Hey, Atheists...

[partinobodycular]

No opinion one way or the other? I find that difficult to come to terms with.

Apathy is kinda my thing.

 

[stevevw]

No, they're not. There's an objective basis for any given moral position because the opinion will based on facts about the world (or what we believe to be facts about the world).

What do you mean by facts about the world. Facts about the world cannot be used for morality. This is the Hume problem where 'you can't get an ought from an is'. I keep saying this and you keep trying to creates a false representation of morality.

Besides the facts used about the world are themselves chosen subjectively. If its human wellbeing that its the subjective determinations of what exactly counts as human wellbeing.

Valjean stole some bread to feed his starving family. Them's the objective facts. Do you think that's an immoral act? As soon as you give me your opinion on it then it's clear that it's relative.

Relative against what exactly. It cannot be realtive unless there is some objective to measure the relativity. Otherwise its just relative to each other such as tastes, feelings and beliefs. But not relative to any objective.

But you might say that it's written in gold lettering on a slab of enchanted marble in a warlock's castle that it's immoral for Valjean to steal bread to feed his starving family (or it's in someone's religious text). In which case I'll ask you if you think that's correct. And as soon as you give me your opinion on it then it's clear that it's still relative.

Like I said relative against what. What your talking about is not morality as morality demands an objective beyond relativity. We also have reasoning. God gave us the ability to reason out the moral truth. Any moral truth needs to also conform to reality, to our lived experiences.

An enchanted warlock is a human creation and can easily be differentiated from God and Christ who is God who actually lived on planet earth has His words in the bible and claims to be the Truth over warlocks and all other human creations that want to substitute for God.

I don't get what you don't see about this. Give me a fact about the world and I can check to see if it's true. Give me your opinion on anything and it's obviously an opinion that is relative to you.

Thats because you don't see facts about morality being like facts about the physical world. They world the same way except the basis for the facts or truth about morality is not a physical or material basis but a transcedent basis.

We know that say justice is a real thing in the world. We live like it is. Thats the evidence. Like Lewis said where did this truth of justice come from. If the universe is unjust where did justice come from. WE can only know a stick is bent if we already know what a straight stick is. Its not relative at all. A straight stick is a straight stick. Its not bent event if its a slight bend lol.

There as there is factually moral truths like justice that stand as laws beyond our relative beliefs then there must be some moral entity that has instilled this into reality.

 

[Bradskii]

What do you mean by facts about the world. Facts about the world cannot be used for morality. This is the Hume problem where 'you can't get an ought from an is'. I keep saying this...

Yeah. We noticed. Notwithstanding that you can. If I think X is wrong then I ought not to do it. Didn't take too long to dismantle that...

And really, I mean exactly what do you base your opinion on morality on? I give you some facts about the world which will include an act and you then decide if it's morally acceptable or not. How in the name of all that's holy can you make a moral decision without any facts? Let's try, shall we?

I'm going to do X.

That's it. No other facts about the matter will be given. Now tell me if X is immoral or not. I'll be here when you get back with an answer.

Besides the facts used about the world are themselves chosen subjectively. If its human wellbeing that its the subjective determinations of what exactly counts as human wellbeing.

No (just thought I'd emphasise that to make sure you didn't miss it). Facts aren't subjective. Facts are objective. Despite that some morons may try to tell you that their facts aren't the same as yours (aka 'alternative facts'). Give me a fact and I'll show you.

Relative against what exactly. It cannot be realtive unless there is some objective to measure the relativity. Otherwise its just relative to each other such as tastes, feelings and beliefs.

I'm beginning to think you are making this up as you go. Of course that's what relative means in relation to morals. It's what you think relative to what I think. It's the very definition of relative morality. How in blue blazes can you say 'Otherwise its just relative to each other such as tastes, feelings and beliefs.'? That's what relative morality means.

Like I said...

The rest wasn't worth me typing this to tell you that it wasn't worth me typing this.

 

[stevevw]

You do it several times. I apparently inserted the quote just now in the wrong place at your *third* insistence of this error.

But you have not shown me where I said secular is religion directly. Read my posts they clearly say that secularism is not a religion but like a religion in that the secularists within it hold metaphysical beliefs similar to religious beliefs about whats beyond the material world.

There you go again. Equating "secular" with religion.

Do you read what I say. I said that secular is similar to religion as it has beliefs that transcend the material world. Not it is a religion itself but when it comes to beliefs in things beyond the physical world all most people if not all have a metaphysical religious like belief in something beyond what we see.

So people say footy fans be be religious in their belief that their team is the best. Same thing. Its not traditional religion in that sense but has the same types of belief in transcedent minds and bodies ect. This is used for the basis of reality, meaning and morality.

Sure looks like it to me.

So what would you call these beliefs within secularism. Can secularists hold transcedent metaphysical beliefs that act similar to religious beliefs in placing morality and meaning beyond the material world.

I know that some silly non-believers call themselves "secular" rather than "agnostic/atheist/non-believer/etc", but that's not the point. We all interact with secular aspects of society. The question of the thread is secular rather than religious morality, not if you avail yourself of secular therapy or see a clergyman for couselling.

The evidence I linked mentions the vast majority of not all people have some metaphysical beliefs such as life after death ect. The definition of secular is one thing but the actual lived secularism is another. It may not be religion but its every bit as metaphysically based in non material beliefs.

The thread is about an atheistic foundation for morality. Atheism is a belief system while secularism is a philosophy for how to live life that is not religious. They have some commonalities in that atheism will derive a philosophy for living that is non religious. One is a belief(atheism) and the other is a way of life (secularism). Obviously people use their beliefs to base how they live.

Atheism will have to find its foundation in the non religious systems as they are to do with belief in gods. Secularism will have to find its foundation is non religious ideologies because religion is about belief in a moral lawgiver.

Science is not "transcendent" in the typical use of the word to describes gods, etc.

Yes when dealing with the physical objective world. It works well. But when it steps outside into stuff like meaning of life and morality it is no longer science but belief.

So in that sense when science is used to defeat objective morality beyond the physical it becomes a worldview about what is fundemental to reality. Science cannot tell us what is fundemental to reality because it assumes reality is fundementally physical which is beyond what it can do.

I"m done with this. We can't have a coherent conversation if you don't listen and keep making claims counter to reality.

Reality. So you know the truth to reality and its a material one. What about the billions who disgaree including non religiious people, indigenous people who have walked this earth for 1,000s of years.

Your more or less saying that if I don't agree that the only way we can determine morality and reality for that matter is to agree with your woprldview. Otherwise I am not being real. Is that it. If thats the case then yes maybe its better we cease. As I kept saying we have two different worldviews on this. I get where yoyr coming from as I have been there. I don't think you get where I am coming from.

Don't ever talk to me of metaphysics.

OK whatever you want to call your position that you hold the truth on this. Its a belief and not science or objective reality, or truth. In fact I will agree with you that it is 'an opinion based on subjective beliefs and views. Thats why it cannot be truth as its contradictory.

Remembering that my arguement isn't for objective morality by my God or any god. But that logic, reason and lived reality shows us there are objective moral truths beyond the materialism and physical objective measurements.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you read what I say. I said that secular is similar to religion as it has beliefs that transcend the material world. Not it is a religion itself but when it comes to beliefs in things beyond the physical world all most people if not all have a metaphysical religious like belief in something beyond what we see.

"secular" isn't what you claim. That's the point.

 

[stevevw]

"secular" isn't what you claim. That's the point.

Yes as a definition my arguement doesn't mean secularism means religion in the technical sense. There is no religion involved.

But in a metaphysical belief sense relating to morality and meaning like is there anything beyond the material world that can account for meaning and morality people living under the heading secular society will have these beliefs.

Thats all I am saying and I don't know why its being complicated or sttrawmaned. I provided evidence for this universal tendency that is not religion yet out of all I said this was not even acknowledged. As though all the strawmaning about semantics and definitions was trying to rationalise away this simple fact.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes as a definition my arguement doesn't mean secularism means religion in the technical sense. There is no religion involved.

Then try to be careful in your usage. For starters, write less, edit more.

But in a metaphysical belief sense relating to morality and meaning like is there anything beyond the material world that can account for meaning and morality people living under the heading secular society will have these beliefs.

Short version: People believe stuff; use beliefs to make moral choices. I'm not sure what is interesting about this statement.

Thats all I am saying and I don't know why its being complicated or sttrawmaned. I provided evidence for this universal tendency that is not religion yet out of all I said this was not even acknowledged. As though all the strawmaning about semantics and definitions was trying to rationalise away this simple fact.

Because a universal tendency to believe stuff without evidence is not germane to the topic.

 

[stevevw]

Then try to be careful in your usage. For starters, write less, edit more.

Ok I will try but I did state this explicitly so I cannot see how you did not understand.

Short version: People believe stuff; use beliefs to make moral choices. I'm not sure what is interesting about this statement.

Its interesting because people believing stuff is not an objective basis for morality. It also shows that when it comes to morality that people don't base this on the science but on their intuition and belief in something beyond the material world.

Because a universal tendency to believe stuff without evidence is not germane to the topic.

Who said its without evidence and who say a universal tendency to believe in certain core morals is not germane to the topic. If the topic is about the foundation of atheist morals then a natural belief in moral truths should be relevant as it implies a moral lawgiver..

 

[RamiC]

But isn't not believing a belief in itself. Your not beliving theree is anything beyond the material world. Nothing beyond the naturalistic world that can account for morailty. I think when it comes to philosophical questions like morality or life after death or not these naturally bring in metaphysics and therefore philosophy.

Yes, non-belief is a philosophical presupposition. (I am not sure if philosophy is metaphysics.)

Under the standards of practice in modern science, non-belief does not require any evidence to support it.

This thread began with a reference to morality, which in accordance with the standards of modern science, requires non-belief because it has not already been shown to exist by those standards.

Therefore, since morality as a concept only exists outside of modern science, that is to say, it does not exist in the physical realm, this thread must be a philosophical discussion. In a philosophical discussion, non-belief does indeed require defending, it is a pre-supposition. All philosphy starts with declarations of ideas, and none require evidence from empirical science. To say that they do is to apply the required method of science somewhere no such method can work, it scientific method simply was not established to make philosophy work.

You might enjoy these The Presupposition of Science Based Atheism - ISCAST and
The Finest Argument Against Atheism .

 

[stevevw]

Yes, non-belief is a philosophical presupposition. (I am not sure if philosophy is metaphysics.)

It is in a way as philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Metaphysics is the study of the most general features of reality, including existence, objects and their properties, possibility and necessity, space and time, change, causation, and the relation between matter and mind.

So if someone is arguing that 'objective reality is the only reality, using that to defeat other metaphyiccal positions (ie what is existence, and the fundemental nature of reality) then thats just as much a metaphysical belief or philosophical worldview as someone who says its God or Consciousness or some other metaphysics beyond the material.

Under the standards of practice in modern science, non-belief does not require any evidence to support it.

That seems strange. What does this mean. I thought a worldview I guess you'd call non-belief. What would you call it, a state of mind, a outlook, a philosophical outlook. It cannot be nothing. THere is some worldview inherent in non belief. It has to count out God or belief in God as a human worldview.

In doing so isn't that then logically taking on a non belief in God also means a non belief in anything supernatural. Isn't that a worldview or metaphysical belief about reality.

I don't think humans can be fully detatched like a robot from metaphysics and having a philosophical outlook on life and beyond. This goes back to research showing humans are natural believers.

If its not the gods its something else even that there is only material matter out beyond our minds. Beyond the same mind who came up with the idea. Yet never being able to get outside the mind to scientifically verify this.

This thread began with a reference to morality, which in accordance with the standards of modern science, requires non-belief because it has not already been shown to exist by those standards.

Yes like a self fullfilling measing method. More a paradigm with its own epistemic rules of how reality should be known and measured. What methods count or not, what language can be used (avoid teleology ect). But this is epistemics. About how we should know reality. What counts as knowledge.

But as we know there is more than one way to gain knowledge about reality. Morality falls into something outside the science method by its very nature. A bit like when people use to say 'science cannot tell us anything about the Why questions' of life.

Therefore, since morality as a concept only exists outside of modern science, that is to say, it does not exist in the physical realm, this thread must be a philosophical discussion. In a philosophical discussion, non-belief does indeed require defending, it is a pre-supposition. All philosphy starts with declarations of ideas, and none require evidence from empirical science. To say that they do is to apply the required method of science somewhere no such method can work, it scientific method simply was not established to make philosophy work.

Yes and we can propose things and use reason and logic about the non physical stuff. We do it all the time. No one gets a calculator or test tube out to determine the moral thing to do when a women is getting assaulted on the street. Your moral anttenna goes up and you sense trouble.

Then reason kicks in, is it an actual assault or a couple messing around. All this can happen pretty fast. We can intuit trouble before it happens.

I think the best way to understand morality is by our lived experience of it. Its a first person and relational aspect of life. So how we act and react is what we believe rather than what we say. You can rationalise all you want about how morality is subjective. But as soon as your in the moral situation subjectives go out the window lol.

But scientific materialism doesn't take 1st hand experiential evidence seriously. Its biased, influenced by conditions, unrelable, imagination ect. Hense everything is reduced to our mechanical processes and morality and belief is an epiphenomena.

You might enjoy these The Presupposition of Science Based Atheism - ISCAST and
The Finest Argument Against Atheism .

THankyou I will have a read. I like reading rather than watching tele.

 

[RamiC]

That seems strange. What does this mean. I thought a worldview I guess you'd call non-belief. What would you call it, a state of mind, a outlook, a philosophical outlook. It cannot be nothing. THere is some worldview inherent in non belief. It has to count out God or belief in God as a human worldview.

What I mean is this.

In the realm of modern scientific research, the very effective methods used, if there is already no evidence from the scientific method to believe something is real, a person can not believe in it without any burden of proof to demonstrate that it does not exist. Indeed they must not believe in anything not already proven with scientific method to exist, that would be bad science, actually not science. (I am not a scientist, so if an actual scientist says I stuffed that up, I may need correcting.)

In philosophy, regardless of the statement, positive or negative, according to the methods of philosophy, it does not matter if the claim is that a thing does exist or that it does not exist, either way the person making the statement, or holding the position of belief or non belief should support the claim.

In other words:

If you personally say "There is a God.", as an attempt at modern scientific research, you are wrong.
If you personally say "There is a God.", as an attempt at philosophy, you are neither right or wrong yet, because in philosophy you need to follow up the statement with a chain of thoughts that maintain your argument, without becoming logically inconsistant, or disproving yourself anywhere.

Now I wish to remind you, that if you say, personally to me "There is a God. Do you agree?" I will say "Yes I agree.", but that is not science or philosophy, it is just a chat.

Atheism is a world view, by philosophical standards, it does amount to saying "There is no God.", and therefore require a defense.
In a scientific laborartory, non-belief until there is scientific proof of a thing, does not require defence.

In this thread, because the OP mentioned morality, I believe we are in a philosophical discussion, not a scientific research project. It is the philosophical standard that should apply.

 

[stevevw]

What I mean is this.

In the realm of modern scientific research, the very effective methods used, if there is already no evidence from the scientific method to believe something is real, a person can not believe in it without any burden of proof to demonstrate that it does not exist. Indeed they must not believe in anything not already proven with scientific method to exist, that would be bad science, actually not science. (I am not a scientist, so if an actual scientist says I stuffed that up, I may need correcting.)

No I get what you mean. Science requires meeting a certain criteria. Can't remember the exact process from hypothesis to theory. But yesr primarily there needs to be verifiable evidence. Especially from more than one independent source.

You could say by assumption the science method or methological naturalism assumes materialism as a priori and therefore epistemically cannot include the supernatural or anything that cannot be measured in quantifiable terms such as particle, field ect. So science will never be able to find anything non material.

In philosophy, regardless of the statement, positive or negative, according to the methods of philosophy, it does not matter if the claim is that a thing does exist or that it does not exist, either way the person making the statement, or holding the position of belief or non belief should support the claim.

Yes I agree but doesn't that language imply that 'supporting that claim' is based on empiracle science. Only that which can be seen, touched and measured quantifiably.

Sure there are different claims. If someone said there is a God how can they produuce that type of evidence. Yet we would like to think that as believers we do have evidence. Its just that how we measure it, how we even see the evidence in the first place is different. Someone sees naturalistic forces creating organisms and someone else sees Gods design. Someone sees the universe as matter in space and time and others see God.

Because science and tech are so tangible and successful science itself has become a metaphysical belief that reality can be explained by science and anything else is imagination. But we know that there are different ways to know reality. Indigenous knowledge was around way before western science. Conscious experiences can tell us something about reality.

In other words:

If you personally say "There is a God.", as an attempt at modern scientific research, you are wrong.

I agree but do you think that arguements like the Fine tunning for intelligent life or even ID and how they argue design in nature rather than chance. Can science be used this way to prove God or at least something beyond the material like Consciousness beyond the physical brain.

I say this because I have seen scientific theories on consciousness beyond the brain such as Integrated Information Theory IIT.

If you personally say "There is a God.", as an attempt at philosophy, you are neither right or wrong yet, because in philosophy you need to follow up the statement with a chain of thoughts that maintain your argument, without becoming logically inconsistant, or disproving yourself anywhere.

Yes that is true. But would not that be the same as saying for example that "material matter is all there is". You can't prove it scientifically. So its really the same, an non verifiable proposition.

You would then have to resort to reasoning as to why one proposition is more likely than the other based on all the evidence. Not just the science because this is an ontological claim and therefore all possible aspects of reality and life need to be included.

The strange thing is that in some ways even the science tells us that phycial and objective reality is not all there is with quantum physics.

Now I wish to remind you, that if you say, personally to me "There is a God. Do you agree?" I will say "Yes I agree.", but that is not science or philosophy, it is just a chat.

Atheism is a world view, by philosophical standards, it does amount to saying "There is no God.", and therefore require a defense.
In a scientific laborartory, non-belief until there is scientific proof of a thing, does not require defence.

In this thread, because the OP mentioned morality, I believe we are in a philosophical discussion, not a scientific research project. It is the philosophical standard that should apply.

 

[RamiC]

Yes I agree but doesn't that language imply that 'supporting that claim' is based on empiracle science. Only that which can be seen, touched and measured quantifiably.

No, no, no. In philosophy, there is no such requirement. Scientific method does not suddenly get to jump out of the lab and barge into the study of human thought, that is what Philosophy is.

The strange thing is that in some ways even the science tells us that phycial and objective reality is not all there is with quantum physics.

I agree, but I believe it is not scientific that you and I see it that way.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Its interesting because people believing stuff is not an objective basis for morality.

Morality based on "beliefs" is not objective. No question there.

It also shows that when it comes to morality that people don't base this on the science but on their intuition and belief in something beyond the material world.

And here you go again. That some of their beliefs are based on an "intuition" about non-material "stuff" doesn't matter, because those are still morals based on beliefs and as we just established -- Morality based on "beliefs" is not objective.

Who said its without evidence and who say a universal tendency to believe in certain core morals is not germane to the topic.

A tendency to believe in such does not mean it is a true belief (or a false belief). The tendency is literally not relevant to the truth claim.

If the topic is about the foundation of atheist morals then a natural belief in moral truths should be relevant as it implies a moral lawgiver..

A "natural belief in moral truths" implies some sort of in-borne moral sense. It says nothing about the source of that in-borne sense.

 

[stevevw]

No, no, no. In philosophy, there is no such requirement. Scientific method does not suddenly get to jump out of the lab and barge into the study of human thought, that is what Philosophy is.

I agree but when you mentioned that either way the person should support their claim. I wasn't sure what you mean't by supporting their claim. Whether that is with science or with logic and reason or with personal testimony ect.

I agree, but I believe it is not scientific that you and I see it that way.

Oh yeah with design in nature or say the power of pray where as science will say theres some naturalistic explanation.

But I mean real science sort of supports that the physical objective world is not real, is not the fundemental reality but more a interface of something deeper. Some say information or Mind.

But the deterministic material basis for reality has been undermined by quantum physics. Its just at this stage its a fight between a deterministic explanation based on hidden variables and other dimensions or it is what experients have suggested that the conscious observer is fundemental to reality. Which also seems like the most simple explanation that fits observations.

 

[RamiC]

I agree but when you mentioned that either way the person should support their claim. I wasn't sure what you mean't by supporting their claim. Whether that is with science or with logic and reason or with personal testimony ect.

In philosophy you must have logic and reason, if your start point is Theism, personal testimony is quite valid. For example, a person can say "I tried living as if there is a God, I liked it better, so I carried on." They do not have to prove that with scientific method. They do have to admit that they are not using scientific method in forming their conclusion, but it was not a science experiment in the first place.

But the deterministic material basis for reality has been undermined by quantum physics. Its just at this stage its a fight between a deterministic explanation based on hidden variables and other dimensions or it is what experients have suggested that the conscious observer is fundemental to reality. Which also seems like the most simple explanation that fits observations.

If we go on the fact that atheism is not new, there have been atheists through all known history, I do not think anything scientific exploration encounters will change human being's philosophical tendencies. You might also find people arguing that quantum physics has gone wrong somewhere, stopped being scientific and got too theoretical. But I am with you as I said, you and I cannot read about those things as other people, we both read and watch the science news as theists already, we are subjective, we are biased.

Buzz Aldrin Communion on the Moon - What we see is already dependent on what we believe.

 

[stevevw]

In philosophy you must have logic and reason, if your start point is Theism, personal testimony is quite valid. For example, a person can say "I tried living as if there is a God, I liked it better, so I carried on." They do not have to prove that with scientific method. They do have to admit that they are not using scientific method in forming their conclusion, but it was not a science experiment in the first place.

So what happens when a materialist or atheist says that your personal testimony or reasoning is not evidence. Its only your personal belief or opinion. The problem is in todays materialist and scientific society personal beliefs is regarded as unreliable evidence.

In a different world where lived experience is taken more seriously as a means to gain knowledge about reality this would be compelling evidence as not everyone is delusional and quite often its the mere fact that belief as changed people and reality is the evidence.

If we go on the fact that atheism is not new, there have been atheists through all known history, I do not think anything scientific exploration encounters will change human being's philosophical tendencies. You might also find people arguing that quantum physics has gone wrong somewhere, stopped being scientific and got too theoretical. But I am with you as I said, you and I cannot read about those things as other people, we both read and watch the science news as theists already, we are subjective, we are biased.

Buzz Aldrin Communion on the Moon - What we see is already dependent on what we believe.

I don't know, look at the Copernican Revolution was a shift in astronomy from a geocentric model of the universe to a heliocentric model.. It changed the churches beliefs about the earth being the center of the solar system.

Or Quantum physics itself which changed the worldview that reality was made of tiny particles that behaved like billiard balls knocking into each other with equal and opposite reactions to the indeterminate behaviour of quantum particles in superpositions.

Another paradigm shift is overdue which will make conscious observers the center of making reality. Making MInd fundemental. Not because of belief but because it fiits the evidence so well. Some are already well down that path and finding sucess which those who hold onto the old paradigm are being left further behind.

Though I am sure the materialist will find some material explanation. But the more time goes by the more a paradigm that is wrong will have evidence piled against it and will eventually have to give way to a completely new way of seeing the world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh what Kuhn hath wrought. Kuhn's mid-century notion of "paradigm shift" was deeply influenced by the sequence of "revolutions" in the physics he knew. It has built up an expectation for further "revolutions" that we can not justify.

What drives these revolutions are conflicting and unresolved issues in the data.

I don't know, look at the Copernican Revolution was a shift in astronomy from a geocentric model of the universe to a heliocentric model.. It changed the churches beliefs about the earth being the center of the solar system.

I'm glad they caught on.

Or Quantum physics itself which changed the worldview that reality was made of tiny particles that behaved like billiard balls knocking into each other with equal and opposite reactions to the indeterminate behaviour of quantum particles in superpositions.

I should note that even the existence of those particles was a very recent discovery when QM started.

Another paradigm shift is overdue which will make conscious observers the center of making reality. Making MInd fundemental. Not because of belief but because it fiits the evidence so well. Some are already well down that path and finding sucess which those who hold onto the old paradigm are being left further behind.

There is no conflicting data driving this transition in fundamental physics. None. The most likely "revolution" to come in fundamental physics would be the unification of gravity with the other forces (a "Theory of Everything"). So far decades of attempts to quantize gravity have failed.

And what would come of this revolution? Perhaps the source of the cosmological "placeholders" Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but I would not expect any impact on the science of "mind".

More importantly, it would *finish* the most important scientific revolution of the industrial age -- the Unification Revolution. Starting with the unification of electric and magnetic fields and proceeding to the Standard Model of particle physics. There is an equally and more profound unification that has proceeded in parallel and that is the unification of sciences. That we know understand that the laws of chemistry are just built on the foundation of the laws of physics, and for cellular biology on the foundation of chemistry is a profoundly important realization.

Though I am sure the materialist will find some material explanation. But the more time goes by the more a paradigm that is wrong will have evidence piled against it and will eventually have to give way to a completely new way of seeing the world.

We already have found a new way of looking at the world through unification and that's what frightens people. The "fundamental mind" appears to be nothing more than a desperate grasping to avoid the inevitable conclusion.

 

[RamiC]

So what happens when a materialist or atheist says that your personal testimony or reasoning is not evidence. Its only your personal belief or opinion. The problem is in todays materialist and scientific society personal beliefs is regarded as unreliable evidence.

The atheist materialist is treating your philosophy as if it is an attempt as science. He fails at philosophy for that, and if he denies that his atheism requires justification philosophically, he fails again. You cannot do anything except point out that he is flunking philosophy by demanding it complies with scientific method. He needs to stop doing philosophy until he admits that he is making a claim "there is no god" and starts using a flow of logic to support it. By the way, if you are debating the existance of a god, you are by definition in philosophy.

All they are doing is telling you that your philosophy fails as a science experiment, however, you are not failing at anything, because your faith is not an attempt at a science experiment. If you are following the beliefs of any mainstream church, you are practising a philosophy, not conducting a science experiment. If your philosophy enhances your life and works as you live it, you pass (at philosophy).

In a different world where lived experience is taken more seriously as a means to gain knowledge about reality this would be compelling evidence as not everyone is delusional and quite often its the mere fact that belief as changed people and reality is the evidence.

Philosophy lessons in schools. They will think thoughts matter when they understand what they are....

Though I am sure the materialist will find some material explanation. But the more time goes by the more a paradigm that is wrong will have evidence piled against it and will eventually have to give way to a completely new way of seeing the world.

Science will never get there, you will always think it is going there, an atheist will never...unless the atheist gets an experience from the God you believe in, at which point they won't be an atheist anymore.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you are following the beliefs of any mainstream church, you are practising a philosophy

This should be highlighted, underlined, and in all capital letters. Because it means that without some form of empirical evidence your beliefs are just a bunch of hoo ha masquerading as reason.

Take it from a solipsist... I know what hoo ha looks like.