[dlorde]

Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

Just be serious , come on :

Just answer the question, come on.

... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example .

Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?

Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .
See how Sheldrake has been studying telepathy, for example, scientifically .

2) There is no materialist conspiracy

Who said there is one ?

. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate

.

What do you mean exactly ?
The medieval church used to be against science , wasn't it ?
The medieval church that used to see itself as the one and only undisputed ultimate authority : anyone who used to challenge it , used to face dire consequences ,as you know  .
The medieval church used to plant the seeds of its own decline , and those of the rise or birth of mechanistic materialism thus as a result .

 

They were generally in opposition

Scientists were , yes ? indeed ,so .

. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.

I was just talking about the secular materialist establishment as the newly born ultimate authority that had replaced christianity ,metaphorically speaking ,  as the concept of the nation-state had replaced that of the church : the secular materialist establishment as the new then undisputed ultimate authority whose main 'ally " was / has been science , when science became materialistic mechanistic , thanks to materialism thus .

Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.

Wrong :
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

Just be serious , come on :

Just answer the question, come on.

Be serious, ok ?
Well, when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then  science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put  on a new  path that might lead to new  unimaginable  discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?

Science has been just deluded into "thinking " , thanks to materialism thus , that the material physical side of reality is all what there is to reality = a distortion of reality .

When science will be liberated from materialism, then science will be able to "see " or rather try to approach the whole pic of reality or rather  science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it  can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality , science has been taking for the whole real thing = the scope realm , jurisdiction and reach of science will be then extended exponentially ,relatively speaking then, while there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus  .

... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example

.

Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?

Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis

Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .

Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers  .

[dlorde]

... when science will cease to "see " everything as being just material physical through just the key hole of materialism ,while pretending that all what it can see through that materialist mechanistic key hole is all what there is to reality , then  science will realise the fact that there is more to reality than just that it has been confined to , science that tries to understand and explain reality thus .
Science will be then put  on a new  path that might lead to new  unimaginable  discoveries as a result : do you want me to draw you a pic ?

I'd rather you answered the questions; but OK, 'draw me a pic' of how science will change when it realises there is more to reality; what will it do differently than it does now?

When science will be liberated from materialism, ... science will be able to approach the parts of the whole pic of reality it  can deal with empirically , instead of confining itself to just the material physical side of reality

How can it deal empirically with parts of reality that are not material or physical? can you give some examples?

... there are some significant parts of reality as a whole that will remain beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well thus  .

So how will science 'deal empirically' with these parts of reality if they're 'beyond both science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction'?

Did you take a close look at Sheldrake's scientific work on the subject ? Guess not : go back and check his evidence , and then we can talk when you would come back .

I read Sheldrake's work when it was first published, back in the day. I've followed his progress from creative and innovative ideas man to pseudoscience train wreck. Disappointing or sad, or both, depending how you look at it...

Sheldrake has been dealing with both telepathy and his morphic resonance theory scientifically , relatively speaking , he has been practicing science as scientists should do whe science would be liberated from materialism : that's 1 of the major reasons why most scientists , including yourself , has been considering his work as being a form of pseudo-science , while it is in fact the other way around : materialism in science is pseudo-science , Sheldrake has just been demolishing those materialist dogmatic orthodox beliefs idols in science that has been taken for granted as science by the materialist mainstream scientific priesthood and their followers  .

None of his telepathy or morphic resonance work has stood up to scrutiny, or been credibly replicated. His ideas were carefully investigated by several groups; nothing was found, and the predictions didn't transpire. Mainstream science shrugged and sailed on, leaving him clinging to the driftwood of his sinking ideas, until he managed to scramble aboard the floating heap of rubbish in the pseudoscience gyre.

[cheryl j]

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .



 
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically...
....Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

So science is responsible for including the immaterial in its conceptual framework of why things happen or how things happen,  but it can't criticize ideas about the immaterial or falsify the immaterial in any way? Are you familiar with the phrase "writing a blank check"?

[SimpleEngineer]

don gave himself away with this statement

Neither the materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature in science , nor the proposed alternative to  it  as proposed by Nagel = the non-reductionist naturalist one , neither one of them is  true , i think that's why Nagel also said the following :

Quote : " I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers…. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." End quote.

I remember myself thinking the same way as Nagel did here above ,when i first started to become aware or self-aware ,during my early teen-age time :
Is God all there is to this universe ? i thought : i do not want the universe to be like that , i do not want there to be a God ...i thought , but , i have outgrown that silly childish egocentric emotional "state of mind " , a long time ago .

HE does not want the universe to be materialistic, HE does not want everything to come down to chemistry and physics.

So these discussions he has been prompting is all about him rejecting the premise of science and wishes that it would stop finding out how the world works just in case it finds out it works in a way that he (DonQ) does not agree with.

However I like the quote from Nagel, I personally despise atheists who argue with religious groups about the existence of god, saying there is no proof he exists.. as they forget to close the factual statement of.. There is also no proof that he doesn't the religion of atheism is founded on hypocritical beliefs and statements.. As are DonQ's regular posts.

[David Cooper]

The proof that God doesn't exist does exist. It is impossible for him to qualify as God. If he understands how he works, he has no magic left and reveals himself to be a natural being like ourselves. If he continues to run on magic which he doesn't understand, he falls far short of being God. He can't win.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The proof that God doesn't exist does exist. It is impossible for him to qualify as God. If he understands how he works, he has no magic left and reveals himself to be a natural being like ourselves. If he continues to run on magic which he doesn't understand, he falls far short of being God. He can't win.

We are not talking here about God .

Well, just for discussion's sake , the following then :

God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ; thousands of years of ancient philosophy , scholastics , modern philosophy ...should have convinced you already of that fact : trying to prove or disprove the existence of God was just a stupid and silly ancient Greek cultural habit that was taken over by christian scholastics , and by modern philosophy ,later on ...

Materialism , for example , is inherently an atheist reductionist and determinist world view or conception of nature , no wonder that materialism reduces the whole reality as asuch to just material physical processes : if reality is just material physical, there is logically no God, no after-life , no transcendent reality ....= how convenient : since when are beliefs , any beliefs for that matter , either the secular or the religious ones , including materialism thus , since when are beliefs some sort of evidence  ? = beliefs are no evidence = materialism as a secular belief or a secular religion is no evidence against the existence of God , obviously .
Materialism is just an atheist reductionist determinist mechanical "state of mind or mindset , attitude " , a false conception of nature at that , obviously  also , so = irrelevant .

 

[dlorde]

... I like the quote from Nagel, I personally despise atheists who argue with religious groups about the existence of god, saying there is no proof he exists.. as they forget to close the factual statement of.. There is also no proof that he doesn't

True - although some ideas are so patently absurd they need convincing evidence of their reality to be credible, e.g. Russell's Teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, the Tooth Fairy, God, etc. As the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

the religion of atheism is founded on hypocritical beliefs and statements..

Someone said 'atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby'. As an atheist myself, I'm not aware of having any religious-type organized beliefs, dogmas, rituals or activities. Despite a religious upbringing, I don't believe in god because it seems an absurd, contradictory, ill-defined idea, there's no plausible evidence for it, and a vast amount of circumstantial evidence that it's a product of human imagination. YMMV. If some plausible evidence appears, I'll consider it.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... I like the quote from Nagel, I personally despise atheists who argue with religious groups about the existence of god, saying there is no proof he exists.. as they forget to close the factual statement of.. There is also no proof that he doesn't

True - although some ideas are so patently absurd they need convincing evidence of their reality to be credible, e.g. Russell's Teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, the Tooth Fairy, God, etc. As the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(Once again, history of mankind's thought had proved the obvious simple and undeniable fact that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ,so, let's just leave it at that then , and that's not our subject either )

Well, materialism is so absurd , so paradoxical, so counter-intuitive, or implausible as Nagel said , so ridiculous , so silly , so childish a "scientific world view " that it is extremely puzzling that materialism has been taken seriously at all , let alone in science : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence indeed , ironically enough .

Now that you cannot deliver any evidence for the "validity or truth " concerning the materialist mainstream "scientific world view ", that's obviously false , you just resort to attacking non-materialist world views such as religions, we are not talking here about the latter , we are just talking about materialism in science that's obviously false , and nobody said that religions are 'scientific " , as materialism pretends to be : that's the core issue here , if materialism has not been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view  for so long now  , i would have never bothered raising the irrelevant silly issue of materialism = materialism that assumes that reality as a whole is just material physical  , well  , ironically enough , Nagel said on the subject  of materialism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"= where is that extraordinary materialist evidence then ? where is that extraprdinary evidence regarding the extraordianry claims of materialism that reality is just material physical then ?

All that Russell's tea pot and the rest of your "arguments " against religion are not only incorrect and false irrelevant in relation to some religions at least  they cannot cover as such  , but they  also miss the point that there are false and true beliefs ,relatively speaking : the belief in Sint Claus is obviously false , my own belief in my mother is obviously true to me at least .......to mention just that , no need to scale it up all the way to religions .

the religion of atheism is founded on hypocritical beliefs and statements..

Someone said 'atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby'. As an atheist myself, I'm not aware of having any religious-type organized beliefs, dogmas, rituals or activities. Despite a religious upbringing, I don't believe in god because it seems an absurd, contradictory, ill-defined idea, there's no plausible evidence for it, and a vast amount of circumstantial evidence that it's a product of human imagination. YMMV. If some plausible evidence appears, I'll consider it.

Atheism is obviously a belief , a religion, a conception of nature , a naturalist one at that , a dogmatic orthodox one at that , even in the face of counter-evidence : major example ? materialism in all sciences and elsewhere .

Deliver your  extraordinary evidence regarding the extraordinary claims of the naturalist materialist reductionist determinist conception of nature then ,that gets sold to the people as the 'scientific world view " , deal ?

Besides, you cannot prove the falsehood or truthfulness of a certain belief or religion just via another belief assumption , the materialist one here ,come on : how convenient =   I say your materialist belief is false , and i did provide you with extensive supporting material and other on the subject , what do you do ? You just resort to saying : my materialist belief is better than yours = what kindda silly childish 'reasoning " is this then ? Amazing .
Just address the issue of the false materialist "scientific world view " at hand : religions are not the ones that pretend to be "the scientific world views " , deal ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I used to make a mistake when i used to say that science can deal only with the material (I see i was also a relative victim of materialism in science thus ) , science can rather deal with all it can observe, test , study ...empirically + not everything can be explained just via the laws of physics , not everything is just a matter of cause and effect thus , as mechanistic materialism  assumes (Major examples ? : science cannot handle the nature or origins of consciousness,of  human intellect ,of  feelings ,of  emotions , of memory ....science cannot handle the nature and origin of human conscience , science cannot explain life as a whole just via physics and chemistry , let alone life's origins , evolution and emergence ...fully) .



 
Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically...
....Science has been assuming that everything is material physical, thanks to materialism  = everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , or just by physics and chemistry , so, everything that would have  "supernatural " claims would be , per definition, not only branded as unscientific , but also as ...false , including the claims of religions ....
While science in fact should restrict itself only to what it can deal with empirically .

So science is responsible for including the immaterial in its conceptual framework of why things happen or how things happen,  but it can't criticize ideas about the immaterial or falsify the immaterial in any way? Are you familiar with the phrase "writing a blank check"?

[/quote]

Try to read carefully what i try to say : i do my best to clarify my statements : do yours in relation to yours as well, otherwise , this discussion would become absurd = an understatement thus .

I said , science cannot be confined to just the material side of reality it has been taking as the whole real thing, thanks to materialism thus  .
So, science must therefore try to deal with the parts of reality it can deal with empirically , including some   parts of the immaterial side of reality indirectly , such as the the telepathy claims of some people , such as the psychic claims of some  people , such as dealing empirically with the natures and origins of consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , human intellect .....indirectly and not as physical biological material processes ...they are not ,obviously.

[cheryl j]

We are not talking here about God .

Well, just for discussion's sake , the following then :

God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ; thousands of years of ancient philosophy , scholastics , modern philosophy ...should have convinced you already of that fact : trying to prove or disprove the existence of God was just a stupid and silly ancient Greek cultural habit that was taken over by christian scholastics , and by modern philosophy ,later on ...

No, we weren't talking about God, but you are the one who changed your mind and now claim that science is somehow responsible for including the immaterial as a possible cause of things or events, even though science per your definition of it cannot evaluate, prove or disprove, the immaterial. That is no different from holding an individual responsible for lack of information that he has no access to and is not allowed to question. It's another contradiction.

[cheryl j]

Try to read carefully what i try to say : i do my best to clarify my statements : do yours in relation to yours as well, otherwise , this discussion would become absurd = an understatement thus .

I said , science cannot be confined to just the material side of reality it has been taking as the whole real thing, thanks to materialism thus  .
So, science must therefore try to deal with the parts of reality it can deal with empirically , including some   parts of the immaterial side of reality indirectly , such as the the telepathy claims of some people , such as the psychic claims of some  people , such as dealing empirically with the natures and origins of consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , human intellect .....indirectly and not as physical biological material processes ...they are not ,obviously.

When science has evaluated psychic phenomena and not delivered the results you want, you simply respond that it cannot adequately refute the immaterial, is not qualified to do so. You have the habit of deciding which "parts of reality it can deal with empirically" afterwards, depending on whether you agree with the conclusions.

[dlorde]

... you just resort to attacking non-materialist world views such as religions..

You have so little in response you have to make things up?  Or can you quote me 'attacking' non-materialist world views such as religions?

You just resort to saying : my materialist belief is better than yours = what kindda silly childish 'reasoning " is this then ? Amazing .

Confabulation. Care to quote me saying any such thing?

[dlorde]

... science must therefore try to deal with the parts of reality it can deal with empirically , including some   parts of the immaterial side of reality indirectly , such as the the telepathy claims of some people , such as the psychic claims of some  people , such as dealing empirically with the natures and origins of consciousness, memory , feelings , emotions , human intellect .....indirectly and not as physical biological material processes ...they are not ,obviously.

Which is exactly what science has been, and is, doing. Telepathy and psychic claims have come up a blank, the rest is under ongoing investigation. So far, no trace of influence from 'the immaterial side of reality' has been found.

What should science be doing differently?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde , Cheryl :

Time up, sorry :

Try to read carefully what i say , once again :

I said science will be able to expand its realm ...when science will be liberated from materialism , not earlier : the materialist current 'scientific world view " would , per definition, only dismiss non-material non-physical non-biological processes , or would just reduce them to material physical biological ones : major examples ? : consciousness , human intellect , the immaterial side of life , the nature of feelings emotions ......the nature of human love ...

So, i talk about what science actually is  and therefore should be , without materialism thus ...when science will cease thus to reduce the whole reality to just physics and chemistry ,once again .

[dlorde]

... I said science will be able to expand its realm ...when science will be liberated from materialism , not earlier : the materialist current 'scientific world view " would , per definition, only dismiss non-material non-physical non-biological processes , or would just reduce them to material physical biological ones : major examples ? : consciousness , human intellect , the immaterial side of life , the nature of feelings emotions ......the nature of human love ...

So, i talk about what science actually is  and therefore should be , without materialism thus ...when science will cease thus to reduce the whole reality to just physics and chemistry ,once again .

If science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system", then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.

[cheryl j]

dlorde , Cheryl :

Time up, sorry :

Try to read carefully what i say , once again :

I said science will be able to expand its realm ...when science will be liberated from materialism , not earlier : the materialist current 'scientific world view " would , per definition, only dismiss non-material non-physical non-biological processes , or would just reduce them to material physical biological ones : major examples ? : consciousness , human intellect , the immaterial side of life , the nature of feelings emotions ......the nature of human love ...

So, i talk about what science actually is  and therefore should be , without materialism thus ...when science will cease thus to reduce the whole reality to just physics and chemistry ,once again .

That's probably the lamest dodge I've seen so far.

I don't see why all of science must be liberated from materialism first, in order for you to even describe what a liberated scientist might then be free to do, or do differently. After all, it only takes one scientist with one really important discovery to change history. That one scientist doesn't have to get everybody's permission first to think differently. The idea that time wasn't constant must have been radical in 1905 and didn't require a consensus from all of science or society.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... I like the quote from Nagel, I personally despise atheists who argue with religious groups about the existence of god, saying there is no proof he exists.. as they forget to close the factual statement of.. There is also no proof that he doesn't

True - although some ideas are so patently absurd they need convincing evidence of their reality to be credible, e.g. Russell's Teapot, Sagan's invisible dragon, the Tooth Fairy, God, etc. As the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

(Once again, history of mankind's thought had proved the obvious simple and undeniable fact that God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved ,so, let's just leave it at that then , and that's not our subject either )

Well, materialism is so absurd , so paradoxical, so counter-intuitive, or implausible as Nagel said , so ridiculous , so silly , so childish a "scientific world view " that it is extremely puzzling that materialism has been taken seriously at all , let alone in science : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence indeed , ironically enough .

Now that you cannot deliver any evidence for the "validity or truth " concerning the materialist mainstream "scientific world view ", that's obviously false , you just resort to attacking non-materialist world views such as religions, we are not talking here about the latter , we are just talking about materialism in science that's obviously false , and nobody said that religions are 'scientific " , as materialism pretends to be : that's the core issue here , if materialism has not been taken for granted as the alleged scientific world view  for so long now  , i would have never bothered raising the irrelevant silly issue of materialism = materialism that assumes that reality as a whole is just material physical  , well  , ironically enough , Nagel said on the subject  of materialism "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"= where is that extraordinary materialist evidence then ? where is that extraprdinary evidence regarding the extraordianry claims of materialism that reality is just material physical then ?

All that Russell's tea pot and the rest of your "arguments " against religion are not only incorrect and false irrelevant in relation to some religions at least  they cannot cover as such  , but they  also miss the point that there are false and true beliefs ,relatively speaking : the belief in Sint Claus is obviously false , my own belief in my mother is obviously true to me at least .......to mention just that , no need to scale it up all the way to religions .

the religion of atheism is founded on hypocritical beliefs and statements..

Someone said 'atheism is a religion the way not collecting stamps is a hobby'. As an atheist myself, I'm not aware of having any religious-type organized beliefs, dogmas, rituals or activities. Despite a religious upbringing, I don't believe in god because it seems an absurd, contradictory, ill-defined idea, there's no plausible evidence for it, and a vast amount of circumstantial evidence that it's a product of human imagination. YMMV. If some plausible evidence appears, I'll consider it.

Atheism is obviously a belief , a religion, a conception of nature , a naturalist one at that , a dogmatic orthodox one at that , even in the face of counter-evidence : major example ? materialism in all sciences and elsewhere .

Deliver your  extraordinary evidence regarding the extraordinary claims of the naturalist materialist reductionist determinist conception of nature then ,that gets sold to the people as the 'scientific world view " , deal ?

Besides, you cannot prove the falsehood or truthfulness of a certain belief or religion just via another belief assumption , the materialist one here ,come on : how convenient =   I say your materialist belief is false , and i did provide you with extensive supporting material and other on the subject , what do you do ? You just resort to saying : my materialist belief is better than yours = what kindda silly childish 'reasoning " is this then ? Amazing .
Just address the issue of the false materialist "scientific world view " at hand : religions are not the ones that pretend to be "the scientific world views " , deal ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Mod :

Please do have the decency and intelligence to just stop removing or editing some of my posts here on this thread and elsewhere as well i spent so much time on .
You could just remove Nagel's quotes form them, instead of removing the whole thing .
What's wrong with you anyway ?