Choosing a World View Right for you

I disagree with his conjecture. The following demonstrates how and why, specifically, I disagree.

The main theistic package:
* An objective moral order - years of bureacracy and order has evolved us from primitive chaos
* Free will - Every single creature has free will, this is very much grey area, as it doesn't necessarily mean anything about
* A soul - Souls are not of existence, as of now. If we cannot prove it exists, it does not exist, until proven otherwise. As of everything in the realm of existence.
* Life after death - Again, no proof of that, and quite easy to disprove as it is very oxymoronic.
* God - No evidence for such a thing, as all events are traced back to causes
* Meaning - there is meaning in things that we give meaning, not from a theological and anthromorpic entity
* Bliss - there is bliss in what we make of things
________________________________________________________________________________

The main naturalistic package
* Quick description: None of the above - shows his bias, and dry humour
* No objective moral order - yes there is, just engineered by nature
* No free will - there is obviously free will, just not from a supernatural entity
* No soul - This is a completely true statement
* No meaning - as said before, it has meaning in what we make of it
* No hope - showing his presupposition again, depends on how you define hope, and for what
_________________________________________________________________________________

The 'package' that is the correct and logically truthful
* Everything is engineered by the laws of physics and nature
* The supernatural may or may not be there, but it is irrelevant until we find cogent proof for it
* Meaning is what we make of it
*Truth is found via pragmatic means
* Ethics is a weight on our journey to advancement. We are weakened by illogical thoughts. We should take the utilitarian view, no mercy to individuals, this isn't about your feelings, or the majority's world views, but the advancement of mankind.
* Pascal's wager shows how dumb faith sounds.
* My last and strongest argument. The Epicurean Paradox. All the 'evil' events that has happened in this world show how a God is logically impossible. If there is a God, is he not willing and not able to help us? Then he is, by definition, not God. Is he able but unwilling? Then he is not benevolent, and therefore making any God of any religion except Greek mythology nonexistent. Is he willing but unable? Then he is not all-powerful or having any power of any kind. This simple paradox disproves how any God could exist.

Obviously, I am a materialist, a type of monist. I do ask a question that science cannot answer, the metaphysical start of the universe. But a single unanswered question compared to the thousands of illogically answered questions theists serve makes atheism a lot more logical. We can see that many men who are uneducated are those who are theists, and those who are highly educated are atheists. Over "93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the concept of God." - "The Nation" June 2007. That should show enough of how a wiser, more educated man who can understand the physical world better than any uneducated man has truth. In short, statistically, an atheist is right, simply looking at those numbers, but in addition, even the logical arguments for atheism is sound.

Materialism Ramachandran Brain Chemistry

Materialism is a subcategory of Monism that says that everything is physical, there is nothing that is spiritual or of the non-physical world. There are many arguments supporting this claim, and one big one is the Brain Chemistry argument. This argument says that even though we think things like love, hatred, anger, and any emotions or something that would seem supernatural is actually just our powerful brains at work. Everything is composed of the elements, and they form in some specific way to appear to us in this way.
Ramachandran's three examples of brain disorders appear to have took this argument to a new level. These three brain disorders that he talks about are Capgras Syndrome, Phantom Limb Pain, and Synesthesia. Capgras Syndrome is where one thinks that a friend or family-member has been replaced by an imposter that looks exactly like your friend or family-member. Phantom Limb Pain is when sensation is still felt in a missing body part, even after it has been treated completely, and usually these sensations are painful. Synesthesia is when stimuli in one sensory goes automatically to a different part of the brain, thereby causing other involuntary sensations.
So these three disorders help further the argument of Brain Chemistry. Because Synesthesia could be leading pain to the limbic system which gives you dopamine, which is the same rush as love. So Pain lets you feel loved. That doesn't sound very spiritual, and quite contradictory to what most Idealists would say about love. Phantom Limb Pain might actually slow this argument down, because it then supports the fact that pain is in the mind, but still, it could be badly used as that pain is simply brain chemistry interacting with your nervous system. Capgras Syndrome also reveals that ones you love definitely do not have some spiritual interaction with you, because something so small and physical cuts off your love with them, by making you think they are someone else.
So these three support the Brain Chemistry argument for Materialism, because they show that such feelings are easily distorted by the chemistry and brain, simply because the brain is an assortment of biological chemicals and other chemical reactions to stimuli, not from spiritual or out-of-body stimuli.

Debate Between Dualist and Materialist

S: Hello, my name is Simon Riley and I am here to debate as a Dualist.

C: Greetings, my name is Craig Fairbass, and I am going to be the judge. 

J: Hi, I’m John Price and I’m here to debate as a Materialist. Let’s get right to it.

S: Coming from the position as a Dualist, I will be the one to make the opening statement. There are unexplainable phenomena that happen for no logical reasons, emotion being a big one of these.

J: Emotions are just a result of our evolutionary care for every individual, our democracy. Because we are so complex, we have come to defend every single human being we possibly can, and not allowing evolution to work its course, we are an anomaly in a chain of natural phenomena.

S: You are disproving yourself, for if we are off the logical path, then it is not an explained phenomenon. Why do we have emotions, even before democracy or our morals came to be? What evolutionary purpose do emotions serve?

J: Perhaps it’s not purely following the laws of nature. Science has been, and can be wrong. That doesn’t prove or disprove the fact that there is no such thing as a non-physical extent of this realm.

C: First round has ended; allow a moment for the judges to give a score.

-          5 minutes later

C: Judge’s ruling, gives it to the side of Materialism, on Mr. Price’s side. 

J: My opening statement will be this following: A man has dreams as a result of brain function, a man has emotions as a result of complexity in brains, our complexity is seen in our great empire on this earth, why is it so baffling that some things appear non-physical, if our minds are this complex, physically, is a non-physical explanation that essential to explain such a thing?

S: Touching on Monism is a good argument, but a used one nonetheless. You are saying that nothing is of the realm of mind; all this is a result of complexity and biological evolution. But this brings me back again to the theory of evolution. If everything is really all material, why would we have emotions, or—

C: Repetitive argument, please make a final statement.

S: The mind exists, as seen by contradicting scientific rules.

J: The mind exists, true, but only as a form of a brain, synapses going across each other, information in electric impulsese. Idealism goes very well against *all* scientific theories, as opposed to materialism which only goes against a few in very minor ways. What Idealism suggests is that there possibly is an entity that controls the workings of our everyday lives, now that suggests that the laws of physics don’t apply, because gravity doesn’t control how fast things fall anymore, an entity does. This also goes against genetics, because then children are born as a result of magic, and not due to fertilization of egg cells. You may not hold this specific argument, but if you support the broad argument of Idealism, you say that this *might* be possible, and we are certain it is not at all possible.

C: Second round has ended; the judges are ready to give a score to John Price as a materialist. This debate is over, as there are three rounds, and you have already won the ruling majority of them. It is settled, idealism is not considered an officially working theory, as of this debate.