Best way to debate the materialist paradigm

[StarStruck]

How would you go about it? 

[itsadistraction]

I wouldn't, just like a wouldn't debate a flat earther. But Bernardo Kastrup on the TOE  podcast did one of the most compelling arguments against materialism that I've heard. 

https://youtu.be/lAB21FAXCDE?si=k_PWn5s3XErKToav

[itsadistraction]

@StarStruck

Kastrup basically says that right now materialist honestly believe that the skull is physically situated behind everything that is experienced. They believe that there is a light show that represents the outer world created inside the mind through photons entering the eyes.

I've brought this to the attention of materialist but they don't see what I mean. It's almost useless debating the average close minded person on their core beliefs. 

[StarStruck]

@itsadistraction So the solution is to never try? That sounds very arrogant

[Razard86]

1 minute ago, StarStruck said:

@itsadistraction So the solution is to never try? That sounds very arrogant

Why don't you do it. Also you don't know what arrogance is if you think choosing to not debate someone is arrogance what is arrogant is thinking defeating someone in a debate will change their mind. I have spent years debating and my friend gave me an old adage that holds true...

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." If all it took was a debate to change people's minds....suffering wouldn't be a thing. Majority of humans need to suffer to learn something, logic is not something people actually care about and if you studied humanity long enough, or even yourself for that matter you would know this.

Humans are irrational, illogical creatures who weaponize logic through the filter of their bias to justify their lack of logic using logic to make it appear to be logical. Why? Because emotions, and physical sensations pull humans all over the place. Things like hunger, headaches, backaches, fatigue, hot, cold, painful memories, fear/judgment of appearances matter more to MOST people than your fancy sounding debate. Wanna know how much people care about logic? See which sells more or gets more views...comedy, drama t.v. shows, violent video games, or logical debates? LOL

[martins name]

Consciousness is like a computer screen and this universe is like a first-person 3d game. When you were first born all there were were appearances on that screen. At some point, you were told that this is because of a material world outside of the screen. You've never experienced this material world, will never be able to, and will never be able to prove its existence, but you've taken its existence on faith.

My worldview doesn't require faith. When I see a tree in a game on a computer screen I don't think there is some world behind the computer screen. I do have a model of a 3D world that lets me predict the appearance of the screen. I know this is just a model. 
There is the screen. Then there are appearances on the screen. Then I have a model of how these appearances work. That's all. It has the same predictive power as the materialist paradigm, but my worldview doesn't require faith.

[StarStruck]

31 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Why don't you do it. Also you don't know what arrogance is if you think choosing to not debate someone is arrogance what is arrogant is thinking defeating someone in a debate will change their mind. I have spent years debating and my friend gave me an old adage that holds true...

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." If all it took was a debate to change people's minds....suffering wouldn't be a thing. Majority of humans need to suffer to learn something, logic is not something people actually care about and if you studied humanity long enough, or even yourself for that matter you would know this.

Humans are irrational, illogical creatures who weaponize logic through the filter of their bias to justify their lack of logic using logic to make it appear to be logical. Why? Because emotions, and physical sensations pull humans all over the place. Things like hunger, headaches, backaches, fatigue, hot, cold, painful memories, fear/judgment of appearances matter more to MOST people than your fancy sounding debate. Wanna know how much people care about logic? See which sells more or gets more views...comedy, drama t.v. shows, violent video games, or logical debates? LOL

Sometimes it is not about debating to win the argument. You never have discussions with other people? And you never tell your own opinion? The moment you tell your own opinion there is room for debate but I don't prefer debating. This thread is more about what would your strategy be to explain your position.

[Princess Arabia]

14 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

Sometimes it is not about debating to win the argument. You never have discussions with other people? And you never tell your own opinion? The moment you tell your own opinion there is room for debate but I don't prefer debating. This thread is more about what would your strategy be to explain your position.

Not picking on you but you do have the word "DEBATE" in your heading. Just so you realize that.

[Princess Arabia]

24 minutes ago, martins name said:

Consciousness is like a computer screen and this universe is like a first-person 3d game. When you were first born all there were were appearances on that screen. At some point, you were told that this is because of a material world outside of the screen. You've never experienced this material world, will never be able to, and will never be able to prove its existence, but you've taken its existence on faith.

My worldview doesn't require faith. When I see a tree in a game on a computer screen I don't think there is some world behind the computer screen. I do have a model of a 3D world that lets me predict the appearance of the screen. I know this is just a model. 
There is the screen. Then there are appearances on the screen. Then I have a model of how these appearances work. That's all. It has the same predictive power as the materialist paradigm, but my worldview doesn't require faith.

This

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

6 hours ago, StarStruck said:

How would you go about it? 

   Are you referring to this blog post?

https://www.actualized.org/insights/roger-penrose-vs-william-lane-craig

[itsadistraction]

5 hours ago, StarStruck said:

@itsadistraction So the solution is to never try? That sounds very arrogant

 @StarStruckmaybe you are right. Who am I to say what kind of conversations or debates you engage in. You didn't ask us if you SHOULD debate this topic you were just looking for points. I was just looking out for you as a friend to not engage in something that probably won't bring you joy or satisfaction or results.  But you can also debate this topic with yourself and maybe that was your intention in the first place. That's a debate you might win!

However, we did give you some good debate points and hope they help and thanks for the question. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by itsadistraction

[Danioover9000]

@StarStruck

10 hours ago, StarStruck said:

How would you go about it? 

   Depends on if I go first or the materialist goes first I guess.

   If I go, I'd set the framing, and define what is materialism first, what a paradigm is first, and what GOD and consciousness is first. For example:

GOD = EXISTENCE.

GOD = EVERYTHING.

GOD = INFINITY.

GOD = TOTALITY and ONENESS,  and that one perspective, in this case the scientist/rationalist/atheist and even the theist/priest, these human beings cannot have one without the other, that GOD and existence/everything/infinity are interconnected, interwoven and intricately linked together.

GOD/DEVIL are the same.

Atheism is the devil.(Guaranteed to piss off Atheists?). 

 

   If the materialist goes first to set frame, I have two major choices: I can go the Jesse Lee Peterson route and just ask simple clarifying questions, with questions point out logical fallacies. Or, offer my definitions to re-define the framing of those words, and some appeals to some pathos/ethos/logos, and play the fallacy game more than them, more aggressive approach IMO.

[Carl-Richard]

You can't debate most people on it. They won't even know what you're talking about.

[Leo Gura]

30mg of 5-MeO-DMT

Edited September 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[UnbornTao]

A debate may be engaged as a way to validate one's preconceptions, to gain social recognition, make the other wrong, get entertained, etc. It is not about serious questioning. Wanting to debate might be motivated by a very real and personal background sense that the truth of the matter is actually unknown, hence wanting to defend what each party assumes is true. Best to remain open.

A good starting point would be to be honest and to call things by their name, call a worldview a worldview, a set of assumptions. Admit that it is something you believe in and not an experience of the truth; that remains presently unknown to you. This applies to any other philosophical perspective as well. 

What about turning the debate into a shared contemplation? That'd be fruitful.

Edited September 22, 2023 by UnbornTao

[UnbornTao]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

30mg of 5-MeO-DMT

That'd be a hell of a debate!

 

[actuallyenlightened]

Why would I do that ? my time is valuable 

[Yimpa]

Definitely not by sharing this video in a debate

 

[ivankiss]

lol just tell them matter has never been and never will be found because it does not exist. 

The entire materialistic paradigm (which they do not know they're trapped in, of course) is based on something that does not exist.

Science has never found matter and science has no idea what consciousness is. Scientist do not have answers to the most fundamental questions of reality, so they all just kind of collectively agree to ignore those issues and continue doing their delusional experiments.

"Mater" is just a belief. You can prove this for yourself, on your own, if you introspect deep enough and if you are conscious enough.

[Yimpa]

@ivankiss Tell them that their pet theory doesn’t matter and never will matter. Let’s see how they respond