You assert that materialism cannot include sympathy, empathy, or the spirit of things(by that I mean more the essence than an actual soul for the record).
You have stated absolutely NO facts with respect to your assertions to the materialistic in our conversations. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve attempted to equate the metaphysical with the physical i.eÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Sympathy and empathyÃ¢â‚¬Â (see post # 21) Ã¢â‚¬Å“the spiritÃ¢â‚¬Â (see post # 27), Ã¢â‚¬Å“meaning, morals, value, and emotions in lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â (see post # 30), but you have absolutely no basis (or foundation) to do so. It seems you have absolutely no idea of the differences between the two. Then when cornered, you attempt to cover your misunderstandings (and yes apparent ignorance) with accusations that I am playing Ã¢â‚¬Å“word gamesÃ¢â‚¬Â (see post # 43).
I would challenge you to provide where I said such a thing. I would further assert that you are playing the role of an interloper into my words to make such an assertion. Therefore, I require you to provide proof that I said Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialism cannot include sympathy, empathy, or the spirit of thingsÃ¢â‚¬Â, because I did not, nor have I ever made such an assertion.
Remember, weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re discussing facts, not interpretations. So, it is your responsibility to provide the Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬Â for your assertions.
You are saying what a materialist is and what materialism is. It's not a bad thing to explore these idea, but I'm simply not interested in how labels fit on ideas. I really could not care less what you call me, as long as you recognize what my beliefs are. Create whatever labels for me you see fit.
Once again, you are incorrect; I am using the Ã¢â‚¬Å“established definitionÃ¢â‚¬Â for Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialistsÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialismÃ¢â‚¬Â. We can go into further depth if you wish, but I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t allow you to dither, quibble, or equivocate on the definitions.
The materialist, by definition is: Ã¢â‚¬Å“a supporter of the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states can be explained as physical functionsÃ¢â‚¬Â.
Materialism, by definition, is Ã¢â‚¬Å“the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functionsÃ¢â‚¬Â
And I havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t called you anything (once again you are interloping on my words); my question was addressed to Ã¢â‚¬Å“MATERIALISTSÃ¢â‚¬Â and you responded. Do you not understand this fact?
You seem passionate about this however, so how about this; I'm wrong, and you're right. If that is what materialism means, then I was mistaken. I am not a materialist. My mistake.
I am passionate about truth and facts, and you have yet to provide either to support your assertions. And now, it seems you are willing to falsify your worldview instead of accept the facts posited. You further accuse me of having to be Ã¢â‚¬Å“rightÃ¢â‚¬Â, but I submit that the facts are right, and I am only the bearer of them. That neither you, nor I have the Ã¢â‚¬Å“rightÃ¢â‚¬Â to delude or dilute the facts in a relativistic manner.
So, how about this: accept the truth, or provide the facts that it is not the truth. That is what you should be doing, not dithering, prevaricating, beating around the bush, or equivocating.
You were commenting on general forum rules. That it is a forum rule to cite all facts, so I did not feel obliged only to reference the discussion between us. The post I did reference is post number 48 on this thread.
Again, you may want to re-read OUR conversations again, because we havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t discussed Ã¢â‚¬Å“darker skinÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“racesÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Russia's climateÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Africa's climateÃ¢â‚¬Â (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦), therefore you are getting yourself confused in your own attempts at reconciliation between atheism and the real world! And, as I noticed, you totally disregarded the first part of my post(# 54)...and then you went on to totally misrepresent the second half of my post (# 54) with some contrived Ã¢â‚¬Å“factsÃ¢â‚¬Â that had absolutely no bearing on our conversation.
You didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t site any facts that comported with (or were cogent to) our conversation. Therefore your Ã¢â‚¬Å“assumedÃ¢â‚¬Â facts werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t sanguine with our conversation. So, the fact remains, you have provided absolutely NO FACTS congruent to the context our conversation.
There's a lot more people there than just the three of us, and it would be unjust to force them into these discussions.
For the record, whatever atheist forum you, Glaucus, Crocoduck, TheGene (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) came from, make an invite for those here who want to go there and argue with you.
First - Having been there, and read the forum rules, I now understand why you think there is no reason for facts, or forum rules as well; as they really have none there. That being said; there are rules and standards here. Without such, maintaining truth would be as difficult as attempting to measure a writhing alligator with a fixed yard rule. I further submit that you are here, and not thereÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Therefore you will adhere to the forum rules (you agreed to and accepted when signing on here) established here.
Second Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Of course you cannot force them into the conversation, as that would be their free choice. But, as I stated above, they would have to adhere to said forum rules as well. And most of them have already proven that they cannot. Such is the dilemma when the child in an unruly home joins the military (for example). They either make it or they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t; and they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t because they have no concept of, or desire to, adhere to standards. They then complain about Ã¢â‚¬Å“censorshipÃ¢â‚¬Â and such because they lack the will power to adhere to said standards and rules.
Therefore Ã¢â‚¬â€œ What is unjust is coming to any forum that has standards and rules, not adhering to them (even after stating that you would at induction), then complaining about things like Ã¢â‚¬Å“justiceÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“censorshipÃ¢â‚¬Â.