A more important question.

outofnowheres
outofnowheres's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-11-08
User is offlineOffline
A more important question.

Instead of "Do you believe in gods?", how about "Do you believe in souls?" because if there is a god or gods but souls don't exist, then its kinda pointless to believe in gods if there is no afterlife to possibly meet them. Right?

Idiots are Fun! No wonder every village wants one.-House


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
The gray area..

I do believe there is a soul.. We express this in too many ways. From art to music and film. There are many things that we don't understand but religion is not the answer to these questions. These questions are the very reason that man fabricated religion in the first place, to give reason where there is none. Hard work and scientific study are the best tools to find these unexplainable phenomenons. We do have a conscious but I don't pretend to know where that comes from. I sure as hell know that our imaginary friend from the bible didn't save it for me. It's mine and mine alone and noone can take it from me. Only I control it and if it does bad things then I can't blame the devil for it either. Good and bad are in us all. It's which of these sides we take that makes us who we are, not which denomination we belong to, or what god we believe in.

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't believe in anything

I don't believe in anything "supernatural".

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Ehh...I'm with Vastet on this one.

Obviously, human beings have *minds,* and I suppose the word "soul" could be used as a metaphor for that which is most central/important to an individual...but in terms of believing in a nonmaterial, not-normal-energy seat of intelligence and "free will," which lives forever and is destined for Heaven/Hell/Purgatory/Limbo/transmigration/whatever else...no, I don't believe in that.

 

Conor


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hello, outofnowheres,

Hello, outofnowheres, welcome to the forum.

No, I don't believe in souls. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Allow me to retort..

I didn't say "supernatural." My idea of a soul is anything but supernatural. It's that part of the brain that noone can explain where all of our dreams and nightmares live. Where our imagination and creativity comes from. Everyone says that it's the left side of the brain that does all of this but I can't help but wonder if there's more to it than that.. Just because we as athiests have ruled out "their" idea of what it's all about doesn't mean we can no longer wonder what "it" really is... There is always more out there than we know.. Who is to say that there isn't an energy that cannot be destroyed but changed. I'm not getting into all of that because the rhetoric is without merit and would turn into nothing short of senseless and theoretical BS but still I try to have an open mind when there's something practical up for discussion which ISN'T religion. Religion is the scorn of the earth and the absolute mind-blocker. There's nothing uselful or practical about religion except that it's a means of control over the weak minded and fearful.  

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Malhalla wrote:I didn't say

Malhalla wrote:

I didn't say "supernatural." My idea of a soul is anything but supernatural. It's that part of the brain that noone can explain where all of our dreams and nightmares live. Where our imagination and creativity comes from.

What part of the brain would that be, and what's so special about it?

Quote:
Everyone says that it's the left side of the brain that does all of this but I can't help but wonder if there's more to it than that..

Like....more to it? What would constitute "more?"

Quote:
Just because we as athiests have ruled out "their" idea of what it's all about doesn't mean we can no longer wonder what "it" really is... There is always more out there than we know.. Who is to say that there isn't an energy that cannot be destroyed but changed.

Yes, we do wonder about it, but we do better than that. Scientists study the brain and how it works, and how it affects mental states.

We can sit in an armchair, pondering metaphysics all day.......we're not going to learn a thing. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't believe

Vastet wrote:
I don't believe in anything "supernatural".

Except for your metaphysical theory of knowledge which is clearly based on the abstract concept of logic. Logic is a supernatural discovery that man has made. This is just one reason why you will be without excuse on judgment day my friend.

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
Ridiculous..

Logic is nothing more than knowing what the right thing to do is in a certain circumstance. Nothing more. Logic is gained by experience and being caught in a familiar situation and knowing the best route to take. There will be no "Judgement day" for anyone just because they can't wrap their head around a ridiculous religion. BTW there is nothing abstract about logic. Either you have it and use it or you don't. Logic is the opposite of abstract because it represents the best possible answer to a problem, not the wierd or non-practical one that being abstract means in the first place.

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Vastet

eXnihilO wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I don't believe in anything "supernatural".

Except for your metaphysical theory of knowledge which is clearly based on the abstract concept of logic. Logic is a supernatural discovery that man has made. This is just one reason why you will be without excuse on judgment day my friend.

 

Absolutely ridiculous. Logic is nothing more than a rational equation. What is supernatural about 2 + 2 = 4 anyway?
What a laugh.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Absolutely

Vastet wrote:

Absolutely ridiculous. Logic is nothing more than a rational equation...

 

 So 'matter of a fact...' let's see:

 

Rationality: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic - Princton
 

So in other words, logic is nothing more that something based on logic... This is circular.

 

Care to try again?

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Malhalla
Malhalla's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2009-11-13
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Vastet

eXnihilO wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Absolutely ridiculous. Logic is nothing more than a rational equation...

 

 So 'matter of a fact...' let's see:

 

Rationality: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic - Princton
 

So in other words, logic is nothing more that something based on logic... This is circular.

 

Care to try again?

 

My logic tells me that you are in need of professional help and are trying to create an argument that is absolutely redundant. There is nothing metaphysical about logic. If that is your proof of it then you are the one that needs to try again. It's almost funny except that I know you are being sincere and it's kinda irrating.

"There is no God higher than truth." -Mahatma Ghandi


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Vastet

eXnihilO wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Absolutely ridiculous. Logic is nothing more than a rational equation...

 

 So 'matter of a fact...' let's see:

 

Rationality: the quality of being consistent with or based on logic - Princton
 

So in other words, logic is nothing more that something based on logic... This is circular.

 

Care to try again?

 

Logic is the art and science of reasoning which seeks to identify and understand the principles of valid demonstration and inference.

Care to try again?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Facts are stubborn things

Thanks for showing enough respect to Google it.

Now that you understand what logic is I have a question.

Is logic abstract?

(Yes, it is.)

That would make it not in the physical realm, and thus by definition it would be ‘supernatural.’
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Thanks for showing enough

"Thanks for showing enough respect to Google it."

I already knew what logic is. I did so merely for your benefit, as you tried to quote a definition of rational in order to explain what logic is.

Now I find that you also don't understand the terms abstract and supernatural. I suggest looking them up, since I'm not going to sit here and teach you English. After you've done so, you can read this article:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Apologies, I posted the

Apologies, I posted the wrong link (though it would still do you good to read it). This is the article you need to read.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

Good try, but no.

 

BadArticle wrote:

Immateriality - defined as neither matter nor energy. So, what's left over for it to be?

Supernatural - defined as 'not nature' or 'above nature' or 'beyond nature'. So again, what's left over for it to be?

 

I reject both statements. To accept these would presuppose that God doesn't exist. If I start from the perspective that the material universe encompasses all of reality then of course these are valid statements, but when starting from the perspective that God is immaterial and supernatural these explanations of the terms fail on their face.


No sir, I will not abandon my world view for your convenience.
 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Good try, but no." Right

"Good try, but no."

Right back at you.

"I reject both statements."

Of course you do. You must in order to defend your indefensible claims.

"To accept these would presuppose that God doesn't exist."

Ridiculous. You are presupposing that god exists, and when the flaw in your reasoning is exposed you project those flaws on to the arguments that reveal them for all to see.

" If I start from the perspective that the material universe encompasses all of reality then of course these are valid statements, but when starting from the perspective that God is immaterial and supernatural these explanations of the terms fail on their face."

And you prove my point quite succinctly. Care to try again? You're a lot of fun. It's rare that one so delusional as yourself comes here to get stomped on. Smiling

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Quite the joke indeed as you

Quite the joke indeed as you frolic about using a standard of reasoning that must admit that my God exists in order to be justified...

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Quite the

eXnihilO wrote:

Quite the joke indeed as you frolic about using a standard of reasoning that must admit that my God exists in order to be justified...

Quite amusing indeed that you try to use natural processes to try to define your non-existent deity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
.

Alright, I'll bite.

How is logic merely a natural process? Keeping in mind that if the human race ceased to exist in five minutes the rest of the universe would continue conducting itself in a logical fashion.

It really boils down to this V, your usage of logic is unfounded and mine is grounded in the God that created it. We use logic because we are made in the image of God who created logic.

Now let's employ your world-view. Logic is a non-absolute product of the human brain... If that is the case then I reserve the right to change it to my subjective liking. From now on I will tweak my logic to state that every time you disagree with me you are really agreeing with me. This would be absurd.

You conclude everything including your understanding and subsequent acceptance and use of logic in a logical fashion, this is completely circular...

Logic cannot be independently verified as true or useful without the use of logic itself, therefore your entire perspective on reality is based upon a standard that is reasoned out circularly. Logic is logical therefore it is true! Ironically this process is called begging the question, a logical fallacy of which you have no defense.

While I tell you the truth of the matter, in that logic is a reliable standard of discerning truth because God made it so and sustains it in His unchanging nature.

I have good reason, you have a perfect circle.

I'll take good reason any day.

 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"How is logic merely a

"How is logic merely a natural process? Keeping in mind that if the human race ceased to exist in five minutes the rest of the universe would continue conducting itself in a logical fashion."

And how is that not indicative that logic is natural?

"It really boils down to this V, your usage of logic is unfounded and mine is grounded in the God that created it. We use logic because we are made in the image of God who created logic."

That doesn't make any sense to me.

"Now let's employ your world-view. Logic is a non-absolute product of the human brain..."

That is hardly my position. Logic is how we naturally interpret existence.

"You conclude everything includingyour understanding and subsequent acceptance and use of logic in a logicalfashion, this is completely circular..."

No. Most of my understanding is based upon direct observation. I merely use logic to interpret that observation. You use logic to interpret your observations, with the distinction that you use god to interpret logic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Logic cannot be

"Logic cannot be independently verified as true or useful without the use of logic itself, therefore your entire perspective on reality is based upon a standard that is reasoned out circularly. Logic is logical therefore it is true! Ironically this process is called begging the question, a logical fallacy of which you have no defense."

You do realise that you are using logic to attack logic for being logical don't you? And you say I'm being circular...

"While I tell you the truth of the matter, in that logic is a reliable standard of discerning truth because God made it so and sustains it in His unchanging nature."

Then I'm quite right to use logic, which by its very terms rules out the possibility of your gods existence. Irony.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I know, I know, I took this from a (relatively) old post.

eXnihilO wrote:

"Is logic abstract?

(Yes, it is.)

That would make it not in the physical realm, and thus by definition it would be ‘supernatural.’"

 

My comment: If anything nonphysical is supernatural, then the human mind is supernatural.  But, in order to be supernatural, it must be "above nature."  The whole point of the Christian doctrine of original sin is that. by so sinning, Adam and Eve (and all their posterity) are reduced either to a purely natural level (Catholic doctrine) or below that (Protestant doctrine.)  Either way you slice that, that would mean that no human being could possess a mind unless they were first: baptized a Catholic (obviously, the Catholic version,) or put their faith in Jesus (Protestant version, and how on earth is someone without a mind supposed to accomplish this?)

 

Are you sure that you want to continue down this path, eXnihilO?

 

Conor

________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Vast and Conor

@Vastet:

 

 

"That doesn't make any sense to me."

 

I assume you are joking, but if you aren't I am explaining to you that you have no basis for logic and therefore your basis of understanding is erroneous from your own perspective. Why use logic? Why is it the best option, is it even relevant or helpful? How do we answer these questions ABOUT logic without begging the question by USING logic?

 

"Logic is how we naturally interpret existence."

 

Yes, but the laws that govern logic are abstract and not independently verifiable, so how can they be trusted or validated without begging the question?

 

"Most of my understanding is based upon direct observation. I merely use logic to interpret that observation. You use logic to interpret your observations, with the distinction that you use god to interpret logic."

 

The point is that God justifies logic in His all-knowing unchanging nature and I am logical for using logic while non-theists are not.

 

"You do realise that you are using logic to attack logic for being logical don't you? And you say I'm being circular..."

 

You do realize that I have justified my use of logic and you haven't don't you?

 

"Then I'm quite right to use logic, which by its very terms rules out the possibility of your gods existence. Irony."

 

You are right by using logic, but have no basis to do so and by doing so admit that my God exists by necessity. After admitting that God is the Creator and sustainer of logic, you would be hard press to limit Him by it.

 

 

@Conor

I like your comment because you attempted to go Biblical. Sadly, your theology is not so hot. (Please do not take that wrong, I would encourage you to continue your studies) That being said, the mind is indeed supernatural with a better definition being something ‘outside’ of nature, not above, to avoid any confusion with ‘above’ meaning superior. The angels are indeed supernatural, but we will judge them in the end despite existing on this side of things.

Now, to clarify. The physical nature of man has not changed, only the spiritual. When God told Adam that he would surely die in a day after sinning he lived for almost 1000 years physically. Adam did die that day; he died a spiritual death, this is why he covered himself in shame. Yet he clearly retained his mind. This is why Paul tells the Ephesians that we are ‘dead in our transgressions and sins,’ you see, because we are sinful we are dead spiritually until God exchanges our heart of stone for a heart of flesh as Ezekiel tells us. Please be open-minded and pray for this change, I do beg you…

We also possess a soul, conscience, and memories in our natural condition all of which are supernatural. When the Bible says natural it means non-spiritual as pertaining to our moral standing with God, not devoid of all properties out of the physical realm. This is evidenced by the soul that is tormented for eternity that despite being spiritually natural (set on the flesh and against God) we still retain forever being in rebellion to God.

Hope this helped.

Speaking Truth, in love.
 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3592
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:   You are

eXnihilO wrote:

 

 

 You are right by using logic, but have no basis to do so and by doing so admit that my God exists by necessity. After admitting that God is the Creator and sustainer of logic, you would be hard press to limit Him by it.

 

 

   You sense of triumph is obvious.  In that regard your posts so far have reminded me of a former, smug poster who used the same "logic" to prove his belief in panentheism.  He perpetually asserted that we atheists knew that he was really correct about his spiritual beliefs and frequently mocked us with his statement "thank you for conceding my point" , and accused us of having a "*lurking god-belief" , etc. 

    He was just as certain as you are.  He was convinced that logic, both scientific and otherwise, supported his new-age theology.  When it comes to validating metaphysical claims I guess logic is out on loan to whomever wants to use it.

  

 

 

 

( *His new-age god, not your Christian God. )

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaE66cl4Bz8


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:You

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

You sense of triumph is obvious.  In that regard your posts so far have reminded me of a former, smug poster who used the same "logic" to prove his belief in panentheism.  He perpetually asserted that we atheists knew that he was really correct about his spiritual beliefs and frequently mocked us with his statement "thank you for conceding my point" , accused us of having a "lurking god-belief" , etc. 

    He was just as certain as you are.  He was convinced that logic, both scientific and otherwise, supported his new-age theology.  When it comes to validating metaphysical claims I guess logic is out on loan to whomever wants to use it.

 

 

I'll take the lack of meaningful interaction to mean that you have nothing to offer?

I'm not sure how you go about defending pantheism with a philosophy dependent on a explicitly unchanging and all-knowing Creator... which pantheism clearly lacks.

I'm approaching this with the highest standard of reality and truth in existence, the word of God.

Take care,

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
What's a "nihilo" and why

What's a "nihilo" and why are you no longer one?

 

 

 


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Or, maybe it's *your* theology that could stand some improvement

Let's go back to what I wrote earlier.  What I was trying to get you to see is that the mind cannot be "above nature," as that would demand that any being without "something supernatural" added to it would, by definition, be mindless.  (This includes humanity.)  You seem to agree, but your change to "outside of nature" rather than "above nature" doesn't really work, as the human mind (and remember...that's what we're talking about, here...) is clearly *within* nature, not outside of  it.  (If this were not true, then the entire subject of psychology would evaporate.)  So, sorry, but I'm not buying this "outside of nature" statement about the human mind.  BTW, the prefix "super-" means "above," so my usage of "above nature" is more justified than your "outside of nature."  At least I'm sticking to the original meaning.  Oh...and if we do indeed possess a soul (which I would argue, but not right now) a conscience, and memories "in our natural condition" then those things are precisely *natural,* not "supernatural," regardless of how you care to define the term.  So, to summarize: the mind cannot be above, or outside of, nature.  (Indeed, your assessment of the mind seems to shift between natural and "supernatural" in your discussion, above.)  The fact that the mind can be studied (via psychology, as noted) means precisely that the mind is part of nature, and thus, natural.  (More precisely, it is a function of the human brain.)  It cannot be "natural" when that is convenient, and "supernatural" (either definition) when that is convenient.  So which is it?  Make a decision, and stick to it, my man!

As for being open-minded, I am.  But I'm not going to go back to praying unless I've got a reason to believe.  And I don't.  I would encourage you to take a good, long, hard, honest look at that belief system of yours.  Are you Catholic, Protestant, or some other form of Christian (and please specify which one?)  Please don't hide behind some pious statement to the effect of "I just believe the Bible."  (Other folks have done that to me before.)  Man up, and tell me which Christian belief system label you accept as being, to your way of thinking, the best reflection of your understanding of the Bible.

 

Oh, and here's a little food for thought...you said that God told Adam that he would die that very day if he ate from the tree.  You yourself then noted that Adam was said to live 1000 years after that point.  What I want you to see is this: you can't have it both ways.  You said that Adam "died spiritually" that very day.  But here's the rub: go back and re-read that Genesis account.  It doesn't say word one about "spiritual death."  The text just says "die."  "God" got it wrong.  If it was "spiritual," then why didn't "God" say that up front, rather than letting the interpreters of the Bible make up "spiritual death" so as to make the Bible look like something on the level of Nostradamus' "prophecies?"  (They really are defended in very similar ways.  Worse: no other "inspired book," such as the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc., are any better.)  Here, apologetics is revealed as nothing more than making excuses for what you personally *want* to be true.  If what you want is actual, objective reality, then learn the rules of logic (like avoiding fallacies, etc.,) and apply that to your apologetics.  You will see it for the sham that it is.

 

Conor

__________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Once humans observe

Once humans observe something in reality, they can abstract its characteristics, and manipulate them freely. The fact that we can conceptualize something in our minds does not necessarily mean that it exists as an actual "thing." 

Also, with many theistic worldviews, almost anything can be proven absolutely or deductively (whether the arguments are sound is debatable); this is not how mine nor most of the members of this forums' worldviews work. We can't "prove" "absolutely" that logic works. We use induction; we base our conclusions simply on what observe to be true. Ergo, there is no guarantee that logic will work the next time I use it, but this does not mean that logic is unreliable because we observe to be reliable. Again, we don't "prove" things. We amass the evidence and form, at first, tentative, and then, progressively more confident claims.

So, these were some pretty rushed explanations, but I'm sure someone like Bobspence or Hamby will soon explain it better than I can.

eXnihilO, what is your purpose here? To convert someone? To learn? To teach? To satisfy your need to engage in flame wars? If you want to have any chance of having productive discussions with people on this forum, you need to define your terms clearly and explain your assumptions and what you mean. We understand and approach these topics very differently. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What's a

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

What's a "nihilo" and why are you no longer one?

Whoa! I can't believe you don't know what that means. Or, maybe you do, and you're being funny?

Ex nihilo means "out of nothing." E.g. God is often claimed to have created the universe ex nihilo. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
k

 

@Conor,

I’d also like to know which church you apostatized from, it will help knowing what false teachings you may or may not have been exposed to.

“So, to summarize: the mind cannot be above, or outside of, nature.  (Indeed, your assessment of the mind seems to shift between natural and "supernatural" in your discussion, above…

The fact that the mind can be studied (via psychology, as noted) means precisely that the mind is part of nature, and thus, natural.  (More precisely, it is a function of the human brain.)  It cannot be "natural" when that is convenient, and "supernatural" (either definition) when that is convenient.  So which is it?...”

Your presupposition that there is no supernatural is weighing heavily on your ability to reason this out. I am hoping to usher you along in at least understanding the Christian perspective on this. The mind and soul have existence in both the physical and non-physical realm. Just as God is very much a part of this world yet immaterial so too is our soul and mind. They transcend space-time. I know that this will not be convenient to hear or easy to wrap a limited mind around… it can be apprehended, but perhaps not comprehended.

‘Are you Catholic, Protestant, or some other form of Christian (and please specify which one?)…’

My ultimate authority is in fact God’s revelation as described in the Bible. Anything I believe is subject to the truth of God’s word, as it carries the most authority and encompasses the very notion of truth itself.

I’m not a creedal person, but if you want a jist of where I stand theologically you would best refer to me as a Reformed Baptist and Happy Evangelical Calvinist. I also believe that the ‘natural’ man cannot properly handle the word of God accept by the grave of God himself not can the non-spiritual man discern the things of the Spirit unless God opens your mind to see it, as the word of God also tells us.

“you said that God told Adam that he would die that very day ..you can't have it both ways.  You said that Adam "died spiritually" that very day.  But here's the rub: go back and re-read that Genesis account.  It doesn't say word one about "spiritual death."  The text just says "die."…”

I don’t think the author of Genesis was that dumb to be frank. You actually do see it used more that one way in the Bible, so your argument fails.

 

You are coming from the presupposition that this book cannot possibly be the word of God, therefore you view this issue as somehow a problem for me.

 

I come from the perspective that the Bible is the infallible word of God and cannot possibly be in error. Any alleged contradictions or problems within the Bible are due to my limited understanding and can be reconciled despite my misunderstanding. Ive never been presented with a verse that I can’t reconcile myself or find justification for, but because the Bible is infallible even If I thought there was an issue I certainly would not call the word of God into question, my own understanding would be trial ages before that Lord willing.

 

Hope this helps.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

butterbattle wrote:

 

“Once humans observe something in reality, they can abstract its characteristics, and manipulate them freely. The fact that we can conceptualize something in our minds does not necessarily mean that it exists as an actual "thing." 

Also, with many theistic worldviews, almost anything can be proven absolutely or deductively (whether the arguments are sound is debatable); this is not how mine nor most of the members of this forums' worldviews work. We can't "prove" "absolutely" that logic works. We use induction; we base our conclusions simply on what observe to be true. Ergo, there is no guarantee that logic will work the next time I use it, but this does not mean that logic is unreliable because we observe to be reliable. Again, we don't "prove" things. We amass the evidence and form, at first, tentative, and then, progressively more confident claims.”

 

I understand you, but if this is how you view reality then you should be more honest up front and expect to gain few to your cause. I and most care about truth, you offer a life of no real certainty of anything. You have many reasons to believe many things, but you admit you can’t know anything for sure… You sure act like it though.

Perhaps alert Sapient that his absolute claim of knowing Yahweh is not God is really just his best guess based on a lot of other best guesses.

 I suppose you are comfortable with a wholly unjustified perspective on reality seeing as how you hold to the presupposition that any pursuit of knowledge won’t bear out truth, just a lot of confidence.

At the most basic state of our arguments we have this:

 

‘I don’t really think we can know anything for certain, in fact I’m not really certain that we can’t know things for certain, but because we can’t know things for certain, I can’t be certain that we can’t know things for certain.’ – Butterbattle

 

"God created the heavens and the earth, we failed to keep a perfect moral law, one of God’s attributes is justice so he can’t let us go… But He is also love so He entered into His own creation and bore the wrath that was due to us in His own incarnate body… He also proved what he said by coming back from the dead and before He left He told us to warn others because He will come back to judge them all from least to greatest.

 

I know this is true because that same God supernaturally changed my heart and I went from hating God to loving his truth in 24 hours. He has also given us instructions in the Bible so that we would be equipped for the work he laid out for us, it’s stood the test of time and answers all the major life questions, would you like to read it for yourself?" - eXnihilO (appealing to the highest standard of truth, the Bible.)

 

For some reason, I just have to go with the Gospel…

 

Praise the Lord for His love and grace.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3701
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
By the way, welcome to the

By the way, welcome to the forum.

eXnihilO wrote:
I understand you, but if this is how you view reality then you should be more honest up front

I'll try.

Quote:
and expect to gain few to your cause.

I hope that people try to believe what is supported by reason and evidence, not what is emotionally comforting. 

Quote:
I and most care about truth, you offer a life of no real certainty of anything. You have many reasons to believe many things, but you admit you can’t know anything for sure…

Pretty much.

Quote:
You sure act like it though.

How?

Quote:
Perhaps alert Sapient that his absolute claim of knowing Yahweh is not God

I think I disagree with Sapient on that. That I exist is probably one of only a few claims that we can make with certainty outside of mathematics and such. 

Quote:
I suppose you are comfortable with a wholly unjustified perspective on reality seeing as how you hold to the presupposition that any pursuit of knowledge won’t bear out truth, just a lot of confidence.
 

Actually, no, I wouldn't be tolerant of unjustified perspectives. I can't be 100% certain, but if I assume that I can accurately perceive the world, then some claims are more justified and some are less justified. I try to go with whatever seems the most reasonable and is supported by the most evidence.  

Quote:
‘I don’t really think we can know anything for certain, in fact I’m not really certain that we can’t know things for certain, but because we can’t know things for certain, I can’t be certain that we can’t know things for certain.’ – Butterbattle

Hmm, cool paradox (Is it a paradox? I think it's a paradox). I think you're trying to make it seem as silly as possible, but overall, pretty accurate.

Quote:
would you like to read it for yourself?"

I've read most of the Bible. Many people on this forum have read the Bible. Some of them have studied the Bible. I'm not an ex-Christian, but many people on this forum used to be Christians too.

Quote:
For some reason, I just have to go with the Gospel…

And what is that reason?

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Okay, fair enough...

...I rather insistently asked you for specifics on your belief system; I can't deny you the same about mine, at least not fairly.  In an immediate sense, I apostasized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; however, I was raised as a Roman Catholic Christian.

 

To further the discussion:

 

1. My disbelief in the supernatural is *not* a controlling presupposition with respect to the naturalness of the human mind.  Such a presupposition is entirely unnecessary.  Please re-read our previous posts, and bear in mind that I was attempting to show you how your own discussion of the human mind as "supernatural" is illogical.  Indeed, if there are any presuppositions here, they are yours--your presupposition that the term "supernatural" applies to the human mind.  I showed you that the mind is not supernatural in *either* sense that we discussed.  If you wish to demonstrate error to me, you need to show me how the human mind is "outside of nature" (which is your definition of the term "supernatural.&quotEye-wink  Please note that it is not enough to say that the mind is not a solid object, for then air would be supernatural.  Nor is it enough to say that it is not matter, for then energy would be supernatural.  It is not even enough to use the term "nonmaterial" for "supernatural," for then mathematics would be supernatural.

 

2. You said "The mind and soul have existence in both the physical and non-physical realm."  This almost sounds like the Mormonism I briefly followed.  Pray tell, how is the mind (and the "soul&quotEye-wink physical?  The *brain* is certainly physical; the neurons which form the brain are individually physical; but how can the mind (a function, not an object) and the soul (a religious doctrine) be *physical*?

 

3. You wrote "Just as God is very much a part of this world yet immaterial so too is our soul and mind."  All I have to say to this is: bear in mind you are talking to atheists, here.  If you expect this analogy to carry any weight, you will have to prove the existence of God, first.  (Here we run into another of *your* presuppopsitions: namely, that God exists.)

 

4. Referring to human minds and souls, you wrote: "They transcend space-time."  This is a...novel...idea to me. A purely human mind (and "soul," yet) transcends space-time?  Where is your evidence, please?  (Oh, wait...it's the Bible, right?)

 

5. You wrote: "I also believe that the ‘natural’ man cannot properly handle the word of God"  Tell me something: if every human being is "natural" (except, apparently, for their supernatural minds which they seem to have in spite of being "natural" themselves) then how can any person "properly handle the word of God?"  Your own conversion is no evidence at all on this point, for you yourself may have *improperly* handled your own Bible--and even if you hadn't, you would have no proof of what constitutes "proper" handling.  Do you begin to see how your own theology ties you in knots? 

 

6. In response to my analysis of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve, you wrote: "I don’t think the author of Genesis was that dumb to be frank. You actually do see it used more that one way in the Bible, so your argument fails."  My response: okay, you see more than one way in the Bible as a whole, but not in the Genesis account.  Why would your god wait for some further book to be written, when making himself clear would have been as simple as saying "You will die spiritually that very day."  You or I would have no problem making ourselves clear on that point if that was what we meant to say, so...how can a putative omniscient, all-wise and perfectly honest deity have any trouble?

 

7. You also wrote: "I come from the perspective that the Bible is the infallible word of God and cannot possibly be in error."  Here, you admit your presuppositions: that God exists (which you have not proven) that He has spoken (at all!) to humanity (which you also have not proven) and that the Bible--and *only* the Bible--is such speech (which, yet again, is not proven.)  Here's your first lesson in the rules of logic, free of charge: it is the person who makes the positive assertion who bears the burden of proof.  For example, if I were to assert that Bigfoot exists, you would be quite right to ask me for evidence of Bigfoot's existence, and to refuse to believe in the existence of Bigfoot unless and until the evidence in favor of Bigfoot's existence was in.  This rule prevents us, for example, from stringing up random people every time a murder occurs.  It is not enough that a murder occurred, and somebody must be blamed; it must be shown that the specific person who is accused did in fact do the deed (among other things.)  Absent such evidence, the person must be acquitted.  So...you are asserting God's existence, his speaking to humanity, that such speech is present in the Bible, and that it is present *only* there (i.e., to the exclusion of Christian Tradition(s), other holy books, etc.)  And the burden of proof for *all* of this is on you. 

 

8. Last, you wrote: "Ive never been presented with a verse that I can’t reconcile myself or find justification for, but because the Bible is infallible even If I thought there was an issue I certainly would not call the word of God into question, my own understanding would be trial ages before that Lord willing."  My response: well, of course.  This is a perfectly devout (dare I say, "faithful&quotEye-wink response to give.  But "reconciling" verses that are obviously problematic is no virtue; it is, to be blunt about it, spin doctoring.  Sure, it's possible to "reconcile" any verse in the Bible with any belief system.  People of all religious persuasions do it all the time.  That's what apologists are there for.  But here's a secret: even non-Christian belief systems can do this, with their books.  One episode that stands out in my journey to atheism is that one day, I was examining a translation of the Koran (happily given me by some Muslims whose services I had visited on base while I was still in the Navy) and I came across a Koranic verse which claimed that God had made humanity from a clot of blood.  I first realized that it didn't matter whether one was talking about humanity as a species, or individual human beings; the statement was wrong, either way.  But then I read the commentary provided.  It claimed that the phrase "clot of blood" was an adequate description of the early stages of embryonic development.  What hit me in that moment was not how alien and different this all was.  No, it was the familiarity of it all; I realized that I had made "faith-filled" arguments initially for the Catholic, and later for the Mormon positions that used the exact same strategy of, in this case, a "soft-focus," if you will, on the exact text, in order to make my own beliefs able to claim a connection to all this credibly.  And you know what? Baptists do the exact same thing.  Don't believe me? Then explain for me James 2:24 from the actual text of James 2:24.

 

Conor

______________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the welcome I

Thanks for the welcome Smiling

I didn’t expect it to be too warm, but I’ve only been called a few names so far.

butterbattle wrote:

I hope that people try to believe what is supported by reason and evidence, not what is emotionally comforting. 

My argument here is and will remain that the way you understand reason is not reasonable and therefore it’s not good enough evidence to hold to the position.

And just an FYI – Christianity is not always easy. The 12 year old boy nailed to a wooden cross a few months back because he wouldn't renounce Jesus sure wasn’t all warm and fuzzy inside during the process. The comfort is in knowing your God and Savior personally through Jesus Christ and being content with God’s grace.

butterbattle wrote:

How?

Making truth claims without disclosing that you aren’t actually certain.

butterbattle wrote:

And what is that reason?

It’s the truth… personally confirmed by the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in my daily life.

 

Brevity brought to you in part by: lack of sleep.

Good night, God bless.

 

eX

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Conor, I appreciate your

Conor, I appreciate your time and the seriousness of your post.

 

I look forward to responding after getting some sleep, a good old fundie don't miss church for nothin'

That's a joke, if you knew me you would laugh Smiling

 

gn

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I assume you are joking" I

"I assume you are joking"

I am not.

"I am explaining to you that you have no basis for logic and therefore your basis of understanding is erroneous from your own perspective."

Doesn't make sense. I have plenty of basis for logic: it works.

"Why is it the best option, is it even relevant or helpful?"

Because it works.

"How do we answer these questions ABOUT logic without begging the question by USING logic?"
"Yes, but the laws that govern logic are abstract and not independently verifiable, so how can they be trusted or validated without begging the question?"

So you're trying to say existence is an illusion? On what basis?

"The point is that God justifies logic in His all-knowing unchanging nature and I am logical for using logic while non-theists are not."

Back to incomprehendable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You do realize that I have

"You do realize that I have justified my use of logic and you haven't don't you?"

Ironically you haven't. At best you've proved both positions untenable, at worst you effectively said nothing at all.

"You are right by using logic, but have no basis to do so and by doing so admit that my God exists by necessity."

Except I have basis to accept logic: it works. Nothing about your god works. I didn't even know your god or any other existed in the imaginations of people until I was somewhere around seven or eight. I knew some of my friends vanished for a few hours on Sundays, but I didn't know why. It wasn't until I was closer to 15 that it was made clear just how strongly people wanted to believe in these varied gods. I've always found the whole thing ridiculous. Your arguments add nothing to our understanding of reality.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Worse, you force a

Worse, you force a backpeddle in understanding without justification or alternative. You say god this and god that to hide your fear of the unknown and your ignorance. You laughably claim to know I believe in your god, when such could not be further from the truth. If your god existed, saying hello would be a good start to making me believe in it, but it's never done that much. When you understand why you don't believe in zues, you'll understand why I don't believe in any god at all.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
!!!

*facepalm*

Logic is reliable because it works...

And it works because it's logical!

Look ma, no hands....

Welcome to a life of unintelligibility.

 

 

 

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:

"Conor, I appreciate your time and the seriousness of your post.

 

I look forward to responding after getting some sleep, a good old fundie don't miss church for nothin'

That's a joke, if you knew me you would laugh"

 

Me: Strictly no problem.  Seriously.  Get some rest; the topic will wait until tomorrow...or the next day, or whenever.

 

Conor


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

*facepalm*

Logic is reliable because it works...

And it works because it's logical!

Look ma, no hands....

Welcome to a life of unintelligibility.

 

 

 

Lmao.

"Logic is reliable because it works..."

Bingo.

"And it works because it's logical!"

*Facepalm*

How do you figure that? It works because it works.

The ridiculousness of your position just continues to expand....

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
....

Vastet wrote:
How do you figure that? It works because it works. ....

V,

This is equally circular.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:Vastet

eXnihilO wrote:

Vastet wrote:
How do you figure that? It works because it works. ....

V,

This is equally circular.

The best you can do is claim that I'm being circular, failing as they all do to realise you're projecting your own fallacy on me. The bible is right because the bible says so. LOL. Try again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

   You sense of triumph is obvious.  In that regard your posts so far have reminded me of a former, smug poster who used the same "logic" to prove his belief in panentheism.  He perpetually asserted that we atheists knew that he was really correct about his spiritual beliefs and frequently mocked us with his statement "thank you for conceding my point" , and accused us of having a "*lurking god-belief" , etc. 

Paisley ! Yeah, he was fun. I miss him. "Obviously, you didn't watch the video". Lol.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3592
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:And just an

eXnihilO wrote:

And just an FYI – Christianity is not always easy. The 12 year old boy nailed to a wooden cross a few months back because he wouldn't renounce Jesus .....

    Where did this occur ?  In the US, in Europe, in the Middle East ?  Can you provide a link ?

   ( I did Google it briefly and the only thing I found was a reference to a group of rather sadistic Catholic worshippers located in the Philipines.  I was unable to find anything that described a recent event that involved crucifixion as a deliberate attempt to force a renunciation of faith. )

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaE66cl4Bz8


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
There is a theory of soul as

There is a theory of soul as an external entity, which uses the man or woman to explore and act upon the physical world. The curious thing is, that with a small percentage of humanity there may be less or more feedback depending on the degree of synchronization between the person and soul. In some cases, the feedback from the soul is perceived as God, I had met a young Christian like that. (that's a good thing, so I congratulated him) This is easy thing to happen, because the soul is a source of all qualities we consider divine, like intuition, geniality, universal love, and so on. The goal is of course to realize, that the person and the soul are actually one being, and so the person becomes a walking soul, with all the power, love and geniality coming with that.

It's unfortunate that contemporary psychology has no idea how to recognize and develop this connection of soul and personality. I mean, being normal is fine, but it's even better to be more wise and emotionally stable than normal, and psychologic sciences should research the way to it, which is the influence of soul.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
K

Vastet wrote:

The best you can do is claim that I'm being circular, failing as they all do to realise you're projecting your own fallacy on me. The bible is right because the bible says so. LOL. Try again.

 

I'd like to remind your that we are talking about the validation of logic here, not the existence of God. Through this examination of logic, the Christian God is actually proven by necessity however.

You are using the laws of logic to demonstrate the accuracy and usefulness of logic, a perfect circle that does not give logic any external validity at all.

I'm saying that logic is verifiable externally and validated in the existence of the God who created the laws to begin with.

The Christian position affords them the use of logic in a meaningful way and the non-theist can't eve validate it without comiting a logical fallacy, ironically.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Where did this occur ?

I can't remember the details, but it was in the Voice of the Martyrs magazine three months back.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:I can't

eXnihilO wrote:

I can't remember the details, but it was in the Voice of the Martyrs magazine three months back.

Martyrs have their own magazine ?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I'd like to remind your

"I'd like to remind your that we are talking about the validation of logic here, not the existence of God. blah blah blah. "

And I'd like to remind you that you are using god as the basis for logic, and for the basis of god you have only the bible. The bible is right because the bible says so. Hence, your entire foundation crumbles at the source, irrevocably destroying your argument.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.