And I mean “materialist” as in believing that “physical matter is the only or fundamental reality.” (Merriam-Webster)
Because I could have sworn that I read that believing in God or gods was a separate thing from believing in ghosts, telekinesis, souls, etc., and that atheists could technically believe in the latter while not believing in the former. But I’ve seen many who deny that. Is there a consensus?
I’ve never met such a person in real life, but if someone doesn’t believe in God, but does believe there are gnomes living in their garden, I would still call that person an atheist.
Same here. I don’t believe in any of that stuff (though those are the sorts of books I read) However, if someone doesn’t believe in god, but believes in ghosts the person is still an Atheist because atheist literally means without belief in god(s).
Incidentally, everyone I know (and I know quite a few) who believes in ghosts etc. believes in god or some sort of sentient higher power.
Now I kind of want to meet someone who doesn’t believe there’s a god, but absolutely believes in angels.
Yeah bc you could explain ghosts as leftover “energy” using some sort of pseudo science that has nothing to do with God.
Silly theories if you ask me. But still, it doesn’t involve God.
As an atheist I agree with what has been said; while I don’t personally know anyone like that, it’s not contradictory for someone to be an atheist while also believing in non-divine supernatural things. They are two separate positions that happen to have a lot of overlap, is all.
Depending on how you define “God” you could also have the opposite, a theist who doesn’t believe in the supernatural. “A superhuman being outside the universe who made it” doesn’t have to be magic.
Eh, I had a college friend who was an avowed atheist, but who had both some credulousness about ghosts and who read her horoscope daily and let it mildly influence her daily life. While she had a sense of humor about it, it was still a somewhat semi-serious belief based on confirmation bias. She was (I’m sure still is, but we’re no longer in touch) a pretty smart person in a science major. But in her mind to at least some extent we were friends because of course a Capricorn and a Pisces would get along.
She also loved daytime soap operas which frankly I found a lot harder to stomach than her fascination with astrology 
. She once made me sit through a full hour of them. It was dire.
Its possible to believe in those things while being an atheist. If you feel consciousness is an innate property of material reality and that the brain just acts as a receiver for it rather than a source of it, you can believe in an afterlife, ghosts, souls, communication across distances, etc w/o believing in a creator deity, the same way that a person in the 14th century can believe in plagues of locusts w/o believing in a creator deity.
I feel like you’re conflating ‘believing in a creator deity’ and ‘believing consciousness is a localized byproduct of biological brains that ceases to exist upon death’, which are 2 different things.
Buddhism doesn’t require belief in any god, and at the same time isn’t materialistic according to the definition given here. Some people call it a non-theistic religion (as opposed to atheistic), but in this discussion I don’t think that distinction matters.
Not only Buddhism, but also Jainism.
Both belief systems typically lack a central creator god (or gods) and explicitly reject materialism.
~Max
Speaking for myself as an atheist, I don’t state absolutely that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality. So far, on evidence as presented, that seems to be the case. The reason I am an atheist is epistemological, i.e. because arguments for the existence of deities all fail, at least so far. But I don’t pretend to know everything, and my experience of the universe is pretty small.
I do object to the use of the term “supernatural” to indicate something that might exist in a non-physical form or some ability that might manifest through a non-physical mechanism, because if it exists it is ipso facto natural. It may sound nitpicky, but using terms like that leads to a lot of confusion in discussions like this.
I am vehemently atheist. But I like maths.
Imaginary numbers (square root of minus 1, for example) are proven to be a reality (haha, not real, though. Sorry, nerdy joke).
Aside from that esoteric use, my opinion, which is not universal amongst atheists, who form a very broad church (haha) is that much of reality is imaginary. Physical matter is only real if I can experience it, and/or its effects; and granted it is not an illusion, I can believe. Like gravity… which is not physical matter, but certainly is a physical force affecting physical matter.
Crystal energy, remote healing, auras – are those materialistic? I’m sure there are tons of atheists who believe in that stuff. Atheists have one thing in common: they don’t collect stamps believe in God or gods. After that, all bets are off.
It’s an unnatural grouping; it really is like comparing people who don’t collect stamps. This board tends to the intellectual and many of us think through the implications of whether there’s a god or not. And, as mostly Americans, we’re soaking in religion all the time. But, in countries with little religion, like the Nordic countries, it’s the full spectrum of people out there who lack any belief in a deity.
So, are people who collect Starbucks coffee mugs really not stamp collectors?
I have met some people who have said they are atheists who are also Buddhist.
I think that people who believe in “ghosts, telekinesis, souls, etc.” are far less likely to describe themselves as atheists.
And I think that the reasons atheists don’t believe in God/gods are usually similar to the reasons they don’t believe in “ghosts, telekinesis, souls, etc.”
But no, I don’t think being an atheist necessarily implies being a materialist.
But the term “atheist/atheism” does have different meanings, nuances, and connotations to different people. At one time on the SDMB, it seemed that every thread on religious-related issues would eventually devolve into a debate over the meaning of atheism (things where to draw the line between atheism and agnosticism, or whether atheists have to believe there isn’t a god or just not believe there is a god or is there any difference).
As naturalism > methodological naturalism so materialism > provisional materialism.
I find it telling that every other time I see someone try to “prove” that physical matter is not the only or fundamental reality they point to logic, math, or human emotions like love and use those examples as their proof for, their, god.
As an atheist, and someone who also believes in science, I don’t believe in anything supernatural. If you can’t prove something exists scientifically, it doesn’t exist. But an atheist could believe in Bigfoot, Aliens, and Horoscopes and still be an atheist. They just don’t believe in God.
Atheism means you lack a positive believe in theism. You are a-theist, like “a-typical.” The A part just means not. It doesn’t say anything about your other beliefs.
So can you not believe in a theism but still believe in ghosts? Sure. Is it common? It’s certainly not extremely rare. If you got to atheism through critical thinking then you have the toolset to correctly discard other supernatural beliefs, too, but people often apply those tools unevenly depending on what they need. It works the other way too - people who are good critical thinkers in every other way and discard most ideas about the supernatural but cling to a personal God much certainly exist.
It’s worth noting that atheism is the default state that humans are born into, so you do not necessarily have to use critical thinking skills to have rejected religion. You can simply never have believed in a religion. But given how saturated almost every human culture is on Earth, this is an unlikely path, and people who are atheists usually have to do some sort of rejection at some point, even if it’s the same sort of rejection they would do for belief in leprechauns – (“I’m assuming the null hypothesis of nonexistence in the absence of compelling evidence”)
Religious people very often have some very wrong, completely made up, straw beliefs about what “atheists” are because they have a hard time engaging with the concept honestly. I remember when I was 5 or 6 years old, there was something on the news about how people felt about atheists, or something like that. I had never heard the term before. I asked the woman who was babysitting me - a friend of my mom - what an atheist was. And she said “Atheists don’t believe in God. They worship Satan”
And even as a 5-6 year old, I saw through that bullshit and said “but.. like… how can you believe in Satan without believing in God?” – like, they’re a matched pair in the same ideological framework. But it was my first introduction to people being wildly irrational about the concept of atheism and atheists.
Not a Buddhist, but it’s my understanding that Buddhists consider gods irrelevant to the pursuit of enlightenment, rather than having any necessary position on their reality or falsehood. So somebody can be an atheist and Buddhist at the same time without contradicting themselves.
I’m an atheist about the Tri-Omni.
I’m only agnostic about the Small Gods.