Do Christians actually want evidence?

[The Reality Salesman01]

Anyone can state their own opinion as a fact it's not a rational argument. You're not explaining why materialism is the valid conclusion to begin with

The notion of Dualism is nothing more than a shift of perspective. You seem to think that there are 2 etities, but it is not even debatble anymore. You just really need to look beyond the bible, and your own ignorant intuition for answers. I mean no offense by referring to your intuition as ignorant, but when you insist on pushing these ideas into a 21 century conversation, I'm left with no other adjective. Here's an intro to psychology lecture from Yale. Take a look:

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-2

There's plenty of additional information out there, but that should get you in the right direction...


In the mid 600s B.C., Thales introduced the philosophical thought that everything was made of water. It was significant because it was an early and primitive attempt for a man to understand his existence. It is of course false, but you learn about it in your first day in PHIL 001. Nobody maintains this theory today, and just as it is recognized as an inviable solution, so should you recognize the same about Dualism. It is fraught with errors, and all of the evidence points to materialism.


When understanding thoughts, you need to look at the whole explanation, and not just certain aspects of one or the other. The thrid person perspective is what the brain and body are doing and how they are doing it (recognizing the brain activity associated with decision making, nerve and muscle activity, and then the movement itself) and then there's the First Person perspective which experienced the decision to move and the internal sensations associated with it (What being/using a body is like). The first person perspective is unaware of HOW the body is moving, only the descriptive experience of it. You are confusing the two perspectives by attributing the experience with the power to cause movement. They are two different complimentary aspects that make up the whole of the entire explanation. But they are seperated only by perspective. Just like the camera. It's the difference between an internal viewpoint and an external view point. The internal view point is the effect of what can be observed externally. You're blurring the line and it's causing you to draw flawed inferences.

Not to mention you've got your work cut out for you when you consider the sense organs responsible for producing the experiences encountered in consciousness. If you are suggesting that there is an additional "thinking stuff" through which consciousness survives after death, what exactly is this stuff? How does it think and perform physical action while holding zero physical properties? Why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged by physical causes, we lose our ability to see or hear. When we imbibe alcohol, your ability to reason is affected. If certain regions of your brain are damaged, and certain synapses do not deliver sensory data to the right places, you will no longer be able to recongize faces? Or, you can recognize a likeness, but be convinced they are an imposter. This can even affect your ability to recognize your own mother. And through science, there are neurophysiological explanations for all of it. All of it is physical. When the whole brain is dead, how will you recognize your mother in a non-physical realm? Exactly what is it that you think is being added to the conversation, by insisting the existence of some magical substance for which there is no evidence or reason to envoke? If all of our physical brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to percieve anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? An agent stripped away from all physical means of manifestation is indistinguishable from an agent that doesn't exist at all. Reconcile all of this with logic and reason, and you will have the potential to overturn the modern scientific concensus which is constructed of mounds upon mounds of evidence for "materialism". But until, and unless you do, your position is indistinguishable from delusion, and that IS a psychological condition. Stop trying to shift your burden, and either prove it, or shut up. It's you that is baselessly asserting your position. Not the other way around.

P.S.
The Earth is actually round. Or, is this just my opinion that has no evidence? This seems to be the type of rational line you like to take when something you really want to be true is refuted by evidence to the contrary.