Dusk:
Did you mention all the gods you don't believe in. You are a monotheist but there are still other concepts. Religions, world views and philosophies that lead to different answers which you ignore just the same.
All religions have one basis, and the concept of god is the same in all religions as a creator of this universe and a judge on people's morality and behavior. Those gods, however, differ in details. The atheist denies this common basis in all religions, which is the concept of a virtuous creator and regulator that is found in all religions.
You deny all gods but one I simply deny one more.
By denying those gods I don't deny the concept of divinity, I deny how they describe those gods, like being a god of only one people or ethnicity like Yahweh, or a god that discriminates between social classes as in Hinduism, or a god that created the universe and turned its back on it as in the god of the deists and irreligious people…etc. However, I don't deny their faith in that invisible virtuous power which created the universe and life, and disagree with how they describe Him and attribute to Him.
The atheist disagrees with the rest of humanity on this common basis which both reason and feeling lead to. That is why I think that to me the atheist is the furthest away from any religious person, because he differs from all of us in this basis. The atheist is fundamentally different from all the theists.
They don't mention them because Atheism is not a religion and has no creed, no dogma and no universal answers that fit everyone. You have to figure out yourself the right answers that work and if they are important enough than people usually find some.
Then what is atheism? Your definition of atheism is a definition of the non-existent, while you say atheism exists!
Morality is easy in concept as it is just an immanent property of social communities and its interdependent members. It is harder in specifics. Morals a concept of right and wrong is entirely meaningless outside of a social context.
Morality has a meaning, isn't there morality with the environment and with animals? Thus Durkheim's ideas aren't accurate. Morality exists and people know it with gods also, therefore, unlike what you said, morality does exist outside society.
The difference is one can be wrong when one makes a call and many of those that find themselves in fundamentalist religions do so because they want to be right and not having to question or worry if they acted correctly so they seek simple rules and black and white answers.
This is a special case and has nothing to do with the concept of morality.
Absolute morals aren't necessary only convenient or a useful tool to force people to think ahead more than one corner.
Then what is necessary? How can morals be beneficial if they aren't absolute? This way they will turn into utilitarianism and pragmatism, then why are they called morals? Why don't we call them business? And why do they have all that respect in the human self sense they are only material business?
Human self is imo more interesting when one dumps the incoherent dualistic model and actually explores it. Some people are so scared of nihilism that they practically flee into a religion, yet there is so much interesting stuff that they are only to scared to really explore.
Dualism is an inescapable reality. Do you want to live in reality or in imagination? You yourself deal with people with the duality of good and evil, and every day you judge on this basis, like saying that a certain person is kind and that one isn't kind, or saying I love this person and I hate that person, this person is smart and that is stupid, this is generous and that is stingy, and this is a theist and that's an atheist, and so on and so forth of endless dualities.
These are the components of the human self if you want to explore it as it is, a collection of dualities. Actually, they are the components of the mind. The mind can't think except through dualities, it even doesn't distinguish between colors without dualities. Man can't move, walk, come in and get out without the dualities of the sides. You look to the upper side of the entrance, its lowest side, its far right and its far left in order to insert a piano through it. The mind doesn't work without dualities, we knew the light from the dark, the distant from the close, and the hot from the cold..etc. Thus all knowledge is based upon dualities, including the duality of good and evil and virtue and vice. Through dualities we know others and know ourselves.
There is no escaping the reality of the human self to an atheist imagination that has no choice but to oppose nature, and wants us to enjoy nothingness and nihilism that frightens all living beings. Saying that nihilism is interesting is like saying that choking is interesting, unlike the old boring clean air! It's a huge opposition to the living nature presented by the atheistic thought as it always do.
Dualities prove the existence of a creator, and the existence of heaven and hell as a logical end to the inevitable duality of good and evil.
And not some people but all people hate nihilism, because nothingness is the opposite of existence, which is part of the duality of existence and nonexistence, and nobody like nothingness. All living beings strive to exist not to be nihil! How do you want, then, from people to like something that can never be liked? Nay, it's all they fear! How can you be a nihilist and at the same time fear death? Or are you going to say that some people don't fear death? Then you'll be flying far away from exploring the human self, just to defend the idea of atheism that's originally illogical.
Existence and life is what religion is supposed to answer. What are those answers really worth though. Simply pinning some on a deity doesn't make them any more satisfying imo. If you cannot believe in the deity and have faith it is just as worthless as having none.
Is pinning answers on nihil make them anymore satisfying? Isn't it enough evidence for the existence of a god that there is nothing that we can pin answers on except a god? What is the satisfying alternative then? Is it nothingness? Nihil? Or is it coincidences? Are those satisfying and convincing? You are going to say: science, but can science answer those questions? has it ever did? Of course not.
Imagine something that has no answer except one, and then comes who doubts that answer without even having the ability to present an alternative that can be accepted by reason like it accepted a god. Isn't that an evidence that that answer is correct? Have you seen how weak the position of the atheist? Don't you say that atheism is nothing? No creed and no features? Is nothing an alternative for something?
Don't forget that atheism has creeds and not just a creed, because it's a negative and nihilistic religion. It believes in matter alone, doesn't admit the existence of the soul, and believes that existence came from nothing through nothing, and then this existence will turn into nothing, and everything is nothing! This the logic and creeds of atheism, that views morality as the only means to achieve material interest.
The position held by atheism towards reason and science is known. It's the only thought that prefers theories over empirical scientific facts, and the only one that believes in the omnipotence of science, and has no boundaries nor limits in a utopian vision. Atheism alone believes in the changeability of logic, science precedence over reason -and by science they mean the science based on theories not empirical science-. All those are some of the creeds of atheism, not all of them, and still its creeds about morality, society and history aren't mentioned.
Atheism is a collection of faith-based creeds. Atheism alone believes in the non-existence of boundaries between good and evil, and the only one that denies the law of causality, and believes that coincidences are capable of building without destructing. All the creeds of atheism are outside the realm of reason and morality, and still we didn't talk about its position towards humanism.
Not believing in god doesn't keep one from believing in ideals, ideas or humanity. The only difference is Atheists don't personify ideals and call them god. What answer people really need and which ones they are willing to accept is very different from person to person. If one doesn't worry about a certain question (like the afterlife), why should he.
First of all, you "believe" in ideals because they are beautiful, then the existence of a good god is more beautiful than ideals, why don't you believe in Him? Either you believe in all what is beautiful or not believe at all, because all the beautiful things have one pattern.
Moreover, how can the atheist believe in ideals when they don't see a separating line between good and evil? And there are no ideals that mix good with evil.
Let's explore the root of ideals, why are they ideals and why are they beautiful? Who said so about them? It is religion, not interests as atheists think. Interest produced capitalism and usury, why aren't they beautiful the same way loyalty, generosity, patience, and chastity are? Can we put loans and profit margins next to mercy and love?
In other words, you say that humans' goal is their material interests through society. If they are like that then be certain that they will not produce ideals which are given sacredness and respect by all, they will produce utilitarian methods.
Thus, ideals have gained their value from the idea of the existence of a god. If you respect ideals while being an atheist you are now a burden on religion, because those ideals are originally religious. How can you dispose of the idea of God without disposing His ideals?
Historically speaking, there has never been an atheistic society so we can know whether it can create its own ideals by itself or not. Atheism is new and taken from religious environments, that is why atheists are burden on religion concerning ideals. Also, atheism as a materialistic thought that only believes in interest, it is a revolution against ideals. Consequently, true atheists don't believe in any ideals except their material interest, and don't believe in a difference between good and evil that can hinder reaching those interests. Therefore, a true atheist is without ideals, otherwise their atheism will be incomplete, and will be needing courses with Nietzsche to learn the meaning of materialism and interests and that they are the opposite of ideals. Ideals require good alone, whereas atheists don't believe in a difference between good and evil because they view personal interests as the starting point, and interests need evil sometimes, and hypocrisy needs good sometimes, that is why they don't believe in the difference between good and evil. This idea proves that this atheistic thought is hypocritical and worships its self and its lusts.
God is important to you because so much, your whole world view depends on it.
Is He important because my world view depends on Him, or my world view depends on Him because He's important?
You won't find any atheist that gives you a list of all the alternative answers because atheism is just the opposite of theism and in all of theism the answers are endless (towards stuff like why are we here, where do we go, ...).
Atheism provides answers, and all of them are illogical and unconvincing. Doesn't atheism explain our existence with evolution? and the existence of the universe with the Big Bang from the cosmic egg that came from nothing? And that chaos created order, purpose and system? Aren't those universal explanations? Add to them that everything will go to nothing (nihil), no difference between good and evil, no retribution on them, no God, no afterlife – as if they searched the whole universe!-. Atheism even explains history the way it likes, like when it explains the emergence of religions and humans. It also knows the psychological motives behind religion which is fear of recurrent natural phenomena like eclipses and earthquakes..etc. What is left to answer?? Everything is explained by atheism! That's why it's a religion, because it fills our heads with illogical explanations and they attribute them to science, while they aren't empirical, and the "science" of atheism is unempirical. It even chooses from the unempirical science explanatory theories like Darwinism, multiverse, and the huge M-Theory and empty from the inside which they call a theory of everything, and through which atheists wanted to explain everything, so how can you say that atheism didn't explain anything?
M-Theory is a list of alternative answers that leave nothing without explaining in a materialistic way, even the sleeper's dreams. That's why atheism is an alternative religion, no matter how much you try to escape this fact.
Do you know Satan that is mentioned in religions and his ideas? These ideas are the features of the atheistic religion, i.e. the opposite of religion as you said. Atheism is the opposite of religion, and if religion is from God, then its opposite will be from the Devil. Thus, atheism depends on the ideas of the Devil, even if it doesn't believe in the Devil nor God. What believers call the ideas of Satan are what atheism depend on, because they are the opposite of religion, and you said that atheism is the opposite of religion.
Keep in mind that even monotheism is a fairly new concept compared to how long people made up religions. The aborigines did fine without.
The idea of evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism is only an atheistic assumption, because it's illogical. Everything that is worshiped is/are symbols of that one invisible power controlling the universe. Look at polytheistic religions and you'll find that they have a greatest god that created the rest, like Zeus in Greece and Brahma in Hinduism which is followed by Shiva and Krishna. Thus, the atheistic theory of evolution and applying it on religions is false. Even if man worshiped a rock they view it as a symbol to communicate with that Greater Power creator of the universe. Idolaters know that their idols and totems aren't what created them and the universe, but are only a connection to Him, because they are symbols for spirits and holy people loved by that invisible power. That's why they see no problem in having many of them, for all roads lead to Rome. From this came the diverse multiple gods.
Your atheistic theorization of evolution of religion is inaccurate, and you won't be able to provide a philosophical or psychological cover for evolution of religion from polytheism to monotheism. All you have is saying that monotheistic religions came after polytheistic ones, that's all the evidence you have. You know that that the last religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam and they have divine books, and you think that older religions have no relationship with the One God, and that is a fatal analytical mistake. Any person, no matter where they live or in what period of time, cannot worship anything that they don't believe it to be the creator and regulator of the universe, and logically speaking that can only be one. Therefore, monotheism is the basis of all religions, and it is not an evolution from them.
Actually, what took place is exactly the opposite of what atheists think, the beginning is monotheism then associating other gods with God and not polytheism. That is what the great Quran that always speaks the truth clarifies, it didn't talk about polytheism but talked about having associates with that one great God creator of the universe.
You can understand the whole issue with logic alone, don't take my word for it. As for your idea of evolving from many gods to one, it can't be understood in terms of logic. Because logic doesn't accept the idea of worshipping multiple gods, except when they are specialized like a god of rain or a god of war or a god of love…etc, and they all follow one great God, whom the whole acts of worship is basically for, and the rest of gods are only associates and means to Him. Logically speaking, all branches trace us back to one basic trunk. This is the story of the polytheistic religions, they point to monotheism when you deeply think about them.
Prophets were fighting the idea of the other associates with God and not polytheism, in order to make all worship go towards God only, because He is the all-knowing so there is no need for mediators which are taken as symbols of fanaticism through which people are exploited to pay charities. And because He is the creator of all people He is the closest to them, the one who can listen to them and know what they are feeling. Hence, how can a dead rock be respected to the degree of worship more than the Creator? This is not fair, and prophets wanted to keep people away from this associations with God.
As for the atheistic idea about the origin of religion, it is false in all respects. Even when they discuss it, because atheists view religion as manmade and hence search for how they people created it. While atheism is what is manmade in the 18th century and should be investigated how it came about, why, and for the interest of whom? Atheists think that people were scared of natural phenomena and from everything that their mind couldn't explain, so they attributed them to God! That is an analytical error; because existence in and by itself required from people to know that there is a god even when there was no danger, not only things they fear or ignorant of. Why? Because their idea of God is of a good god, even though things happened to them which they consider evil, so how can they attribute them to God whom they view as good?
When a car is suddenly turned on and start moving by itself people will not scream and say that a god is running it, they will say: a magician or jinn who did so, that is when they are incapable of giving a logical explanation. If we assume that a goat started speaking, will people say that god is speaking inside that goat? Or will they attribute it to magic and evil spirits and the like? i.e. they will attribute those scary phenomena to an evil power not a good one. Also, through God they explained the whole universe not only the speaking goat, i.e. God is the cause of the whole existence not only a cause of an evil phenomenon. Here the atheistic idea of god of the gaps falls apart, because magic and demons are what's going to fill the gap in people's imagination and not God. The bad phenomenon is logically followed by evil powers, and this is evidenced by fact that they turn to God to make them make them survive those phenomena, i.e. to stop the evil spirits, because he's the creator of all existence including evil powers.
Durkheim imagined that primitive tribes were worshipping evil powers because they were fearing their evil. but that's not a religion, because religion is built on love not fear, and love needs a symbol for good. The imagination that assumed the existence of those evil powers it assumed the existence of even more powerful good powers a fortiori. This is evidenced by the fact that religious rituals in all religions are practiced in atmospheres of love and not atmospheres of horror. This proves that the basis of religion is love not fear. If religion was built on fear of natural phenomena then fear would have the wider space of worship and rituals, and realistically speaking that's not the case. Therefore, the atheistic explanation for the phenomenon of religion is a weak one and don't stand for discussion, and no believer admits it even though they are the stakeholders. Thus, the atheists are inventing imaginations of the motives for religion without asking religious people whom they are talking about, which is an atheistic habit of putting forth assumptions and science fictions that they insists on calling them "science". They are like who make up a lie to believe and calm their conscience with, because now they KNOW the reason behind religion. They assume that they have found out the reason behind the existence of religion, it's natural phenomena!! Which modern science had solved many of them, therefore no need for religion!! In a very simple-minded way!
As an apatheist I would argue it is both an unsolvable and unimportant issue.
You don't' seem to be apathetic and careless, actually you do care about the non-existence of God, as evidenced by all this long reply of yours.
And if an issue this huge doesn't concern you, how can you consider yourself a thinker or a philosopher? It's like you are saying: I don't care about the realm of thought! For the implications of belief in God and atheism are in all aspects of life. Thus, belief or disbelief in God is the most important intellectual and philosophical issue, and you detach yourself from this most important issue to man. If we leave the most important issue of any field, then we aren't considered participants in that field-which is the field of thinking. This atheistic doctrine which is called "apatheism" should be the called doctrine of rejecting thinking and philosophy. i.e. a simple-minded doctrine. In other words, the followers of this sect of atheism should be called the simple-minded practical atheists. Or we can call it the escaping doctrine, escaping from the big questions that occupied humanity's mind for ever, and escape is a sign of weakness not power.
That's not to mention the impossibility of believing that such a big issue never occurred to you and concerned you; because you don't have an alternative. Anything that doesn't matter to us we have an alternative for it, else it will stay important no matter how many times we claim otherwise, and you have no alternative. Therefore, your claim about the insignificance of the existence or non-existence of God is false.
And if such an issue doesn't concern you, then what does concern you? Arrange the priorities for us so we can see.
Until that god properly reveals himself, I don't see any point in assuming any which one is worth praying too.
The issue isn't which god to pray for. The issue is admitting the existence of a God inclusive of the whole universe. It's an issue called for by logic and reason. It's not a matter of choosing the favorite color of your scarf or tie to say that: I don't care about all ties. Presenting things in a shallow way doesn't make them shallow. You are like who says: neither life nor death concern me! You'll be asked: then what concerns you? Let alone that you'll not be believed that you don't care. The apathiest is simply a shy atheist.
Now you have neglected reason and kept eye-sight in the matter of God's existence, but reason also exists not only eyes, and you use reason in your daily life not only your eyes. Then this method for seeking an answer to the question is false. Reason necessarily leads to God's existence, and you want to escape reason to eye-sight. Reason leads to the truth the same way sight does, and in our daily lives we use both. The atheist agrees with us on depending on both reason and sight, except in one issue that they hate which is the existence of God, and refer it to sight only, prohibiting the mind from thinking about it. We , however, aren't students of them and they aren't our masters, their mastery is over those who obey them. We only obey reason when presented to us. The atheist wants to stop reason whenever they want and use it whenever they want, this is their business. We want reason to shed its light on all issues that are in the field of reason, and the existence of God is the most important one of them, for every created there is a creator, and that's one of the simplest axioms of reason. The atheist wants to take us away from the axioms of reason to the void of nothingness, without presenting a convincing alternative, and yet insists that he's a mentor!
Who has knowledge doesn't refer you to an unknown, but to a known. Who refers you to an unknown does he deserve to be called your mentor?
I also don't need to make anything up or convince myself into any incoherent narrow world view for for my own spiritual health.
This statement is a declaration of bankruptcy and incapability of finding an alternative. If you had one you would have presented it.
One of the psychological tricks is neglecting the important thing by who can't understand it and describing it as insignificant. All humanity, however, see that it's important except you! What is important to you if the biggest issue that ever concerned humanity isn't? even though you couldn't provide an alternative. It's easy to provide alternatives for the insignificant thing, while you admit the impossibility of the existence of an alternative, so is the matter still insignificant?
How can you describe a thing you can't find an alternative for as insignificant? You can't find an alternative for water, and someone might say: I don't care about water, even though it has no alternative! Hence, the purpose of your existence, where you came from, good, evil and truth all do not concern you. Imagine something being described this way, could it be called significant? Excuse me, but you degraded yourself and made it insignificant, even though you don't feel insignificant. Imagine something that has no value nor role in anything, that's where the atheists put themselves. Is that honorable as atheists usually aspire to be gods? Or is it degradation? And atheists love themselves and describe them as gods! And yet they made themselves of no value, purpose, and creator, as if they are particles of dust that came from nowhere and going nowhere. This is how the atheist sees his life and existence, and that is why the dark nihilistic thoughts are taking over their minds, which open the door to the thoughts of suicide under the influence of the idea of nothingness.
Apatheism is a legitimate child of nihilism that cares about nothing, or let's say it claims so, because a human can't live caring about nothing, and our thinking is mostly involuntary. Our thinking isn't always voluntary as urinating. Thus, the apatheist do care, but they resist their concern in front of others to prove to them that they don't care. Excuse me, but we don't believe this huge amount of carelessness because you are a human being like us. Here you are writing in my thread about belief in God, so are you careless? Where is the evidence for your carelessness? Carelessness requires that you don't read nor write about a field that talks about religion and the existence or non-existence of God. So are you careless about your writings here also? and writing without much concentration? People aren't preoccupied with things they don't care about.
Materialism isn't quite as limited as you might think. The only thing not allowed is handing unfounded reality claims for certain planes out like free beer or equalizing some planes of discussion into the same corset. Technically one can even be an atheist without being a materialist by going into solipsism or simply handing out arbitrary realness levels for spiritual stuff without accepting anything that is regraded as a god in monotheistic religions.
On what did they base those spiritual explanations? You denied the existence of God after a materialist thinking, so how can you believe in spiritual stuff that you didn't see? Those spiritual stuff you'll believe in their existence and abilities, are they gods? Are they created? Who created them? Or they are creators and so are alternatives for God? Reason requires a lot of work from us and not just carelessly throw words and walk away.
You want us to just stop where your answers are, but reason wants us to complete and go further in order to understand. Have you seen that reason is on the side of belief in God and not with you while you are being an atheist? This is evidence by your need to stop it every time.
You have contradicted your method by yourself! Reason doesn't allow such penetrations. Every method requires generalization in order to apply it. You said you won't believe in God until He reveals himself to you, while believing in spiritual powers which you didn't see with your eyes! Now you are unmethodical. You just hate the God that in religions, and ready to believe in anything else but Him even though you don't see them! Isn't that a partiality and unfairness? That's why I tell you that the atheist is a materialist and should keep being so, and the method through which you denied and negated you should also prove through it. How can you begin with being a materialist and end up spiritual? This is manipulation of methods.
Therefore, you're unscientific in your study. You hate something called God, and you'll reap the fruits of this hatred if He exists; because you are prejudiced against Him, and believed in things that you didn't see but not Him even though reason leads to Him more than those spiritual things which logically need His existence. And since man can't harm the Great Creator, then you have harmed and have been unjust with yourself and made yourself liable to His punishment, because you've been prejudiced against Him even though He calls for good. Hence, you should continue being a materialistic and don't jump from one method to another. A materialist should keep being a materialist, at least to make him/her have mental features and not be outside the realm of reason, and s/he shouldn't debate with reason after s/he have broken it.
How can you be indifferent to whether God exist or not while you have all this prejudice against Him? And willing to believe any spiritual myth but not believe in God, even though reason supports this belief? The fact is that you do care about His non-existence, and this is evidenced by your own words not mine. So, how do you claim something and apply another?
Dualism is a child born out of necessity but just like free will problematic. In poor philosophy nihilism is actually one of the most logical concepts there is. People just don't like its conclusions.
How? Explain all phenomena through nihilism so we can understand. Duality exists in reality, and free will exists in reality. Denying reality needs another reality, and that's impossible. Reality can't be negated with imaginations and assumptions. Reality isn't always a friend to the atheist.
Morals can also be understood by looking at how worldly laws which span over many different people and populations came about and changed over time. Absolute morals are the thing that religious people don't want to live without but that doesn't make the concept illogical, just the receivers unwilling to accept the conclusions and/or unwilling to look at the reality of things.
It's good that you come back to reality after soaring high with sci-fi, but reality doesn't support your claim. You've picked one angle to view morality with which is worldly laws, and laws are governed by interests more than morality. Notice that morality can't be turned into laws like the laws of space, why? Since the basis of morality is material interest as your materialistic view says? You can't provide a convincing reply and you'll just repeat what you've already said.
Look at morality as a whole in reality, don't single out one angle, and tell me why doesn't everybody apply morality? And yet it's still exiting? Even though they are unwritten laws and the state isn't obliged to act upon it. And tell me why do some people, and not all of them, sacrifice so much even their lives for a principle? Is that a worldly law? Is material interest what made them do that? Where is their interest when they are losing their life? Do you think that you'll be believed? This is reality speaking.
Thus, the atheist explanation of morality is inaccurate as its habit of inaccurate explanations, like when it explained the existence of religion with fear of natural phenomena. And now explaining morality with interest-based motives like eating, drinking and security etc. Atheism is having a difficult time explaining man and their behavior, while doesn't face the same difficulty in explaining matter and its behavior, because its view is materialistic.
Just imagine what would be moral if you were a white shark. A loner in the sea with no friends, family or anything.
Dealing with yourself requires morality, dealing with the environment requires morality, dealing with animals requires morality, and dealing with God if you're a believer requires morality. All that while you're a loner white shark.
Have you seen that atheism is not accurate when explaining man's behavior and motives? It believes in evolution while its ideas are the same since 150 years! With no evolution, they're just repeated in different forms but the meaning is one.
The full materiality of man is actually something with a lot of scientific evidence as far as we can go today. Emotions aren't decoupled and neither is the soul and we can influence both via the use of drugs. Materialism doesn't say that emotions don't exist just that they are abstractions that are entirely dependent of physical processes and would not be without them and vice versa. Dualism is actually the one that has very little support among the scientists and philosophers that tacle the theory and specifics of mind.
This evidence can be turned against you. The body has no existence without the feelings and soul, the body without consciousness is a dead body or in its way to death. Therefore, this isn't an evidence for the full materiality of man. Just like feelings have no existence without the body, so is the body has no existence without the feeling and the soul.
Also, feelings and thoughts are different than the matter of the body. They have no material substance and can't be seen under the microscope. They are what control our bodies, and they are more important to us than our bodies, so how can we be only mater while non-matter is more important to us than matter? We even sacrifice our material bodies for immaterial things which you admit their existence- which are feelings and ideas. The brain turns into dust after death, so where are ideas and feeling in the pile of dust if they have material existence?
Have you seen that you have no evidence for the full materiality of man while you have the desire for it? Even this desire to prove the full materiality of man isn't a material thing that can be examined under the microscope! Then we are metaphysical beings. The materialistic philosophy on which you depend is in its aging days, because its views are very deficient and humanity will surpass it. Because it can't provide convincing explanations. it only believes in the senses which have no value without reason, and reason is immaterial. Therefore, the materialistic philosophy is essentially a metaphysical philosophy.
Hence, man is a collection of matter and non-matter, i.e. a body and a soul, and not only a body as the materialistic eye sees, and not only a soul.
What you said about drugs is inaccurate also as the atheistic habit of explaining the human being. Drugs can't make us hate whom we love, nor love whom we hate. They only affect the material brain and make it a good connector or a bad one. They don't alter the nature of our feelings and ideas as much as they cause disorder and confusion, or activity and clarity. If drugs were able to alter the nature of our feelings or ideas then the issue is resolved and we won't be needing courts and jails, all we have to do is give the criminal drugs and he becomes Santa Claus!
The same way mater affect our feelings, so are feelings affect our matter. Our concerns and worries make have dangerous diseases, like Irritable bowel syndrome, ulcers, high blood pressure and diabetes etc. our psychological and intellectual stability make us enjoy a good health, and statistics have proved believers to have better health condition that atheists, so is the psychological state and suicide rates. Doctors admit the effect of the self on the body, and they refer all internal diseases to reasons which psychological stress is the most important.
So, how can we get out of this dilemma -the dilemma of body and soul-? We have no choice but to admit the existence of both and their effect on each other, and leave aside the idea of the full materiality of man. This is what reason can accept. Desire, however, can neglect reason along with other things.
The fact that each of them –feelings and soul- affect each other is an evidence that they are distinct and not one thing as you want them to be, because the body has many material parts which we don't feel their effect on each other, because they are one thing: matter. While in feelings and body we feel this effect and interaction between them. Things of the same kind are in homogeneity among themselves, while the different thing becomes distinct, just like oil and water.
Use the Force!
