So is anyone here not a materialist?
Define materialist for me, please.
Thanks to Google:
"Definitions of materialist on the Web:
someone with great regard for worldly possessions
cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn
someone who thinks that nothing exists but physical matter
cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn"
I’m not sure which of these two defintions he’s refering to though.
He could possibly be referring to German materialism, but i doubt it.
Wait a minute … could intelligence and worldly understanding be classified as possessions, things sought after for whence you claim ownership and a certain amout of pride?
Dun dun dun …
I think we all might be. 
But I hate new clothes or obessions with new cars and whatnot. I think we should burn LA in a good old fashioned witch-hunt. Yeehawwww!@
Nugan
I like the second definition. Thanks for looking it up. But I think we need more like what Marshall is saying. Philosophically speaking, how do you define materialist or materialism.
Bill, straight question, straight answer - I am 90 percent a materialist. I am a post-Cybernetics and Complexity theory materialist, so it is a lot easier set of beliefs than being a Newtonian clockwork materialist. That last ten percent of me still can’t figure out one little problem. I can list fifteen materialist reasons as to why the Christ event ain’t no big deal, but I still can’t figure out that first three or four generations of Christian martyrs. But then gods are probably emergent properties anyway. (hey according to Marcel Mauss, they are!)
What in the world did you just say, Hermes?
Yea, I like, stuff, why shouldn’t I?
But I don’t like anything to an absurd level. I don’t talk to any of my belongings or anything like that.
I think a truly material person will be one who goes after money and all that money can buy even at the expense of over-riding another’s rights, this person will be ruthless and relentless in his quest for material things and for such a person I’d say, ‘satisfaction is’ not ‘the key,’ because such a person can never be satisfied, more only creates a desire for more in his life.
When the weigh scale for materialism becomes heavy and comes down then the scale for non-materialism goes up naturally because there is a balance of sorts. So this person will not give or care, but take from others in life and use others always. For a truly material person, ‘things are to be loved and people to be used.’
Now, we all need money and material things in our life to an extent. But to the extent that we draw a line to balance our greed, we will not be materialistic for we will not over-ride another’s rights for our needs, such a person should not be called materialistic.
If it is true that, ‘95% of the world’s population works so 5% can be millionaires/billionaires out there,’ then I’d say that most of us are NOT materialistic, no matter who says what, we just can’t see anothers’ needs.
I’m a dualist. Just had a whole argument about this with frighter hehe… now hes one stubborn materialist 
I’m an idealist, or a neurtal monist. Which way is the wind blowing today?
Oh, today aparently I like neurtal monism. The idea of the world not haveing a single best description amuses me. 
LOL at all the people thinking by materialist I meant in the sense of Madonna. I am constantly amazed by how little philosophy most people on this board seem to know.
Materialism-philosophy-The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
From where do you base this belief on? Spinoza?
By the way , by far the vast majority of our contemporary philosophers are materialists.
BillWaltonSexUniversity,
So when marie asked you to define materialism for her, why the hell didn’t you do it right away? Why wait until these many responses are here? So that you can insult “most” of us after our contributions? Here, I’ll define the philosophical sense of materialism for you which is not at all like Madonna’s, “material girl image.” BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Oops! Where did he disappear guys, I wonder? Maybe he wasn’t material (substance) enough you know, oh! Oh! 
I would disqualify myself as a materialist. It looks like a big leap from saying that the material exists to saying that the material is ALL that exists.
It seems like laziness, or a lack of imagination. Or perhaps too much imagination.
Although Spinoza is pretty cogent, I would be lying if I say I was convinced by his arguements.
I’m not sure how well this works, but here goes. If its possible for science to succede completely, it would imply many things includeing these two:
One) Some physical description of the world is correct. --To me this seems a pretty straight foward corrilary. Is it not?
Two) There would have to be a unifying equation, something like an equation that would tell you where any particle would be at any moment, a relation that maps onto the universe perfectly. And if this equastion maps unto the world perfectly, why couldn’t it be an equal description of the universe as the physical one?
Although after typeing this. I realize I’m still a materialist as long as the thesis is not:
Everything is only describeable as material.
But Rather:
Everything is descrabalbe as material.
For there is nothing non-physical if this theory is true as well as nothing non-mathimatic (mental).
So I guess you could count me under something worth calling weak materialism.
Quite simple really(In best british accent). I didn’t visit this forum again till a few days after I made this post and as soon as I did I made my reply.