Villain

It doesn't make sense. What facts does religion disregard? What is a theory or hypothesis if not a belief?

Please stop making this ridiculous statement.

There is absolutely no evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. Killing someone or inflicting brain damage is not evidence since the mind is subjective and your objective observation of someone else's 'mind' does not equal evidence.

Many people/religions/insert whatever might claim to have a belief that they have truth but evidence of truth as dog put it is clearly not possible within the constrains of being human.

Why must religion live up to truth, what, besides deduction, is truth bound?

How two differing groups can have discussion about x1 (an existing entity) and x2 (a non-existing entity) as if they are both talking about a meaningful x is the real brain teaser. The definition of x is different and therefore the conversation is illogical, you just can't compare apples and pears (no pun intended).

I believe the correct response is: Photos or it didn't happen

That sounds awesome, can you share the link to that place please?

Not undermining anything else that you've written in this thread but you got it right when you said:

Oh so you were suggesting that those people start swearing for that reason in particular then? Lucky for them, they manage to avoid the reasons why everyone else starts swearing in order to fulfil this. Sorry for the conflation, I had no idea that you had such an amazing incite into these people. My mistake

It just seemed so ridiculous to suggest that a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words.

Is this meant as a joke?

In your original post you cite three idealism philosophers but seem to be mixing in realism now, I'm not sure why you mention them in the first post if you're going to insist that things are completely independent of human perception.

Consider the thought experiment of applying a current to a certain part of your brain which produces pleasure, now take it a bit further and you manage to stimulate the part which creates the image of the oak tree. Is that a real experience of an oak tree? And if one had never seen an oak tree would it be possible to create the same experience?

There is of course a difference when speaking of a specific tree that we both have experience of, but what makes the Oak an Oak tree, since no Oak tree is the same as another Oak tree but there is a certain Oakness which makes them both Oak. Plato suggests that it's this Oakness that is contained in the ideal Oak which the others measure to but don't meet. I would say that both trees are in our mind, with regards to the particular tree and the ideal tree.

The Theory of Forms (ideas) is a nice way to conclude that language passes understanding between individuals, but has a lot of problems in it's own right e.g. reconciliation of the Platonic form of tree (the ideal tree) with a 'reality' tree, which misses the fullness of tree but yet is still tree. If we are communicating in the Platonic form, then it is necessary that perfect meaning to transferred through language, by definition. If however we don't communicate through prefect terms, meaning is almost guaranteed to be lost in translation.

...so that the other/s could have a neural activity?

Umm...what? Please don't confuse ethics and religion.

You seem to be so caught up in your own metaphysical position that you can't see that you're in a glass house throwing stones.

How did you come to know what 'they' believe?

Wow....get a room, so many yes' don't belong outside one .

You seem to have misread 'any previous knowledge of experience' as 'any previous knowledge'.

A new born baby is unlikely to be capable of mathematics, logic or reason.

It's not in itself metaphysical, it's merely the starting position from which we create a metaphysical position if we break things down to their most basic. From such a position we ask what is reality or real on the assumption/intuition that we ourselves (mind) are real. From there we find numerous problems that are not testable but that is not metaphysics' fault, but the nature of reality and being (humaness). Even though it doesn't lead to definite answers it can still impact and does impact our understanding of other areas.

By concious awareness I mean that which would exist if you woke up from a coma without any previous knowledge of experience but capable of thought.