I can't tell you how many times I've talked with a Christian (without coming right out and saying I'm a Satanist) and said that, "while I don't believe, I don't entirely discount the possibility of God; however, without empirical evidence to support his supposed existence I remain unconvinced." I have been met with "oh, he's out there; my prayers have been answered." As if that was a definitive argument for the affirmation of his existence.
_________________________ The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.
"Open-mindedness"...!! One of my very least favorite phrases. I'm glad to see others share my sentiments, and are motivated to create a little presentation around the idea.
At least this vid gives people who get backed into conversational corners when trying to defend hard-core materialism something to remember at the last ditch. (That's not a sarcastic remark! I am really being sincere.)
People tend to forget that there's scarcely any way to prove anything on the typical internet discussion forum, anyway. If you demand proof from someone who would ultimately have to come to your house, have you come to his house, or meet with you somewhere to show you the proof--think for a moment: Do you REALLY need proof, when faced with the prospect of having to put the guest towels out for someone who's probably a little "eccentric" anyway? I would forego further argument, and have on numerous occasions, upon consideration of the "ultimate showdown" and its possible consequences. (That's why scientists usually try to do things in labs, where the equipment is insured...)
As well, it's usually pointless to provide a hard-core materialist with an experiment that he or she can "try at home" to test something that they classify as paranormal/supernatural (and therefore, not "real"). You know that even if it only takes a few hours total of experimentation, using stuff they already have or can obtain for less than $10, they're not gonna do it. They just want to keep arguing, basically, until you get sick of listening to them and either give in or make some sort of error that they can use against you.
A lot of the time I can (and will) say, "Hey, I'm not trying to get you to accept hearsay as fact! Calm down! Try this experiment where you live, in your town, just do this, this... (etc)"--and they won't even address that, they'll just go back to arguing like I didn't say a thing. (Many--not all, of course, but many--of those who argue for hard-core materialism are not in fact scientists and know little of science, but suppose that it makes them appear smarter to stand on the side of science in any argument where science is involved.)
There is really no way anybody can be "right" in the classic sense on the internet, unless in discussion of something that is already established and can easily be duplicated, such as that the world is round. There are still many people who do not believe that the world is round--personally, I dislike trying to argue with someone like that, but supposing I was so inclined, I would be able to say to that person, "No one on earth believes that the earth is flat, but in case that does not sway your thinking, please mark the place where you are standing and proceed in any direction you choose without changing course--you will find that if you keep going in the same direction, you will eventually return to the place you began."
If no such verification is available for either side of an argument, that in my opinion places the topic into the category of "idle discussion". Idle discussion is of course one of the fun things about the internet. Some people will get kind of excited, which can also be fun at times.
~~~ yours in Chaos, Scarlett
"I can fling poo gooder than u"
This video leans much more strongly towards (epistemological) empiricism than (metaphysical) materialism or physicalism.
The former is a theory of knowledge of the world being derived from objective experience and evidence. The latter is a claim about the nature of reality (that only matter and physical energy exist, not 'spirits', and consciousness has a physical basis). The two are often run together, but they are distinct ideas nevertheless.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hardcore materialism", but the upthrust of this video is: While to dogmatically assert that matter and energy are definitely all that exists might be a closed-minded approach; it is not closed-minded to ask for evidence and reasons FOR the existence of anything immaterial, supernatural, spiritual or otherwise; and without such evidence being available, to refrain for assenting to belief in such concepts (with the possibility of changing one's mind should evidence to the contrary accumulate).
Many people untrained in science and philosophy do take the former position as a kind of dogma. However, this is not how the latter position works, as it is not dogmatic, and to conflate the latter view with the former one is to commit the logical fallacy of a 'straw man'.
The distinction here is much like that between that of 'strong' and 'weak Atheism' (the latter which may overlap with agnosticism). A 'strong' Atheist asserts that there definitely is no god. A 'weak' Atheist in contrast merely abstains from giving his assent or belief to the proposition 'there exists a god or gods', on the grounds that he currently has no good reasons to do so. While 'strong' Atheism may be accused of being somewhat of a metaphysical dogma, as it makes assertions concerning gods, the latter position makes no such assertions and thus cannot rightly be considered dogmatic or closed-minded.
Although it is often important to make judgments about (for example) whether one considers a 'supernatural' realm to exist or not, it is important to note that all human knowledge is ultimately fallible, thus there is no need to take such judgments as a kind of absolute truth.
For a final example: I am aware of various claims concerning the Christian God. An alleged big person outside the universe who hates it when people come to the wrong conclusion about his existence - in fact, he hates it so much he is willing to barbecue them for all eternity.
I see no reason to positively accept this claim about such an entity. This doesn't mean I am closed-minded or prejudiced about the existence of such a being, more like I require some better reasons and evidence before I assent to a belief in his existence.
As such, I can be 'open-minded' about the claim of his alleged existence without simply taking a counter-dogma as fact, or falling into the trap of fearing hell or divine judgment without good reasons for accepting such beliefs.
Rather, I have moved beyond the need for such simple-minded dogma altogether, and choose an approach to reality based on thought, not blind faith.
And you need to learn some manners. Your own punctuation skills are called into question when you can't even be bothered to capitalize the first letter of your sentence, nor use a period in place of a comma to break up your run on sentence. Not to mention, stooping to the level of calling someone a retard. Your profile says you're 28? And yet you act like you're 18.