# Are atheists who aren’t materialists truly atheists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 19, 2026, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197 "2026-05-19T00:20:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![MuleSkinner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@MuleSkinner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MuleSkinner)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2026, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/141 "2026-06-18T19:26:22Z")
The claim was about how God gets defined in philosophy of religion - that the omni-properties package is the standard working definition philosophers in that domain are typically examining. That’s it. One word, one domain. The response to that is a single definition of atheism from a source that openly calls the word “polysemous” and acknowledges multiple competing meanings exist. Those are two different subjects, and even on the subject you chose to address, one definition from one source that admits the term is contested doesn’t settle anything. And since you brought those sources in anyway - read them more carefully. The SEP calls “atheism” explicitly polysemous and documents both the psychological and philosophical senses as legitimate. The IEP, read past the opening line, explicitly distinguishes positive atheism from negative atheism, credits the distinction to Anthony Flew, and describes negative atheism as including positions centered on the incoherence or unresolvability of the question itself - exactly the territory MrDibble has been occupying. Neither source is doing what you need it to do. Both of them, read in full, place that territory inside negative atheism, not outside it. That’s not a rebuttal. That’s the same conclusion we’ve been reaching, sourced twice. ---
**Author:** ![Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swords_to_Plowshares)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2026, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/142 "2026-06-18T19:42:51Z")
What is meaningful to you? Is fiction meaningful? The fact that temples were built to Zeus implies that Zeus was meaningful to those who commissioned the temple. If I draw Zeus (ripped, of course) then that has meaning to me. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/143 "2026-06-19T00:36:23Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > That’s the standard “omni-God” used throughout philosophy of religion, nothing new > > I It certainly isn’t Zeus, however; or a whole lot of other beings that have been called gods by one group of people or another. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/144 "2026-06-19T07:01:53Z")
> [@MuleSkinner](#): > > It’s a fact about ancient Greek religious practice, not a metaphysical mystery No. θειότης wasn’t the act of being worshipped. It was a .. something … that manifested in beings (not just gods). > [@MuleSkinner](#): > > Fields with real stakes run on imperfect definitions all the time. Imperfect and meaningless are not synonyms. Energy wasn’t defined in terms of energy, species wasn’t defined in terms of species. > [@MuleSkinner](#): > > Fine, here’s one that’s neither circular nor self-contradictory: take a being defined by three separate properties, not one implying the others. It knows everything, it can do anything logically possible, and it’s perfectly good. I didn’t say those 4 are the only words without meaning in this kind of context. What’s “good”, for instance, in this context? Or “everything”? And - I understand what it means for a person to know many things, have great power, or behave morally. I do not understand what it means to extrapolate those concepts to an unlimited degree. The move from “very knowledgeable” to “knows everything” and from “very powerful” to “can do anything logically possible” seems to be a transition to using words without a clear referent. > [@MuleSkinner](#): > > That’s an explicit non-affirmation, not a hidden yes that just hasn’t surfaced yet. No. All I’m saying is that the actual Zeus worshipped by Greeks contained an element (θειότης) that the Greeks very much insisted was part of him. Remove it, and he’s not a god _to them_ anymore. And that part is meaningless. > [@Voyager](#): > > If you ask a true believer questions about this god, they can give you Bible passages answering many of them. Sure. “God is Love”, etc. And then you ask “what is Love”… > [@Voyager](#): > > A four sided triangle is non-existent by its nature but I wouldn’t say the concept is meaningless. [Incoherent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth) is more the kind of “meaningless” I am meaning. I think it’s quite possible we’re not using the same meaning of “meaningless”, where I’ve been using it interchangeably with “incoherent” but seemingly you just mean syntactically correct. Or in other words, a 4-sided triangle _is_ meaningless in this context. > [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > What is meaningful to you? Is fiction meaningful? Literature is a different area of concern from epistemology. Different model of meaning. I understand what Gandalf’s powers are supposed to be. But no-one is asserting a truth value to Gandalf’s existence. > [@Swords\_to\_Plowshares](#): > > The fact that temples were built to Zeus implies that Zeus was meaningful to those who commissioned the temple. Different sense of “meaningful”. People make art of Gandalf, too. Usually not _ripped_, though. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/145 "2026-06-19T07:48:19Z")
I also consider someone who argues that the concept of a god is incoherent is an atheist. Because you still lack a belief in god. If someone asked me if I believed in jakdsfljsa, sure, I would ask them what that meant. It would be possible I believe in the concept they name jakdsfljsa. But if they can’t define the concept in a way I find coherent, then I would say “No, I don’t believe in jakdsfljsa.” What I would not say is “I believe there is no jakdsfljsa,” because I don’t. I have no belief at all about jakdsfljsa. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/146 "2026-06-19T08:37:42Z")
Yes, ignotheism is a form of atheism. If you find the concept of all Gods meaningless, then you probably don’t believe in any (if you’re consistent), and you’re therefore atheist. All of the attempts to define atheism as “believes that no God exists” leave the really uncomfortable position that someone who literally just doesn’t believe in any God/Gods has no term for what they believe, and that’s absurd, because it’s the default belief of a new mind. Like, imagine if we applied this same tortured logic to whether you believe in Leprechauns. If your answer is “I see no evidence that leprechauns exist, therefore I don’t believe in leprechauns” - imagine if they tried to debate on whether you’re a soft or hard a-leprechaunist, whether you find the idea of belief in leprechauns meaningless (it’s not, there’s just no reason to believe they’re real), etc. “Atheist” is the only concept or word I can think of where we tie ourselves into these ridiculous knots about what it means and what are the implications when the most obvious definition is right there for the taking and is the least problematic one. And the reasons are obvious - people REALLY want to be religious, atheists offer a compelling rational counter-argument, and defense of religiousness has to live in straw men and equivocation and theological bait and switches and tortured philosophy. It’s only the social weight of religion and the great psychological and sociological needs it fulfills that make this debate follow different rules than every other debate. Any ideas that it somehow transcends the rules of evidence, skepticism, rigor, methodology, etc. or that faith is a virtue are just a form of special pleading custom designed to protect this one precious and sacred argument. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/147 "2026-06-19T13:27:51Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I also consider someone who argues that the concept of a god is incoherent is an atheist. Because you still lack a belief in god. No. I am not an atheist. As you should well know[, because it’s come up before](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-you-a-white-liberal-atheist-man/950420/136). It’s strange that in most discussions people accept that individuals get to describe their own position, but when it comes to religion some people feel entitled to override those descriptions (see: “Mormons aren’t really Christian”). You don’t have to _agree_ with my terminology, but repeatedly telling me what I “really” am after I’ve explained my position is more about imposing your framework than understanding mine. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > If you find the concept of all Gods meaningless, then you probably don’t believe in any (if you’re consistent), and you’re therefore atheist. See above. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/148 "2026-06-19T13:53:39Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > but when it comes to religion some people feel entitled to override those descriptions Wait till we get to _Non-Theistic god beliefs are a subset of Theism_. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/149 "2026-06-19T17:53:41Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I also consider someone who argues that the concept of a god is incoherent is an atheist. Because you still lack a belief in god. **MrDibble** has a point. Or is religious identity less important than gender identity? This goes to the heart of the OP. Here is a self-proclaimed atheist who rejects materialism. And here is a self-proclaimed woman who was born with male anatomy. If we agree to recognize that the latter is a woman, why do we hesitate to recognize the former as an atheist? Well, I have seen the argument that you choose your religious beliefs, and this is enough to afford religious identity less respect… but I’m not sure it has merit. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/150 "2026-06-19T18:13:51Z")
Ah, yes, so you can be a deeply devout Christian who believes that Jesus Christ is God and part of a trinity of Gods but you’re also an atheist if you say you’re an atheist, because hey, if someone can change their gender identity, then anything goes and nothing means anything anymore. And it sounds like you’ve got the moral high ground because who wants to implicitly argue against a moral argument like that? I’m not saying anyone IS making the “devout Christian but I’m an atheist” position, but it’s a valid reductio of your position, right? Basically we have to trust what people declare themselves no matter how it matches the terms or the logic, or we’re disrespecting their self-declared identity. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/151 "2026-06-19T18:17:24Z")
That only works if gender is biological sex. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/152 "2026-06-19T18:26:09Z")
This is great debates - I do not actually think your argument is absurd, but I am interested in the defining the boundary. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/153 "2026-06-19T18:26:18Z")
I think that if we have a solid definition of “Christian” we should have a solid definition of “Atheist”. Let me know if that ever happens. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/154 "2026-06-19T18:32:21Z")
Who says we have a solid definition of “Christian”? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/155 "2026-06-19T18:33:34Z")
See the second line in my post. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/156 "2026-06-19T18:35:42Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > [Incoherent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth) is more the kind of “meaningless” I am meaning. I think it’s quite possible we’re not using the same meaning of “meaningless”, where I’ve been using it interchangeably with “incoherent” but seemingly you just mean syntactically correct. > > Or in other words, a 4-sided triangle _is_ meaningless in this context. Incoherent works better for me. A tri-omni god (and a four-sided triangle) are both incoherent. If that is your definition of meaningless, fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/157 "2026-06-19T18:35:43Z")
I think introducing the trans issue is an attempt to gain a sort of moral superiority via bringing up an unrelated, ethically and politically loaded topic that ultimately serves to obfuscate the issue. I don’t know what your opinions are or if you were trying to be provocative or subversive, but I’m not sure we really need to go into that debate to agree that we can use descriptive terms for categories of belief regardless of whether or not the person being described agrees with them. A devout Christian that says they’re an atheist is logically contradictory (though if someone made the claim that they’re culturally Christian but do not believe in the divinity of Jesus or the existence of the other two parts of the trinity that could be valid). An ignotheist that says we cannot know anything about Gods and therefore does not believe in them objecting to being called atheist is a semantic debate One we’ve hashed out pretty well in this thread and my position is fairly clear – if “atheist” only means “believes there is no god” then you literally can’t describe a child who has never been exposed to religious beliefs or an alien who has no concept of god(s) and whether they’re atheists or theists. So if a valid definition of atheist is “does not believe in any god(s)”, and it is pretty absurd to say otherwise, then it’s logically and objectively true that someone who has the position that “gods are unknowable so I don’t believe in them” is an atheist. Maybe you could argue there are different flavors of atheists that describe slightly different things. I’m hostile to that point of view but it’s common. But that doesn’t invalidate the “has no beliefs about god” = atheist connection because if that doesn’t fit the term atheist then wtf term does it fit? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/158 "2026-06-19T18:43:05Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I also consider someone who argues that the concept of a god is incoherent is an atheist. Because you still lack a belief in god. Not all god concepts are incoherent. In the West Christianity is so ingrained in the culture that there seems to be a default that god means the Christian god. (And this default applies to atheists, not just theists.) Not believing in an incoherent Christian god does not imply that I lack belief in any god. A deistic god is not incoherent - unfalsifiable, true, but not incoherent. I don’t believe in that god for different reasons than not believing in a particular god I can falsify. > [@SenorBeef](#): > > “Atheist” is the only concept or word I can think of where we tie ourselves into these ridiculous knots about what it means and what are the implications when the most obvious definition is right there for the taking and is the least problematic one. And I think a lot of it is from the attempt of theists to shift the burden of proof. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/159 "2026-06-19T18:50:37Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > There’s actually a pretty substantial body of research suggesting humans tend to develop “religious-like” thinking even without formal religious upbringing: > teleological thinking in kids (so-called “[promiscuous teleology](https://albertmohler.com/2007/05/29/promiscuous-teleology-is-this-why-so-many-reject-evolution/)”), spontaneous ritual development in e.g athletes, our hyperactive [agent detection systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection#Role_in_religion). > > We seem predisposed to it, is what the research mostly points to. Doesn’t mean it’s _inevitable_ that religious thought will spontaneously develop in a blank-slate human, but it’s the way I’d bet. This is absolutely consistent with my observations. I think that the tendency towards religious thought (which i might call “spirituality” varies a lot from person to person. But like a tendency towards singing or dancing, it’s a common trait of humankind, and maybe even one of those traits that defines what type of creature we are. Even though some people are completely non-spiritual, others are tone deaf, and yet others have two left feet. Of course no one is born believing in the Christian God, nor Buddha, nor Coyote. But the tendency to find meaning and importance in spiritual beings is, imho, inborn. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2026, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197/160 "2026-06-19T18:59:49Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > Of course no one is born believing in the Christian God, nor Buddha, nor Coyote. But the tendency to find meaning and importance in spiritual beings is, imho, inborn. And what do you make of people like me who never had a spiritual, transcendental or religious bone in their life (despite religious indoctrination in my childhood) ? Am I missing a certain gene? Am I defective, not human? (I’m sure you don’t think so, but there must be an explanation if spirituality is inborn) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-who-aren-t-materialists-truly-atheists/1030197.md?page=9)