My journey back to atheism

[Sheldon]

The Fact the earth is at a tilt, that fact the earth has a moon, the fact the earth is at just the right distance from the sun, the fact that water gets lighter as a solid, the fact the earth has water, the fact the earth spins are just the right speed, the fact we have air to breath, the fact the earth is at the end of an arm in the galaxy etc. These many so called coincidences could not happen by chance never mind the complexity of life to form!

Great, now just demonstrate some objective evidence for this assumption, or for the assumption these things "could not happen by chance" just a s a start, otherwise your claims are meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

It Aint Necessarily So To think life could form from chance is thinking a room full of monkeys could by accident type out the constitution of the United States!
The unaverse needed a creator it could not by Chance be formed!

You seem to be trying to set a record for false dichotomy fallacies, and straw man fallacies in a single post? What evidence can you demonstrate that life had to form by chance, or that it couldn't, beyond your argument from incredulity fallacy?

 

[Koldo]

Hence, the reason materialism was debunked and dropped by philosophers long ago. It proposes to negate as non-existent the very thing it must use to establish itself.

Nope. Just nope. That is a deep misunderstanding on all levels. I suggest going back to basics.

 

[PureX]

Nope. Just nope. That is a deep misunderstanding on all levels. I suggest going back to basics.

No it's not. But you can huff and puff about it til your heart's content if you like. Materialism is just as much a fiction as any philosophy or ideology it seeks to dismiss as fiction. And there's no way for it to hide from or escape the wild hypocrisy of that.

"Objective reality" is as much a sacred myth as Jesus is to religious Christians.

 

[Thrillobyte]

When I first joined this forum, I was way much more open to deism. But over the last few years and especially since the events of January 6th, I've become much more critical of all forms of superstition and delusional belief systems. When I was in my twenties I participated in the Usenet forum Christianity vs Atheism. At first, I argued the pro-atheist's position. Then, just for fun and because it was so challenging, I started arguing the deist position in the debate. And then something funny happened. I started to believe my own arguments for deism! So for many years I pretty much believed in God. But not now. God is just a word for me and its meaning only exists in our imaginations. Science is real. Facts are real. Everything else is imaginary delusion. It seems I've returned back to my atheistic roots of my childhood!

My other problem with religion is the way Christianity and politics have been combined in the GOP. The D students in the back of the class continue to think they are smarter than everyone else. The GOP rank and file want their STRONG daddy figure so they can worship him as if the person is God on Earth. It's almost like a cult. It's like the GOP authoritarians have been indoctrinated with a religion based on monarchy which advocates a single authority at the top with a bunch of obedient slaves at the bottom. With Trump, the GOP seems to want to return to a King James type government. King James believed in the divine rights of kings and wrote about it in his book "True Law of Free Monarchies." The divine right of kings claims: "In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandation is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is, before birth, pre-ordained to inherit the crown. According to this theory of political legitimacy, the subjects of the crown have actively (and not merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility and/or submission towards God. " The GOP doesn't believe in the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, and a fellowship of equal voters. The GOP wants STRONG leadership above every other consideration!

I just cannot accept the nature of modern day Christianity. I cannot accept the way the GOP puts STRONG leadership before the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, the fellowship that comes from considering everyone as being equals, and women's rights. I'm done with Christianity. I just can't stand it.

And even further, years ago I read Friedrich Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity which really persuaded me against Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to get hold of what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made a virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfilment was what was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, sex, intellectual mastery, wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they wanted but were too weak to fight for to get while praising what they did not want but did have as being worth having. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." The Bible is a worthless religion for sadomasochistic slaves. I simply refuse to be an obedient slave to any person or any belief system.

I still like Taoism and the Unity of Opposites. But as I said, after the events of January 6th, I just can't pretend the weak minded cultists are benign and meaningless any longer. I'm probably leaning back towards a strong minded pro-atheist position. Plus, arguing atheism is so much easier to argue than deism. Atheism is way more intellectually pleasing, logical, and consistent as a belief system. When you have the absence of belief, there's nothing left to argue about!

What people will begin to realize if they really study the history, ethics and trends of Christianity is that there is absolutely NOTHING divine about it. In no way shape or form does it originate from any god-source. It is human through and through, having originated from human politics and undergone many evolutions over the centuries as the need arose. Jesus isn't a god, he's an avatar--a mascot for Christianity in the same way Krishna is an avatar for the Hindu religion. Historians cannot prove Jesus existed, they can only assume someone upon which the Jesus avatar was based existed at some point and got immortalized by churchmen in a very tumultuous time when Israel was trying to break free of Rome's rule and the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70CE.

 

[Sheldon]

Materialism is just as much a fiction as any philosophy or ideology

Really? Do you accept that the natural world, and physical universe exist?

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

 

[Koldo]

No it's not. But you can huff and puff about it til your heart's content if you like. Materialism is just as much a fiction as any philosophy or ideology it seeks to dismiss as fiction. And there's no way for it to hide from or escape the wild hypocrisy of that.

"Objective reality" is as much a sacred myth as Jesus is to religious Christians.

This post is just perfect.
I tell you to go back to basics due to your misunderstanding regarding materialism and you proceed to rant about metaphysical realism...

 

[blü 2]

When I first joined this forum, I was way much more open to deism. But over the last few years and especially since the events of January 6th, I've become much more critical of all forms of superstition and delusional belief systems. When I was in my twenties I participated in the Usenet forum Christianity vs Atheism. At first, I argued the pro-atheist's position. Then, just for fun and because it was so challenging, I started arguing the deist position in the debate. And then something funny happened. I started to believe my own arguments for deism! So for many years I pretty much believed in God. But not now. God is just a word for me and its meaning only exists in our imaginations. Science is real. Facts are real. Everything else is imaginary delusion. It seems I've returned back to my atheistic roots of my childhood!

My other problem with religion is the way Christianity and politics have been combined in the GOP. The D students in the back of the class continue to think they are smarter than everyone else. The GOP rank and file want their STRONG daddy figure so they can worship him as if the person is God on Earth. It's almost like a cult. It's like the GOP authoritarians have been indoctrinated with a religion based on monarchy which advocates a single authority at the top with a bunch of obedient slaves at the bottom. With Trump, the GOP seems to want to return to a King James type government. King James believed in the divine rights of kings and wrote about it in his book "True Law of Free Monarchies." The divine right of kings claims: "In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandation is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is, before birth, pre-ordained to inherit the crown. According to this theory of political legitimacy, the subjects of the crown have actively (and not merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility and/or submission towards God. " The GOP doesn't believe in the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, and a fellowship of equal voters. The GOP wants STRONG leadership above every other consideration!

I just cannot accept the nature of modern day Christianity. I cannot accept the way the GOP puts STRONG leadership before the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, the fellowship that comes from considering everyone as being equals, and women's rights. I'm done with Christianity. I just can't stand it.

And even further, years ago I read Friedrich Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity which really persuaded me against Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to get hold of what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made a virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfilment was what was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, sex, intellectual mastery, wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they wanted but were too weak to fight for to get while praising what they did not want but did have as being worth having. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." The Bible is a worthless religion for sadomasochistic slaves. I simply refuse to be an obedient slave to any person or any belief system.

I still like Taoism and the Unity of Opposites. But as I said, after the events of January 6th, I just can't pretend the weak minded cultists are benign and meaningless any longer. I'm probably leaning back towards a strong minded pro-atheist position. Plus, arguing atheism is so much easier to argue than deism. Atheism is way more intellectually pleasing, logical, and consistent as a belief system. When you have the absence of belief, there's nothing left to argue about!

I think your summary of far-right (and presently dominant) Republicanism is on the money. Its lack of ethics other than the ethic of dominance you speak of is the most destructive social force at large in the US today.

I'm reminded of research papers in 2008 and 2012 that identified right-wing beliefs with fear of the new. That research is still in good standing, and explains a lot. And the public education system in certain states has a lot to answer for, though it's not as simple as that of course.

However, I'm glad and relieved ─ indeed I think it's essential ─ that the investigations into Trump's conduct are being conducted in accordance with due process and the rule of law. A violent end to Trump would make him a martyr and destructively affirm his views.

(As for Nietzsche, the success of Christianity is in no small part due to Constantine's mother; it's true that it began as a lower-class religion, but there are upper class Christians eg Joseph of Arimathea in the NT, and their numbers grew quietly at first, but by the 3rd century CE they'd established a toehold. But for its political appeal to Constantine, though, it's doubtful that much would have become of it.)

 

[F1fan]

.
I say.. There is NO possible way for us to be here by random chance!

Yet we (homo sapiens sapiens) were not here 500,000 years ago. The earth wasn't "here" 5 billion years ago. Everything in the universe has changed over time, slowly, so to say "random chance" is a long, long time coming.

But to say "random chance" or accident about anything existing as it does it misleading, as it suggests some other option was more likely. So if what exists is deliberate design, an intelligent design, we have a lot of questions. Why do dearly bacteria and virus exist when they kill humans, including children? Are they intelligently designed?

To make an "Eye" by chance is far more complicated then by chance (For example)

I'm going to bet you have never looked up the evolution of eyes. Science explains that eyes began as light sensitive cells that over time evolved to be more advantageous to organisms. If eyes are intelligently designed why are there some deep ocean fish that have eyes that don't work?

If human eyes were intelligently designed why can't we see infrared light like other animals?

If eyes were intelligently designed because they are so complex to evolve in nature, why were the genes that cause some children to develop cancers designed? What is the intelligence behind the genes that cause childhood cancers (as if adult cancers aren't bad enough)?

 

[rational experiences]

I learnt. Human facts are facts for humans only. Are not facts anywhere else.

As no man is God stated as legal.

Testimonial was against legally the destroyer. Theist thinker. Human brothers agreement.

As a human living is telling all stories as and by being only the human.

His coercion his thoughts tried to make humans believe his bio consciousness existed before his own.

Apes said science proved it doesn't.

So this is what his lying says.

Earth was cooled. No life at all existed in its coldest natural history.

The immaculate exact thought upon position. Cold coldest no life.

Then he said the sun converted earths ground mass into tunnels and sin holes. But left its highest proof as nuclear dusts. So earths layered origin mass was gone. The seal.

Then after a long time cooling suddenly the beginnings of life emerged with lights presence. Notice no instant term is expressed. Which only a human thought owns.

Notice light burning doesn't own life.
Notice nuclear first owned no life just holes. Then cooling the dusts. Exact.

And dust was it's owned natural holy position.

Then his satanic human theisms a coercive con tries to claim life began in a light hot heat nuclear theme. Lying.

As today when doing a new nuclear reaction just inside machine. Notice it's metal machine not like earth gods stone. Nuclear theme. Exact says no life whatsoever. Just destruction and space hole introduction.

He said going back in time to a point of earths destruction was a hole. It's safe to do a dust reaction lying.

As it's new. It's in the now position. And Bio life is supported by stone mass and not metals.

A man conscious self now..present.... knows his heavens. He says in his life's future the heavens needs to be only now terms. Not changed.

Yet he is reacting changing the natural history of just planet earths gases. Never of the sun nuclear owned was our natural earth gods teachings.

By natural rational human thinkers.

So today not only did he pretend a human is part machine. Which in coercion he means a machine to machine used gets human images.

Only after it's been cooled. Via heavens.

So he tried to attack us by heated terms claiming where his machines image began. He wants the contacts. Choice contact bio then attack by contact.

In thesis history he says it's only mind coercion.

How a man using natural identification his thoughts begins to lie.

Yet it only existed cooled image ours. It doesn't exist first. So he says he's inventing it by machines is the direct only answer.

As experiments are all atmospheric first themed first. Exact position is natural highest now present. He tried to convert bio life into just existing by his inventive terms. Electricity.

As no electricity exists. Just in his machine only terms. All terms are just machines.

How a theist always human only contradicts his owned human life. Yet agrees everyone else can die sacrificed but his own designer self.

As in natural history origin life is gone. Parents origin. As they bio died. Sex and new born babies new organic life. Never origin human.

What he directly lies about he's using dead human biology as image and it's natural terms first.

We are already partially not parent existing. So he directly lied. Only because his claim in experiments he understands reactions.

As first reaction position is always just an experiment. If it works first he claims experiment correct.

Designer mind is who says a human is a machine first. As he is self possessed In his mind by his designed human machine. His mind misquoted words...as he knows a human designed machines.

Why AI lies as it isn't consciousness bio and misquoted the fed back looped human designer mind advice. As he placed transmitted in a machines loop. Yet he is brain notified as it's designer.

As he keeps constant control of it by human bio brain stAtus.

Why he knew beyond doubt hes life's destroyer.

You can't study a reaction as if it's reacting the position instant is real.

As he owns all earths past substance status to machine he should in fact be looping his new thesis with first mans machines.

As once two machine types were doing two machine variables machine to machine only.

In history reacting machine position however was not reacting first in his past model. So today it's just one of his many lies.

Knowing the human science community states by science no man is God. Is exact human advised.

As old science terms was mans god science terms as a human. Not as a God.

His first origin energy gain was storage first in batteries before he could use his reactor position.

Therefore science man today said quotes only natural storage is life's holy support. Not any unnatural reactive earth substances.

As only Alchemy to get inventive parts was allowed.

Solar ...wind....water power.

Human greed has to finally be rid of as a human only practice.

 

[firedragon]

When I first joined this forum, I was way much more open to deism. But over the last few years and especially since the events of January 6th, I've become much more critical of all forms of superstition and delusional belief systems.

I think this statement of your's sum's it up. In my opinion, you don't have the capacity to engage with people because you have already decided their belief systems are "delusional" and are "Superstitions". Just like some theists think atheists are just delusional.

People who think like this are generally very ignorant in theism. Generally. And have some seriously irrational positions in their worldview and such strong biases and bigotry calling theists delusional generally. Generally.

So I think you should prove that people are delusional clinically. Or, provide evidence that it's delusion. Which means with such convincing established evidence they still don't believe what you say.

Thanks.

 

[rational experiences]

Pretty basic theism owned expressed by humans who lie.

As men say gravitational forces destroy by cosmic causes is natural only.

No law as law legal human terms was holding of form.

As if God earth wasnt held to form we would not even exist. As humans.

Legally correct.
Gods holy law earth survived Satan sun and Satan star fall attacks.

Many of.

Status gods body naturally owned the holy dusts fused.

Man took the dusts unsealed it. Reacted it.

Gods body owned it held.
Man then tried to blame God. Legal said no man is God dusts holy sealed.

Unsealed causes the earth sign. The sign means life is being attacked yet saved. Biology only. It doesn't save electricity.

As held electricity is mass non stop in its destruction coming into being electricity ...as earth mass destroyed only said the answer. Saved part is electricity. To have electricity it was saved as electricity already.

Gods body owned original sin..sink hole not any man.

So any man conscious thought spruiking about holes is the direct human descendant of the first man scientists memory. Destroyer mentality.

As no human owned sin the sink hole.

It was directly advised all terms are human said. Human taught.

O earth is its own entity said men. It's a one of special body. Law said you are not legally allowed to compare earth our entity to any other cosmic body.

Legally stated as no man is God.

Hence law of earth is a one of position only and owns no bearing anywhere else.

A huge summation by testimonial lots of strings of just human thoughts were traced back as just a theory. Calculus only. Were thought by a man but men agreed.

No man is God is hence first status and last status. Testimonial traced why.

The brotherhood of human liars.

Was proven.

Each answer said no man is God

Every answer as it was only man's string theory and fake. His want of gods power.

Dust was always non reacted. It had been saved as the body...dust by type.

For men to use biology in a mind thesis means they are theorising it's destruction by purpose I agree. By not allowing natural terms to just exist first.

As all words used describe its destruction as a human theist.

Men theists said I believe a human and animals came direct from eternal. Hence are closest to it to study.

Life said eternal changed into water biology so closest in created creation is water as just mass.

So every thesis is lying by intent what I want to know by demand of it.

Cosmic theist says I believe you came from eternal hell. A totally different thesis.

So one science mind says the other science mind is wrong. Yet both are wrong.

Natural human says no theory allowed. As no man is a God.

Inventor man said he was a type of God as he could destroy what God had owned.

So he said I'll name myself Satan.

NASA his programmed scientist code hence has all world community scientists in our last chance.

No honouring of SATANS natural cloud angel images.

Ownership SS ATAN. A misquoted humans old advice warning.

 

[1213]

...So they clung to a philosophy that made a virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfilment was what was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, sex, intellectual mastery, wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they wanted but were too weak to fight for to get while praising what they did not want but did have as being worth having. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." The Bible is a worthless religion for sadomasochistic slaves. I simply refuse to be an obedient slave to any person or any belief system....

I think that is really funny claim, when one knows what is said in the Bible. For example about cowardliness:

But for the cowardly,... ...and all liars, their part is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Rev. 21:8

And about being slave:

...Don’t become bondservants [=slaves] of men.
1 Cor. 7:23

I think the example of Jesus is that people should be fearless and not fear even death.

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28

 

[blü 2]

There is NO possible way for us to be here by random chance! To make an "Eye" by chance is far more complicated then by chance

But you don't start with an eye, You start with an aggregation of chemicals capable of reproducing themselves. Then when they get to do that, errors will creep in in the reproduction process, and you'll get variation.

And at that point you'll be up against one of the various basics of evolution ─ that if the variation is harmful, the example is less likely to survive long enough to reproduce offspring with the same variation; that if the variation is neutral, is not important, then the situation will be much the same except now there'll be two models in production; and if the variation is beneficial then the example is more likely to survive long enough to reproduce offspring with the same (beneficial) variation.

Now imagine you're a proto-blob floating in a rockpool. When the sun comes out, you may get too hot and die. But what if some of your chemical combinations react to the heat by expanding or contracting or bending? Then instead of just floating, you'll be moving. And this may improve your chances of ending up in some shade ─ at which point the sunlight will stop producing your movements and you'll be a winner, at least for the moment.

Oh, and the reason we have an oxygen-rich atmosphere is because there were a couple of billion years of microorganisms which ingested their sea-and-rock environment and released oxygen. That's to say, without life there wouldn't be an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

But the processes of evolution make their way in the circumstances that happen to be available. So the chief result of no seasons or tides or oxygen air and it was hotter or it was colder, well, life would evolve adapting to whatever was there.

You're looking at the question backwards, as though H sap sap was the aim and intention. No, H sap sap is just one of the things that can happen in the biology of a planet like ours. WE think we're clever, but the universe doesn't give a dang.

 

[PureX]

This post is just perfect.
I tell you to go back to basics due to your misunderstanding regarding materialism and you proceed to rant about metaphysical realism...

Sure, because you empty "orders" carry so much import!

 

[Koldo]

Sure, because you empty "orders" carry so much import!

Missing the point.
Your previous post shows why you need to go back to basics on materialism. You conflate materialism with metaphysical realism....

 

[Wildswanderer]

When I first joined this forum, I was way much more open to deism. But over the last few years and especially since the events of January 6th, I've become much more critical of all forms of superstition and delusional belief systems. When I was in my twenties I participated in the Usenet forum Christianity vs Atheism. At first, I argued the pro-atheist's position. Then, just for fun and because it was so challenging, I started arguing the deist position in the debate. And then something funny happened. I started to believe my own arguments for deism! So for many years I pretty much believed in God. But not now. God is just a word for me and its meaning only exists in our imaginations. Science is real. Facts are real. Everything else is imaginary delusion. It seems I've returned back to my atheistic roots of my childhood!

My other problem with religion is the way Christianity and politics have been combined in the GOP. The D students in the back of the class continue to think they are smarter than everyone else. The GOP rank and file want their STRONG daddy figure so they can worship him as if the person is God on Earth. It's almost like a cult. It's like the GOP authoritarians have been indoctrinated with a religion based on monarchy which advocates a single authority at the top with a bunch of obedient slaves at the bottom. With Trump, the GOP seems to want to return to a King James type government. King James believed in the divine rights of kings and wrote about it in his book "True Law of Free Monarchies." The divine right of kings claims: "In European Christianity, the divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandation is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy of a monarchy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is, before birth, pre-ordained to inherit the crown. According to this theory of political legitimacy, the subjects of the crown have actively (and not merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility and/or submission towards God. " The GOP doesn't believe in the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, and a fellowship of equal voters. The GOP wants STRONG leadership above every other consideration!

I just cannot accept the nature of modern day Christianity. I cannot accept the way the GOP puts STRONG leadership before the rule-of-law, equality, no one is above or below the law, voting, democracy, the fellowship that comes from considering everyone as being equals, and women's rights. I'm done with Christianity. I just can't stand it.

And even further, years ago I read Friedrich Nietzsche's criticisms of Christianity which really persuaded me against Christianity. Friedrich Nietzsche said Christianity was born in response to Roman oppression. It took hold in the minds of timid slaves who did not have the courage or strength to get hold of what they really wanted. The slaves could not admit to their own failings. So they clung to a philosophy that made a virtue of cowardice. Everything the Christians wanted and wished they had in their lives for fulfilment was what was considered to be a sin. A position in the world, prestige, sex, intellectual mastery, wealth were too difficult or beyond their reach. The Christian slaves created a hypocritical creed denouncing what they wanted but were too weak to fight for to get while praising what they did not want but did have as being worth having. So in the Christian value system sexlessness turned into 'purity', weakness became "goodness," submission to authority became "obedience," and in Nietzsche's words, "not-being-able-take-revenge" turned into "forgiveness." The Bible is a worthless religion for sadomasochistic slaves. I simply refuse to be an obedient slave to any person or any belief system.

I still like Taoism and the Unity of Opposites. But as I said, after the events of January 6th, I just can't pretend the weak minded cultists are benign and meaningless any longer. I'm probably leaning back towards a strong minded pro-atheist position. Plus, arguing atheism is so much easier to argue than deism. Atheism is way more intellectually pleasing, logical, and consistent as a belief system. When you have the absence of belief, there's nothing left to argue about!

You need to divorce your religion from your politics.
The Bible being truth has nothing to do with whether certain politics are right or not.
The political system is corrupt in both sides and probably always will be.

 

[PureX]

Missing the point.
Your previous post shows why you need to go back to basics on materialism. You conflate materialism with metaphysical realism....

In four posts now, all you've managed to do is accuse me of not understanding. And yet not a word is being offered to explain or clear up that misunderstanding. So not a single post of yours has any value to me, at all. As far as I can tell, you know less of what you think you're talking about than I do. As I can at least explain my position.

 

[Koldo]

In four posts now, all you've managed to do is accuse me of not understanding. And yet not a word is being offered to explain or clear up that misunderstanding. So not a single post of yours has any value to me, at all. As far as I can tell, you know less of what you think you're talking about than I do. As I can at least explain my position.

A short post wouldn't suffice to properly explain the subject, but I can indeed point you towards the right direction.

The concept of a world that exists independent from our minds, an objective reality, is not materialism per se, but rather metaphysical realism. Although materialists are metaphysical realists, that's also the case for dualists and pluralists (in general).

As for your first misunderstanding, you were wrong in two ways: materialism per se doesn't deny the existence of imagination (read about supervenience, for example), and neither has it been dropped by philosophers (there is a survey done by PhilPapers on this).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really? Do you accept that the natural world, and physical universe exist?

Ever heard of Occam's razor?

Ockham’s Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. In part, this is because human beings can never be sure they know what is and what is not “beyond necessity”; the necessities are not always clear to us. But even if we did know them, Ockham would still not allow that his Razor allows us to deny entities that are unnecessary. For Ockham, the only truly necessary entity is God; everything else, the whole of creation, is radically contingent through and through. In short, Ockham does not accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Nevertheless, we do sometimes have sufficient methodological grounds for positively affirming the existence of certain things. Ockham acknowledges three sources for such grounds (three sources of positive knowledge). As he says in Sent. I, dist. 30, q. 1: “For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.” [source - emphasis added]​

Also worth reading is The Tyranny of Simple Explanations by Philip Ball.

I can appreciate ontological naturalism as a provisional worldview and I embrace methodological naturalism. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Occam's razor is much abused. RationalWiki offers a useful quote by Steven Novella:

Occam's razor is a principle of logic that is often invoked but rarely properly understood… It's a useful rule of thumb to help clarify one's thinking, not a strict logical necessity. Failure to understand Occam's razor, however, can lead to very slopping thinking.​

The bottom line is this: every reference to Occam's razor should be immediately followed by a shout out to H L Mencken who cautioned:

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. "​