>>479333If I never believed in a God, it has no bearing on what anyone else believed and acted on. Whether matter appeared to me or not has no bearing on its existence - my sense is limited, the world is not.
You see how this game is played by conflating sense-experience and phenomena with "The Science" and claiming a monopoly on it? This is the game bastardized metaphysics plays ad nauseum, and it spreads by "teaching the controversy", to deny anything new. It's insidious, it's Germanic, it's retarded, and I fucking hate dumbasses starting this routine. I tire of these people shitting up basic definitions to relitigate their selfish faggotry.
>>479334"Knowability" and "discovery" are different concepts - the world may be knowable, but a thing that our sense experience has no access to without inference. Materialism doesn't require that claim about knowability to say something about the world - what it says at a basic level is an approach to how the world may be viewed for our purposes. Anything making grand claims about what the universe "fundamentally is" trades in ideas about it and has nothing to do with our existence or approach to it.
I've maintained the truth is always in the world, not in anyone's conceits or self-serving nonsense to form a "perfect system". However you approach it, the world exists. Our existence in it is not relevant to the proceedings, and without making unsupportable assertions, our existence is explicable as something that came out of a pre-existing world and nothing about consciousness had to exist "forever". Why do people continue to insist that they are co-equal with God? That's a very Satanic and retarded view, but it persists doggedly against all evidence. That's where you see that "gods" are obvious stand-ins for the aristocratic idea, rather than imagined nature spirits or egregores or metaphors we might have thought of them as. Anything that would be a "god" in actuality has nothing to do with the entities that are invoked by religion, with the most elaborate gods being very long parables and systems to describe human concepts of spiritual authority and what they have done in society up to now. For the Abrahamic religions, there is a long interplay between "God" and "Satan" to suggest a general theory of spiritual revolution, how this may be affected - that basically, one "Satan" supplants another by such means. This view is not merely a self-serving one because it says something about what humans have been doing all this time and where this leads, because no one presumed automatically that human conceits had any particular goal.