Jung does not ever dismiss synchronicity as inconceivably factual.

Evidence is as evidence does.

inconceivably factual?

Jung maintains that synchronicity is factual yet inconceivable, in that how could it ever be shown to be more than a coincidence... Synchronicity is precisely because it is not a coincidence.

Since nature itself can't be responsible for nature (by definition), whatever caused the situation in which nature exists would be (by definition) supernatural.

Of course, that is not the definition you are working with. It is a semantic issue at that point.

yeah and the other guy was referring to seeing things in a dream then irl which is the original example of synchronicity

You are asking two different things --- evidence for the supernatural and evidence for a God, which I assume you mean some sort of omnipotent creator. As for the latter, no amount of evidence could ever be sufficient. Even if a being appeared before us all and claimed to be "God," and it did everything we asked of it for hundreds of years, for all anyone would know, the next request would stump this alleged "God." And how could this being show it was responsible for all of creation? It couldn't. It may make such a claim, but proving it would be another matter entirely.

On the other hand, evidence for the supernatural could include all sorts of things, including someone claiming to see a ghost. That may not be convincing evidence, but, it would still be evidence of some kind.

Through stories like this children (and adults) are encouraged to think that God might (possibly, maybe, perhaps) show up in the hour of great need and save us. — Bitter Crank

In your example story above God said, "Let go." This sounds like God giving up, throwing in the towel, abandoning the man on the mountain.

Or is it? What if the man never was a separate thing? What if his experience of separateness is only a compelling illusion generated by the operating system of his mind? If the larger truth is that the man never was a separate thing, then he can't die, thus there's nothing to worry about, and the advice from God was pretty practical.

Maybe God is saying let go of the rope. Or maybe he's saying, let go of the illusion that you are a separate thing?

I interpreted it to mean "Let go of the rope." Meaning, put yourself entirely in my hands.

I assume that our unfortunate climber would soon arrive at the gates of heaven after having let go. In heaven we will find eternal rest in the care of God. Heaven will be an altogether pleasant experience, I have been led to believe.

Of course, it is possible that something else will happen, and somehow he won't be splattered on the rocks below. I wouldn't count on it. God doesn't intervene (seems to me).

We are either never united with God, or we are never apart from God except in hell. (I'm speaking here out of my past when I believed.) I don't think we transition one to the other.

I used to hear this sort of story (and worse) when I was involved in Metropolitan Community Church, a gay evangelical group. I come out of mainline Methodist church, and we didn't hear stories like that from Methodist ministers. But this MCC liked to promote what I would call kind of sentimental feeling-faith.

The world now would be miraculous to someone from 5000 bc. There are the laws of nature, inviolable and, perhaps, ''sacrosanct''???

The beauty is we can pit one law against the other. Gravity is a universal law but the laws of aerodynamics can be used to overcome gravity. So we fly in heavier than air planes.

If violating the laws of nature is evidence for the divine then are we not gods to ancient people?

So evidence for the divine shouldn't be sought in miraculous events. This, to me, is the argument from ignorance.

X can't be explained.
So it must be divine.

We forget that, sometimes, the correct answer is ''We don't know what it is (yet)''.

We must look to the definition of ''God'' to seek him/her. Personally, I like omnibenevolence. Love is a four-letter word and is the most difficult to achieve given the way our world is. Omnipotence and ommiscience are pointless without omnibenevolence. We can imagine the devil being omnipotent and omniscient but can the devil ever be omnibenevolent?

So, look for true unconditional love. That is God.

I interpreted it to mean "Let go of the rope." Meaning, put yourself entirely in my hands. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that's what I heard too.

I assume that our unfortunate climber would soon arrive at the gates of heaven after having let go. In heaven we will find eternal rest in the care of God. Heaven will be an altogether pleasant experience, I have been led to believe. — Bitter Crank

That is how the story generally goes. Let's quickly recall how the story came to be.

First, whoever wrote these stories seemed to have something on the ball, as evidenced by the fact that the stories are still in use 2,000 - 3,000 years later, a remarkable accomplishment for any author.

Second, the intended audience for these stories was all mankind. More specifically the audience in the time the stories were written were typically "salt of the earth" uneducated peasants.

Point being, perhaps we shouldn't assume that the stories were ever intended to be literally true, just because a great many highly mediocre clerical commentators have asserted this to be the case.

The stories might be better compared to a novel or play, where one uses an entirely fictional tale to illuminate deep truths about the human condition. Given the intended audience, everybody on Earth, such fictional tales would necessarily have to be fairly simple.

As with art, the strength of such stories may be that they open the door to many different interpretations. I have my theories, you have yours, as do millions of others, and from such diversity a global conversation on the state of the human condition is built. This is how a skilled philosophy professor would conduct their class. They wouldn't give us The Answer, but instead set a stage upon which the class can conduct their own investigation.

So, in your story above, the message could be...

"Let go of the rope, because when you do you'll discover there was never any separate, alone, vulnerable, isolated entity holding the rope."

One interpretation....

The stories might be better compared to a novel or play, where one uses an entirely fictional tale to illuminate deep truths about the human condition. Given the intended audience, everybody on Earth, such fictional tales would necessarily have to be fairly simple. — Jake

The whole enterprise of religion was a very early high point in human artistic achievement. We created the gods: this is an easy concept for the religious to accept about heathen religions, blasphemy when it applies to their own. Apollo or Odin, yes of course. YHWH or Allah? Burn him at the stake!

The gods were invented and their supporting literature was composed by mortal men who worked subtle and plain themes into compelling, inspiring, (sometimes readily) believable tales whose themes have endured for at least 5 millennia. (We don't know a lot about all the oral traditions that preceded the written tradition.)

The "Let go of the rope" story is less extreme than the story of Abraham and his son Isaac. Probably human sacrifice was a part of the proto-religion that produced Judaism and numerous other religions. It must have been a horror for the parents. The story of Abraham and Isaac still shakes people up.

The invented gods and their various religions flourished and became institutional, long before people started complaining about it. There is an unpleasant underbelly of religion. James C. Scott's Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States explains (Scott's theory) how the very early proto-state encouraged the rise of agriculture and urbanization, places like Jericho around 10,000 years ago. Why? Because the proto-state "demiurge" needed something to tax and controlled people to produce the grain. Grain was good for the proto-state because it ripened all at once predictably, could be gathered and stored, and could feed many people. The many people could be put to work weaving wool for the finer garments of the proto-state officialdom, trade, and more taxes.

The early proto-states were city-states were scattered around the fertile crescent and while not initially very stable stayed in business for quite a while, eventually producing more complex states that encompassed much more territory with much more complex economies and societies.

OK, so where does religion fit into all that? The early religions came to serve the early state early on, buttressing the authority of whoever-the-fuck-was-in-charge-of-the-palace and linking the power of the priest to the power of the potentate. And so it has remained, more or less, in various guises, ever since.

Hi Bitter,

Your post sketches the history of religion being a powerful force, which like any powerful force, was often hijacked by those concerned primarily with exercising power. Sometimes the power trippers were political types, and sometimes the power trippers were clerical types, and as you say, these two power tripping groups often forged alliances. Agreed.

What your post doesn't address is the question of why religion is such a powerful force. Well, you do in part by reminding us religion has often been backed up by the power of the state, clearly an important factor in expanding the influence of religion.

But still the question remains unanswered. How did religion accumulate such power that it became a valuable property which the state would want to hijack?

There are many ways to answer this but as we dig down through the pile I believe the bottom line we arrive at is the impact of religion at the personal level, with social/political phenomena being symptoms of the underlying personal level experiences.

As example, Marxism is just one of many political ideologies which have come and gone over the course of Judeo-Christian history in the West. Marxism was a powerful ideology hijacked by the state in two of the world's largest nations, but it has already faded away in influence, while Christianity remains still standing, as it has so many times before.

Point being, there must be more going on with religion than just another ideology being hijacked by power trippers to serve their own agendas.

The gods were invented and their supporting literature was composed by mortal men who worked subtle and plain themes into compelling, inspiring, (sometimes readily) believable tales whose themes have endured for at least 5 millennia. — Bitter Crank

Yes, agreed.

1) We might reflect upon the spectacular success of these mortal writers in creating tales which have survived the test of time. As example, no collection of words from science is likely to match this accomplishment.

2) The agreed upon fact that mortal men wrote these tales tells us little about whether something like gods exist. Or rather it tells us little about whether something unseen exists which tribal mortal men from thousands of years ago could only describe by referencing the King concept which was dominant during their time.

Returning now to the thread title, "evidence for the supernatural".

The leading theory in my mind is that the supernatural concept is referring to real phenomena within the laws of nature that are so far outside of our current ability to grasp that they SEEM to be outside the laws of nature.

As example, for the vast majority of human history we had no knowledge of the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms. Those realms were always there right in front of our faces, but for a long time we couldn't see them. So if we were to attempt to explain the quantum realm to an audience from 1,000 years ago it would surely SOUND supernatural to them, because such things would be so far beyond their own experience and knowledge. But as we now know, these realms are not supernatural, but instead just an example of reality being far more interesting than even our imaginations can sometimes grasp.

As a thought experiment, imagine that the complexity of reality was explained by a number scale going from 0 - 1,000. Over the last 500 years we've made remarkable progress in understanding, which when compared to previous understandings make we moderns feel like geniuses. But maybe we're progressed up the complexity number scale from 7 to 23. There may be vast territory as yet not even imagined, let alone explored or understood.

In a clumsy childlike manner the stories about the supernatural may be referring to this vast realm of unexplored reality.

I've seen a few odd things in my time that make me think of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis

If we are really all living in a Simulation, that could explain some of the reports of the super-natural; it could be just the 'super-users' messing around in our lives.

What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

I never understood this question. If the only thing that counts as evidence is something physical (i.e. something you see, hear, touch, smell, or taste), then the only thing you can know is physical. So, if I hear a voice from the great beyond calling my name, declaring himself God, and even doing what appear to be miracles, then all I can know from that are those physical manifestations. I would have no reason to assume an underlying non-physical entity any more than I do now when I experience physical phenomena. What I would seek to do is reconsider what I thought to be the physical laws in existence and alter that to account for this new phenomenon.

For example, if I were to find a material that instead of becoming a gas under high heat, it became more solid, I would not assume a supernatural force, but I would seek to find a physical explanation for it, even if it meant altering my prior views of certain physical laws.

The problem with the inquiry is the lack of clear definition of what constitutes physical and non-physical (or natural and supernatural). It seems to me that the real difference between the two when dissecting how words are used is that natural events are those that we can predictably observe and usually replicate, whereas supernatural events are those events that sporadically occur, cannot be replicated, and for some very odd reason cannot be recorded because we never seem to have a camera or recorder around when we need it, and if we do, the recording is fuzzy, blurred, or filled with static, like when they try to capture pictures of the elusive Bigfoot.

What kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

The notion that the physical world is all that there is, posits a big, blatant brute-fact:

I've often and amply discussed that brute-fact, and an alternative to it.

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?

And the notion that science, logic and words describe all, is a questionable assumption.

To give a few familiar examples;

No finite dictionary can non-circularly define any of its words.

Can you write down a complete description of your experiences?

Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion.

Michael Ossipoff

I can't respond to bunch of bullet points. What is your argument?

Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion — Michael Ossipoff

No it's not. My materialism is a philosophical position.

I can't respond to bunch of bullet points. — Purple Pond

I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post.

But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes? — Michael Ossipoff

That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it.

What is your argument?

I merely meant what i said.

"Your Materialism is a questionable faith-based religion" — Michael Ossipoff

No it's not. My materialism is a philosophical position.

Call it what you want. According to definitions in Merriam-Webster and Houghton-Mifflin, of Materialism and religion, Materialism is a religion.

It's a "philosophical position" about an alleged ultimate-reality, a supposed objective and fundamental reality on which all else supervenes. A belief about all-that-is, amounts to a religion.

Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again:

Materialism:

A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Religion:

Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Religious:

Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.

[end of dictionary definitions]

So yes, by those definitions, Materialism is a religion.

But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common. Merriam-Webster agrees, as does Houghton-Mifflin..

Michael Ossipoff

hat kind of evidence could there be for supernatural phenomena? — Purple Pond

When I first answered that question, in a recent post to this thread, I assumed that your "supernatural" translates to "nonphysical".

But "supernatural" is a funny word. What could be more natural than God?

Is all of Reality itself other than "natural" ?

As an atheist I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that there is a god and that the physical world is not all there is.

I doubt that anything would convince you. It hasn't been my purpose to convince you, or other aggressive-Atheists. What I say is for the benefit of others who have heard you. I merely have wanted to ask you questions about what you mean, in regards to Theism. ...and,in regards to Materialism, to ask what you mean by "objectively-existent", "objectively real", "substantial", "substantive", and "actual". ...and in what context, other than its own, you want or claim this physical universe to be "real" or "existent".

...and to remind you that your Materialism posits a blatant brute-fact (...as i've discussed here many times).

Michael Ossipoff

Materialism:

A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

Religion:

Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

Religious:

Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity. — Michael Ossipoff

This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:

de·vo·tion
dəˈvōSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.

Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. No where in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things. But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.
Intentional or not, this a false equivalency. Materialism is not a religion.

I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post. — Michael Ossipoff

Look, do you want me to respond to your posts or not?

But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?
— Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know. And I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?

That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it. — Michael Ossipoff

The form of the question was like a bullet point. I guess I'm supposed to feel stupid now, right? Because I can't answer one of the big questions.

Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again: — Michael Ossipoff

Maybe you shouldn't because dictionary definitions aren't wholly reliable. There are different dictionaries with different meanings of the words "materialism" and "religion". So I would take it with a grain of salt. I personally don't agree with the definition of religion that you mentioned. The fact that a mere philosophical position such as materialism can logically be called a religion, in my opinion, acts as a reductio ad absurdum to those dictionary definitions.

But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't understand the reasoning here. Just because materialism may have something in common with religion doesn't mean it is a religion.

I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that... the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

After the discovery of other planets in our solar system, we (including scientists) imagined them to be exactly like our earth in their constitution. Many years later, we have terms like 'gas' planets to describe some of them. Even though they are physical, they are far less dense than our earth. Could you imagine what kind of life-forms they would have, if they did? Consider the ratio of our earth's density to human density, 5.5 g/cm3 (earth) to 0.985 g/cm3 (humans). Imagine the implications if that translated directly to those gas planets or if the life-forms could have a much less relative density. It might mean there could be other civilisations out there progressing parallel to ours and beyond our perception.

What if worlds and life-forms were not limited to solids, liquids and gases? Suppose configurations of much higher vibrational energies into magnetic/gravitational (or any other kind of energy) fields like planets, suns, etc.

We have a very limited spectrum of interaction, therefore, our observations, investigations, experiences, etc are very limited. We have historical evidence that, there has always been more to discover, it's just a matter of time. :sparkle: The truth is out there. :sparkle:

Children who recall previous lives.

Pondering Miracles, Medical and Religious .

I’d posted the following Merriam-Webster definitions. (Merriam-Webster is the premier dictionary in the U.S.)
.
”Materialism:

.
A theory that matter is the only or fundamental reality, and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.

.
Religion:

.
Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

.
Religious:

.
Relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.”— Michael Ossipoff
.

This is just a gross false equivalency. Live by the sword die by the sword, how about another definition showing your false equivalency:

.
de•vo•tion
dəˈvōSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
love, loyalty, or enthusiasm for a person, activity, or cause.

.
Materialism does not include love, nor loyalty nor enthusiasm, any of those things that a materialist feels towards Materialism, is a trait about him and not Materialism. Nowhere in your definition of Materialism does it mention any of those things.

.
You’ve conveniently missed the presence, in that definition, of the word “commitment”.
.
“Commitment” has a well-established, widely-used, broad range of meanings.
.
…such as emotional involvement or investment. Or espousal of a view. Anyone who espouses Materialism has committed himself to it. …in the dictionary-definition sense of revealing a view.
.
Also, the amount of time that Materialists and aggressive atheists devote to promoting their their cause, in these forums, tautologically tells us that they’re devoted to it.
.

But of course there is more, the focus of the word must be a person, activity or cause. Materialism is also none of these things either.

.
One can be committed to Materialism, as described above. The advocacy of Materialism is very obviously a cause for some people here. Likewise advocacy of Atheism.
.
Of course a core belief of Materialists is that materialism is “scientific” instead of religious. That’s a tenet of that religion.
.
You see, only other religions are religions :D
.
Michael Ossipoff

”I didn't ask you to respond. In particular, I didn't ask you to respond to the statements in my post.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Look, do you want me to respond to your posts or not?

.
I certainly don’t forbid you from doing so. In fact, I encourage you, and anyone else, to reply. That should be the spirit of forum-posts. …according to the forum-guidelines, and according to what we mean by the word “forum”.
.
But I never meant to obligate you to reply, or to imply that you should, or to criticize you if you’re unable to.
.
”But yes, I did ask a question. I asked:

.
Why is there that physical universe that's all that there is, on which all else supervenes?”
— Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff
.

I don't know.

.
Thank you for your honest answer.
.
In other words, then, your Materialism posits a brute-fact.
.

And I have a question for you: Why is there something rather than nothing?

.
I’ve discussed that before, but I’ll repeat as much as is feasible in this post, without making the post too long. (Then I’ll save it in Word, in case the question is asked again.)
.
In the describable realm, the world of describable things, there are abstract implications, in the sense that we can mention and refer to them. I don’t claim any other “existence” or “reality” for them. Nor do I claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm.
.
I’ve spoken of complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, and asked Materialists in what verifiable way they believe that this physical world is other than that.
.
…and in what context, other than its own, they want or believe this physical universe to be existent and real.
.
If you, as a Materialist regard abstract implications as “nothing”, then I don’t claim that there’s anything, in the describable realm.
.
Someone could ask “But why are there abstract facts, such as abstract implications?
.
(As I’m using “implication”, an implication is an implying of one proposition by another proposition. That’s a state-of-affairs, and it’s a relation among things (…two popular definitions of “fact”)).
.
(Propositions are things. Things are what can be referred to.)
.
Someone pointed out that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.
.
Someone else answered that there could be a fact that there are no other facts, other than that one fact that there are no other facts.
.
But that would be a particularly blatant ad-hoc brute-fact, calling for an explanation, which would be impossible, because there’d be nothing else, by which to explain it.
.
Besides, I’ve pointed out that any notion that facts share a continuum of interaction, such that there can be a fact that forbids all other facts, a fact that has jurisdiction or authority about all other facts, is an unsupported assumption. …an assumption that there’s no particular reason to believe, and whose falsity is the natural default presumption.
.
A complex system of inter-referring abstract facts neither has nor needs any “reality” or “existence” in any context other than its own inter-referring context. Each such system is quite entirely isolated, separate, and independent of any outside context. There’s no common “medium” or “continuum” that they all share, like some kind of potting-soil.
.
That’s why there are abstract facts, including abstract implications, and complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.
.
I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than in their own context. And I don’t claim that they have any reality or existence other than that we can mention and refer to them.
.
…and I don’t claim that there’s anything else in the describable realm, the world of describable things.
.
That’s my answer to your question, Why is there something instead of nothing.
.

”That's a question, not "bullet-point". If you can't answer it, I won't pretend to be surprised. Don't worry about it.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
The form of the question was like a bullet point. I guess I'm supposed to feel stupid now, right? Because I can't answer one of the big questions.

.
No, you’re just supposed to admit that Materialism implies a great-big blatant brute-fact.
.
The metaphysics that I’ve outlined above, and described in detail in the “How do you feel about religion” thread, neither needs no has any assumption or brute-fact.
.

”Maybe I should quote Merriam-Webster for you again:” — Michael Ossipoff
.
Maybe you shouldn't because dictionary definitions aren't wholly reliable. There are different dictionaries with different meanings of the words "materialism" and "religion".

.
That’s why looked it up in Houghton-Mifflin, in addition to Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, as I’ve said, is the premier dictionary in the U.S.
.
In order to communicate in a language, we have to have at least some loose consensus about what words mean. To that end, dictionaries report on usage. But I admit that there can be widely used and accepted definitions that didn’t happen to make it into dictionaries, maybe due to space considerations, etc.
.
I agree that we needn’t share the same definitions. But, with its beliefs about the ultimate reality, Materialism is so religion-like, that it’s pointless to quibble about definitions that say it is or isn’t a religion. I merely quoted Merriam-Webster (and I’ll quote Houghton-Mifflin and SEP if you want) to show that there’s a reported consensus about the meanings of “Materialism” and “Religion” by which Materialism is a religion.
.

”But your belief that this physical world is all of reality, the ultimate reality on which all else supervenes, and "by which all being and processes and phenomena can be explained" amounts to a religion, by a reasonable interpretation based on something that religions have in common.” — Michael Ossipoff
.
.
I don't understand the reasoning here. Just because materialism may have something in common with religion doesn't mean it is a religion.

.
See directly above.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now? You are certainly free to dilute the word religion so that all human endeavours are religions, but its clear you are doing so only to prop up this false equivalency.
Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted. I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism. Your problem with certain individuals is not relevent to Materialism being or not being a religion. Its a conflation you are making in order to once again, prop up this false equivalency.
You reiterate this point twice more before the end of your post. It is irrelevant, but it does show a devotion of your own to this false equivalence of yours. Is it your religion? My guess is that you would be happy to call it religion if it meant that in so doing you get to continue treating Materialism (and atheism, which I suspect is what this is really about.) as a religion as well.
I get it, there is a cleverness, an amusing irony to calling someone who does not believe in religion a religious person but your claim is none the less quite fallacious.
Anyway, since your argument is clearly with certain people rather than Materialism or atheism I suggest you take it up with them. From what I can tell (Im new to the forum) you will be accommodated.
Thanks for the discussion :)

Now you are just backing further into the weeds sir. Anything you are committed to is a religion now?

.
No, I didn’t say that. Re-read the dictionary definitions that I posted.
.

Further, your point about materialists and aggressive atheists has already been refuted.

.
Which one? (Rhetorical question—You needn’t answer.)
.

I repeat, you are talking about certain people, not Materialism.

.
Repeat it all you want, but I’ve been talking about Materialism. It has a big, blatant brute-fact. …and, by the dictionary definitions that I posted, it’s a religion. But, as I said, we needn’t quibble about that. We can agree that, with its belief about ultimate reality, it’s certainly so religion-like that definitional-quibbles aren’t important.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I certainly do not agree to that. It isnt “like” a religion either.
You’ll have to forgive me, I didnt know I was wading into part of an overall agenda you are devoted to pushing. Referencing some of the other threads you posted in I see it now, Im content to move on from this and let those other discussions bear thier fruit.