Atheism feels shunned...

[Purple Rabbit]

But there is not enough evidence for the statement that all there is, is physical. Suggesting this with the above sentence is plain false.

I'm not saying that there's evidence that everything is physical. I'm saying that I don't know of any evidence of anything but the physical. So I'm not going to believe thought isn't physical without evidence for such a (at least seemingly) one-off exception.

You haven't shown that the phenomena I have given you are physical. It is accepted by science itself that these phenomena have no physical explanation and that they currently are outside the physical framework. You refuse to accept this as evidence on your willpower alone.

2. I know of no evidence to to the contrary.

If this is meant as an argument you of all should recognize it as a argumentam ad ignorantiam. Your ignorance cannot be evidence of anything.

No because as I have said many times. I am not saying that no evidence of the non-physical means that it 'must be physical', which would be the argumentum ad ignorantum. What I am saying is that no evidence for the non-physical=there's no reason to believe that there's anything non-physical. Untill there is any evidence for the non-physical. That's the reasonable stance.

OK we will do this really slow now and one step at the time.

Your argumentam ad ignorantiam is as follows (pay close attention, it is really easy to follow):

You said:
1. There's evidence for the physical and
2. I have no evidence of the contrary

In (2) you say that you KNOW of no evidence that contradicts premisse (1). So you put forward your NOT KNOWING, your ignorance, as a relevant part of your argumentation for (1). You do not give other evidence that (1) is true. The essence of what you say is that (1) has not been proven false and THEREFORE it is true.

What is an argument from ignorance? This is the definition of the argument from ignorance:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. (source Wikipedia)

Since you claim that premise (1) is true only because it has not been proven false (2), your argument is clearly an argumentam ad ignorantiam, a proof from the negative.

Do you need any more elaboration on this? Is this completely, utterly clear now, or shall we go through this one more time? If so, what part of this don't you get?

You therefore cannot, at the moment, conclude that mental states are physical states.

Nor can you conclude that they're not, without evidence. There is evidnece for the physical in this universe however, and no evidence for the non-physical.

Again you use the argument from ignorance. Do you recognize it now or shall I spell this one out for you also?
Also you say that I cannot conclude that they (referring to mental states here) are not without evidence. IOW you say that I cannot conclude that mental states have evidence. But it is established fact in cognitive science that mental states exist. Everybody can experience them from first-person experience. So you are clearly and utterly in denial here, mental states do exist and they cannot be explained from the physical framework.

But let's pause here for a while and see if you're still with me or need a complete rerun of this.