Sounds like you are applying your desire to the equation.

Anyway, I do agree with you that religious concepts should not be place-holders for scientific conclusions. But science will be guided by some philosophy. And all philosophy has something to say about God, so a dynamic mixture is inevitable. Messy, true. But unavoidable.

From a strictly scientific, everything that exists is material. Period.

There's no way to argue this without this devolving into a physics discussion, but the overarching point is that everything has mass. Even if it's very small, we can't see it, and the only non-theoretical proof is the numbers that say it must exist (like Dark Matter or Dark Energy), it's still material in the most strict of scientific definitions.

God is not. And, by association, religion is not.

This has nothing to do with our human senses tricking us, and I'm not saying it's 100% true. Just that there's a 99.9% probability that God doesn't exist.

Anyway, you're making a mountain out of a molehill here, since the point was that if someone is religious, that perspective needs to be kept as separate as possible from unrelated discussions/thoughts/life/etc.

–Kyle

“Everything that does exist is material. Any other position is inarguable and indefensible.”

How can you be so damned sure? That's all I'm asking. Science has shown us that any of our senses could be wrong at any time. It's possible if we had a different set of senses or even one additional sense we would perceive a completely different dimension or facet of reality.

“this may be futile”

Perhaps. I suppose it depends on your goals. If your goal is to make sure everyone agrees with your view that exists is material, then yeah, this conversation is probably futile. Me, I just like chatting about this stuff and pondering things. I don't have a theological axe to grind and I'm not trying to convince you of any particular view. My overarching doctrine is that no one KNOWS anything with 100% certainty, so I'm questioning your apparently unassailable claim of materialism. I'm curious how you justify it beyond simple repetition.

b) No, because it colors people's perceptions and beliefs. And the outcomes, from a longview social perspective, are never beneficial.

c) Yeah, well let me know when you figure out how to connect two people's minds directly together without speech or bias.

d) Everything that does exist is material. Any other position is inarguable and indefensible. So all this talk about “True” and not being “logically tenable” has nothing to do with my personal opinions on the side effects of religion, but more to do with reality.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this may be futile, since you're giving off a “I'm religious and it deeply effects every part of my life” vibe.

–Kyle

This is my perception of a circular argument: A. All that exists is material. B. The best way to view all that is is as a materialist. Why? See A.

“Religion has its place, but should not be the foundational perspective from which the world is viewed, judged, or otherwise assessed.”

Why not? Because you don't like the outcome? I agree that death panels and Jihads are bad things, but our opinion on them doesn't affect whatever the Truth is, now does it?

“anything related to theism is never going to “transcend both parties”, most especially when those parties don't agree on what the “correct” form of religion is, as is so often the case.”

Only a mind can transcend both parties. Our lack of consensus on the matter won't change what is or is not True.

You are still working from an assumption that all that exists is material. A position that may or may not be True. I don't see how you find that position logically tenable besides the fact that you don't like a lot of the crumby stuff that people do in the name of religion.

Creationism, “death panels”, Islamic Jihads, the Crusades, etc. are all proof of this.

Religion has its place, but should not be the foundational perspective from which the world is viewed, judged, or otherwise assessed. Whether it's materialism, scientific, or another rational view that takes its place is up for debate, but outside the world of theism they are all rather similar in perspective.

Finally, anything related to theism is never going to “transcend both parties”, most especially when those parties don't agree on what the “correct” form of religion is, as is so often the case.

–Kyle

I think your problem with my argument is a fair one – it is virtually impossible to be entirely objective.

But I use the word “objective” to mean an approximation of objectivity, to come as close to being objective as possible and to not inflict unrelated beliefs, feelings, thoughts, etc. on topics.

–Kyle

Who can objectively analyze anything? I'm assuming that by “objective” you mean a view founded on materialism. While the existence of a God/gods may or may not be true since neither can be proven, it seems absurd and arrogant to simply choose one philosophy as the objective one.