If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

Because they aren't necessarily separate beliefs I put them both in with a hyphen.

Indeed but if I am both does that fully define what I believe?

Let's take the big bang. I'm faced with a "beginning" for everything we can know.

This is a basis for the so-called Cosmological argument which William Lane Craig (and Thomos Aquinas) loves(ed) so much.

So, as an atheist, do I claim "there was nothing before the beginning"? Can i hypothesize a cosmic
reset? I am forced to see a spontaneous being from nothing, leading to heat death?

What views lie here.   Are my values defined by however I resolve what little I know?

How does one see materialism or atheism as one single belief? Imagine theists pretending to agree with one another.

Lots of academics believe in something. Francis Collins is a random name. I have been to churches full of scientists and engineers.

Because materialism and atheism tend to go hand in hand. Not a hard and fast rule, to be sure, but a fair bet that if someone is an atheist, he or she will be a materialist. 

As for the pointlessness argument - it is a tricky one because it depends on assumptions rather than knowns. For me, it is fundamental. Existence is evolving towards something and I would maintain that constitutes a point (purpose) rather than a freakish coincidence. We then get drawn into the discussions about determinism, randomness, the Anthropic Principle, the Fine Tuning arguments and the multiverse. Believe me, those discussions are all here.

For myself, as something of an idealist, I find no difficulty in a starting position which holds that a universal consciousness exists and is creative. I say that as someone who maintains that I am not at all religious. I have no faith, I do not worship and if I have a concept of God, it is far removed from that of the religion I was brought up with. For an atheist it seems to be imperative to banish divinity so any concept of a god or God must be eliminated at all costs. If the idea of consciousness being fundamental suggests a god, then that too must be eradicated.

This is a basis for the so-called Cosmological argument which William Lane Craig (and Thomos Aquinas) loves(ed) so much.

I'm not sure Craig and Aquinas necessarily have the same argument?

See the Cosmological Argument Round Up by Edward Feser.

We then get drawn into the discussions about determinism, randomness, the Anthropic Principle, the Fine Tuning arguments and the multiverse. Believe me, those discussions are all here.

 par for tge course

I'm not sure Craig and Aquinas necessarily have the same argument?

See the Cosmological Argument Round Up by Edward Feser  .

i would presume differences exist, Craig alludes to the big bang. I have looked at Craig's version,
haven't navigated Aquinas's. Your source seems to like tge origin but doesn't seem to have a brief summary of it.

What does pointless mean? Why do you feel things need a "point"?   If you enjoy nice sunset*, did that
 require a point? Did the sun care you enjoyed it? Didn't that point in time have value? I'll grant, your enjoyment, acvording to the laws of evolution is a side effect of chemical ends but does tgat mstter?

How do you magically know what the rules of conscious are or are not. We certainly can agree than a brain has a more intricate configuration than say a rock. We know for example, that the eye transmits images to the brain that the brain performs some pattern recognition on those images. In fact, any amateur programmer now has access to a far simpler simplification based on this model.

On the topic of pointlessness, how would you have counselled Tolstoy? He had a length of rope which he had to go to the trouble of hiding from himself, lest on a whim he might just hang himself with it. The problem here was not just the casual ease with which he might have ended his life, but that he was pondering, debating with himself, reasoning through all the arguments and ideas he'd ever heard, in order to come to a serious rather than hasty conclusion.

On the rock versus brain and intricacy topic. Are you taking the route of complexity as your way to generate consciousness? Add another gear-wheel, another transistor, another circuit, eventually when it gets too big to grasp at a glance, out of one's uncertainty and bewilderment at such complexity, arises consciousness from inert matter?

On the topic of pointlessness, how would you have counselled Tolstoy? He had a length of rope which he had to go to the trouble of hiding from himself, lest on a whim he might just hang himself with it. The problem here was not just the casual ease with which he might have ended his life, but that he was pondering, debating with himself, reasoning through all the arguments and ideas he'd ever heard, in order to come to a serious rather than hasty conclusion.

On the rock versus brain and intricacy topic. Are you taking the route of complexity as your way to generate consciousness? Add another gear-wheel, another transistor, another circuit, eventually when it gets too big to grasp at a glance, out of one's uncertainty and bewilderment at such complexity, arises consciousness from inert matter?

Who decided the inertness of matter?

What does pointless mean? Why do you feel things need a "point"?   If you enjoy nice sunset*, did that
 require a point? Did the sun care you enjoyed it? Didn't that point in time have value? I'll grant, your enjoyment, acvording to the laws of evolution is a side effect of chemical ends but does tgat mstter?

How do you magically know what the rules of conscious are or are not. We certainly can agree than a brain has a more intricate configuration than say a rock. We know for example, that the eye transmits images to the brain that the brain performs some pattern recognition on those images. In fact, any amateur programmer now has access to a far simpler simplification based on this model.

Lastly equating IQ with intelligence is very dicey.  Thst's another thread.

But, being intelligent and being right are also not guaranteed to be the same.  Much intelligence can creatively bolster an incorrect position. Speculative fiction depends on that.

*I was in Cape Breton and apparently, a gull was enjoying one. The birds sort of fly about as the sun comes up. This gull just sat on the beach.

You're polite and pleasant (whoever you are) but that kind of elementary 'bait' doesn't interest me, so I'll leave it on the hook, cheers !

Who decided the inertness of matter?

Hello, Malf. Glad to see you're still bounding around !

Who decided the inertness of matter?

Well that's what we're asking.

When someone says consciousness is material what do they mean?

What does it mean for the brain to produce consciousness?

Usually, or at least in the past, this would be mean:

Matter-with-no-Mental-Character => This matter arranged into the structure/composition of a brain => Consciousness

That's what I would say is logically impossible, a stronger version of Sam Harris' take that I posted earlier b/c I think Physicalism would have to mean our very thoughts are illusory. In fact there are Physicalists/Materialists who make this argument, the Eliminativists. I agree with their arguments, I just think these very arguments show the position to be absurd.

As for this extra stuff about the paranormal and the afterlife, one can be a "physicalist"/"materialist" and still have a belief in an afterlife.

Johnjoe McFadden offers one possibility for a such a view:

Can the cemi theory account for telepathy?

No, I’m afraid not. The em field outside the head is far too weak and it is highly unlikley that any other brain could detect it, and still more unlikely that the other brain could decode the em field information that was encoded by your brain (which i think is a good thing).

Can the cemi field theory account for ghosts

Definately not! If ghosts were em field they’d be very easy to detect. Also, em fields are generated by charged molecules – they don’t hang around in space without an obvious source. If ghosts were some kind of em field then we would be able to locate the source of that field.

Does the cemi field survive after death?

Hmmm an interesting question. My hypothesis is that conciousness is the experience of information, from the inside. There is a postulate in physics that information is neither created or detroyed – the conservation of information ‘law’. It is however just a postulate, nobody has ever proved it. But, if true, it would suggest that awareness (associated with that information) – in some form – might survive death.

Thus the "immaterialism" of qualia is separate, to some degree, from the question of Personal Survival After Death. There are some reasons to wonder if aspects of the human mind might point to immorality, but one can be committed to the falseness of Physicalism - whatever "physical" means - as well as insistent that there is no afterlife.