made several mistakes by now. Sorry, my english is anything but perfect.

[CliveStaples]

Oh...
you're right. I shouldn't have used the term "god".

But I guess you can say, that any idealism is "divine" in a way.
That's at least how I see it.
If you take Plato and leave the parts out in which he actually mentions god, you could say it is atheistic.
But his theories about the higher spheres (or levels or however it's called in english) have something supernatural anyway.
And I claim, as an atheist you can't accept Plato (even without god), because it wouldn't fit into a worldview full of integrity.

P.S.
I propably made several mistakes by now. Sorry, my english is anything but perfect.

Your English is perfectly readable!

I'm not sure what you mean by "a worldview full of integrity". What does "integrity" mean, in this sense? And why are atheists obligated to only accept worldviews that exhibit it?

[Metonymie]

Oh...
you're right. I shouldn't have used the term "god".

But I guess you can say, that any idealism is "divine" in a way.
That's at least how I see it.
If you take Plato and leave the parts out in which he actually mentions god, you could say it is atheistic.
But his theories about the higher spheres (or levels or however it's called in english) have something supernatural anyway.
And I claim, as an atheist you can't accept Plato (even without god), because it wouldn't fit into a worldview full of integrity.

P.S.
I propably made several mistakes by now. Sorry, my english is anything but perfect.

Your English is perfectly readable!

I'm not sure what you mean by "a worldview full of integrity". What does "integrity" mean, in this sense? And why are atheists obligated to only accept worldviews that exhibit it?

I didn't know what the adjective of "integrity" was, so I looked it up an google.translate spitted "full of integrity" out. "A worldview full of integrity" was my solution.
I don't mean that atheists are obligated to only accept this.
All I want to say, is that you would somehow contadict yourself, if you were an atheist, but still follow an idealistic philosophy.

Could it be, that in the english language you use "integrity" only in a moral context? I slowly get that feeling.

[CliveStaples]

No, "integrity" is also used to mean 'wholeness' or 'sturdiness', as in "structural integrity".


What contradiction is there for an atheist to be idealistic? I don't see how rejecting the existence of one kind of Idealist object--specifically, gods--somehow entails the rejection of all Idealist objects, on pain of contradiction.

[downbeatplumb]

An atheist can be an atheist and do anyhthing but believe in god

[Angrboda]

It's not clear, but you seem to be using Idealism in multiple ways. The popular Hollywood movie The Matrix represents an Idealism in which all of a person's perceptual experience is generated on a computer and fed directly into their brain for humans who are still connected to the Matrix. Their reality, if they were to postulate it as it actually is, constitutes a version of Idealism. Yet none of the machines that run the matrix are gods, nor is the Matrix itself a god, all they are is intelligent machines.

I think the second equivocation is that you're being very liberal in that to which you apply the term "god". To tighten your focus, it isn't necessary that an atheist lack belief in a god, only that they lack belief in those things that they understand as being postulated to be gods. An atheist makes no statement about gods who are either unknown to them, or whose properties can't be sufficiently described as to be knowable; such creatures are noumenon, and it makes no sense to believe in them and simultaneously hold to the utility of reason. There is certainly a question here as to what properties a god must have to qualify as a god, yet this is ultimately a question with pragmatic answers. One can certainly describes potential gods whose membership in the set of all gods is disputable (such as pantheist, panentheist and deist gods), but this demarcation problem is usually handled admirably by the advocates of such gods loudly proclaiming their status as gods, and even when not, it would be a fallacy of the beard to propose that under adequate consideration, a significantly large set of entities cannot be sorted into one or the other category reliably. The only real question is, are you struggling with the god status of a non-god, or the non-god status of a god? If not, I'd say your practical problems are basically solved.

[Metonymie]

I guess you're right.
I made a mistake in my question.

I define Atheism not only as a lack of belief, but as a denial of the possibility that god exists. After all, if you don't believe in god, you could still be an agnostic.

I use Idealism in the most simple form. Ideas are real. Reality, as we know it, is just an image of an idea.
I don't think it matters if you use god as the highest idea or the image of the sun or mathematics or whatever.

So, if you're willing to postulate the sentence "There is no god", it seems to me, that you necessarily would have to claim "There is no noumenon" (I guess you use "noumenon" the way Kant used it).
I don't think you could come up with a consistent argument against god from an idealistic position (again: I mean a denial of god's existence (any god) not only a lack of believe. We don't have to call it atheism if you like).

I actually should have asked the question: "if you're materialist, how do you cope with Hume's is-ought problem and naturalistic fallacies?", because that was actually what I was up to.
I admit it, I failed.

The popular Hollywood movie The Matrix represents an Idealism...

A great movie about idealism - materialism is "Solaris" by Andrej Tarkovsky (don't watch Soderberghs remake).