re: The only true conflict is Christianity vs Communism.

quote:

---

The best evidence of this is the following: When Russia was communist, the Democratic Party was a tireless apologist for Russia. Today, Russia is largely a Christian nation (in spite of the fact that one of the most powerful totalitarian governments the world has ever seen made it official government policy for half a century to eradicate Religion), Russia is the font of all evil.

---

quote:

---

It’s Christianity v. Sin IMO.

---

quote:

---

Money is the root of all Good.

---

quote:

---

Christianity (natural law) versus Communism (materialism).

---

quote:

---

Since you'd rather downvote than support your fallacies :

---

quote:

---

Being taught something at a young age, on the one hand, and that "something" being true, in the other hand, are not mutually exclusive conditions. Make a better argument.

---

quote:

---

You define "spirituality" as "awareness of our own mortality," without addressing the OP's actual position. Merely redefining a term is not an argument. Try again.

---

quote:

---

The absence of first-hand knowledge about the details of the origins and eschatology of the material universe, and fear and anxiety regarding that lack of knowledge, is not an argument against a reality beyond the material universe we can theoretically observe.

---

quote:

---

You just restated your fallacies in different mouth words.

---

quote:

---

Plantinga finds materialism to be internally incoherent.[5] In his view, matter could not (even in theory) have all of the properties that materialists rely on it to have. For instance, hu­mans obviously have the capacity to believe things and to sense things. What would it mean for some piece of matter to have a belief? Or what would it mean for a collection of particles to feel or sense something?

Materialists operate with these concepts—they have beliefs (e.g. about materialism) and they have feelings and sensations (e.g. looking at bits of matter in a microscope and recording the data). They rely on beliefs and sensations to do their work and arrive at their conclusions. But once they arrive at these conclusions—namely, the con­clusion that all that exists is inert, conscious-less matter—they throw these concepts out. In other words, Plantinga accuses materialists of relying on non-material concepts to get to their conclusions, to then discredit the path they used to get there. For Plantinga, this is incoherent.

Plantinga also addresses a further problem with materialism. What does the word “matter” even mean? How would a materialist answer this question? Any definition of “matter” would pre­suppose that matter is not the final explanation, or, in other words, that everything cannot be re­duced to descriptions of matter because matter it­self can be further reduced. The only way out of this infinite regression is to suppose that matter is basic, that it requires no explanation. But this primus nature of matter then seems pretty myste­rious, perhaps even religious.

In the end, Plantinga thinks that the ma­terialist, just like the religious believer, begins with certain starting points that serve as axioms – whether the existence of irreducible matter or the existence of an unmoved mover, of God. When these alternate groundings are acknowledged, true discussion can begin, with both religious and non-religious perspectives addressing the core of disagreement rather than the periphery.

---

quote:

---

The basic idea of my argument could be put (a bit crudely) as follows. First, the probability of our cognitive faculties being reliable, given naturalism and evolution, is low. (To put it a bit inaccurately but suggestively, if naturalism and evolution were both true, our cognitive faculties would very likely not be reliable.) But then according to the second premise of my argument, if I believe both naturalism and evolution, I have a defeater for my intuitive assumption that my cognitive faculties are reliable. If I have a defeater for that belief, however, then I have a defeater for any belief I take to be produced by my cognitive faculties. That means that I have a defeater for my belief that naturalism and evolution are true. So my belief that naturalism and evolution are true gives me a defeater for that very belief; that belief shoots itself in the foot and is self-referentially incoherent; therefore I cannot rationally accept it. And if one can’t accept both naturalism and evolution, that pillar of current science, then there is serious conflict between naturalism and science.” – Alvin Plantinga

---

quote:

---

efrad

---

quote:

---

Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. 

---