The Fall

Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
The Fall

 

I would like to demonstrate thanks to this thread that the concept of the fall is actual and true, and that scientific findings reinforce the need to recognize this as a fact, that we are humans that have fallen from our divine nature and need the way of Christ in order to save ourselves.

First, lest start by brushing a picture of our origins. The first mammal appeared some 70 MYA, in the form of a small nervous rat looking creature. After the extinctions of the dinosaurs about 65 MYA these mammals saw an explosion of their numbers since they were now able to occupy niches vacated by the dinosaurs. 55 to 58 MYA ago the first descendant of what would become the human race appears in the form of the first primate Altiatlasisus Koulchi a small creature foraging in the woods with opposable fingers and a bigger brain. From this development 20 MYA the ancient great apes appear and then go extinct because of dramatic climate change. As we can see today only 5 species managed to survive: Orang-utan, gibbon, chimpanzee, gorilla, and yours truly: humans. It’s interesting to note that we were very lucky and could have never existed because of this climate change. The divergence that leads to humans happens 7 MYA, Toumai, Orrorin and all that.... We know the rest: our ancestors decided to leave the forest for the savannah, Australopithecus and the genre homo... It’s interesting to note that there was allot of trial and errors in ‘’making ‘’ the human race, and if small factors had been different humanity would surely have a way difference visage. Also interesting to note is the fact that our ancestors were not this romanticized picture of noble and fearsome hunters, but instead scavengers and hunters of sick and small animals. 


Once all these facts make their appearance one is bound to be brought back to earth with the ideas we entertain about our divine nature. Pressing questions make their appearance: what kind of fall could have caused us then to be visited by Christ? What form would of this fall taken? What makes human history different from that of any other animal? This is where I stand in. I attempt to give a reasonable answer to these questions so as to reconcile the findings of physical anthropology and the idea of the fall as described in the Bible. First of all we need to ask ourselves what kind of fall we are talking about in the Bible. If we try to reconcile the literal account of the fall with scientific findings then this is impossible, however if we attempt to reconcile the idea of the fall with reality then this is possible and moreover it’s supported by socio-cultural facts. The idea of the fall simply put is that we have want for divine supernatural nature, and that this want won’t go away until we return to God and to the supernatural.

 In almost every culture there is an account of a certain fall, all of these accounts share one thing in common, a want for the spiritual world, for God, to overcome our human nature. May it be in the form of a journey or in the case of Christianity in the form of a savior, the cosmology of every culture has a concept of the fall. Gathering from this similarity of all cultural cosmologies we find that humans have discovered indeed that they have fallen away from a sort of spiritual world in different degrees depending from the cosmology in question. So from facts from the real world we do see that humans believe they fell away from their divine nature. This is attested by cultural facts and also by the history of humanity that far from being this glorious history is this rather banal story way far removed from what we could have imagined. Yet, if we were living in the dark constantly, we should have never realized there was light, and yet as all the cultural cosmologies attest, we did realize that there is light, that is, that we have fallen from our divine nature. Some have alighted on this or that aspect, however I firmly believe that Christianity has gathered all of the relevant details concerning this actual fall. The superiority of the supernatural world over the physical word is then immediately apparent. For if the body , made out of matter had this far from glimmering history, the soul who enabled us to understand our divine quest is of God alone, and it is restless until it rests in him. So in conclusion, we can see that there was and is such a thing as the fall, that is, the fall from our divine nature into this dark and gray material world. The mere facts that humans dotted themselves with cosmologies, which all recognize this fall is a fact that points to the reality of the fall. Anyone has simply to read the myths of any belief system to realize that the fall is present, although in different shapes and sizes, and with different meanings ascribed to it, however the basic fact here is the reality of the fall.

The second point I would like to mention in support of the fall is that we as human are not mere material constructs like robots, or machines, rather we are beings who have a very powerful supernatural dimension to our beings, granted this dimension can negated or denied but it is fact that it exists as a fundamental part of ourselves and has been so throughout the ages. One only has to look at the number of believers in a religion or another versus the tiny number of atheists on our planet, not as an appeal to authority, but rather as an empiric fact of the existence of our spiritual nature. Let me give an example, if a thousand birds were in a huge cage, and 5 of these couldn’t fly, we would certainly

conclude that the 5 who can’t fly are deficient with regards to their nature, this is the same thing here if we compare believers and unbelievers. Spirituality then has been a part of every culture throughout the ages. So it’s only natural that spiritual beings such as us would have alighted upon the reality of our spiritual fall from the higher and most pure realm of spirits.


Thirdly, we can ask ourselves a simple question to find out if we indeed have souls, something to be  same must be identical in all things, so we can ask ourselves are we merely biological entities? Or do we also have a soul. Is the self different from the body? For instance, I can imagine myself having a totally different body, I can imagine myself in the body of a lion, of a sheep even having that of a bird. However I can’t imagine my Body having another body. This means that the self is not the body for then they would be identical and they are not. Let’s think of human cloning here, if it was possible to clone an adult human being in just over an hour, a human being that would be identical to the real subject, would these two be the same? Or would they be different beings. I believe they would be completely different in a way and thus would have different souls. If you would die and have yourself cloned right before the moment of your death, would that new identical to you person be you or would the ‘’self’’ the real you be dead and there stands a completely different and new person? Reflect about that.

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Damasius

latincanuck wrote:

Damasius wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

Damasius wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

First, lest start by brushing a picture of our origins. The first mammal appeared some 70 MYA, in the form of a small nervous rat looking creature.

Damasius wrote:

IM talking about the fist modern mammal that would give rise to the primates etc etc, 70 MYA's ago.

But that is not what you stated at all, you said the first mammal, the first mammal appeared between 220 and 180 MYA, the first primates appeared some time between 80 to 70 MYA, with the primates which humans eventually evolved from some 60 MYA. So yeah you never said anything about modern mammal. Second you completely ignored my other statement about the mistake you make about the fall, if man evolved, then he was not created in the garden of eden and therefore did not have a fall from grace.

 

Answering that question was the point of my whole thread, I did this by explaining the fall. Try to pay attention.

I have read it and here is the problem, evolution explains how man came to be without god as an explanation. You are added god since you cannot prove any of this at all, and you cannot prove your specific god to be true versus all the other myths, legends and stories about the "fall of man" or the reasons there are so called evils in the world. From pandoras box, Hurons divine woman, The garden myth of the apple, etc, etc, etc from all mythologies, legends and religions around the world. They tend to be sotries about morality, to explain the nature of man or why were act or behave certain ways. However science has given up a far better explanation about human nature than this myths do. As such your invocation of god is not required when we use science to explain humans, our nature and how we came to be. It is an add on that you have done without any backing up other than the bible and using the bible to say that the bible is true is circular reasoning really.

 

 

I explained that we are spiritual beings, this is a fact. Tell me, why does evolution seem do disfavor atheists? Its because you guys are doing something wrong: going against your own human nature, we cannot pass ourselves of food or drink no more that the spiritual. We have a part of ourselves that is spiritual and we want to be entirely spiritual, this is what the fall is. Its not circular reasoning it is fact, atheists are fighting against their own nature, they think they have managed to destroy this spiritual part of themselves: belief in the afterlife, in the spiritual, in God. while infact they have replaced it by something that goes against their nature, and that will untimately destroy them. You atheists are marginals on this planet, never has an atheist society thrived or lasted. All of mans great societies have been spiritual. So like I said, you are the flightless birds of humanity. You betrayed your own human nature, no hope can be found in atheism, no light, only deep darkness. What are your answers at such great questions like: why am I here? what is the purpose in life? what are we destined for as humans? atheists have abandonned answering all of these questions. Its sad really, how can a person go to his death day after day without hope, without knowing God, without love... It must be a dreadfull existence indeed.

 

I believe that there is a God, that he is maximally good ( or he wouldnt be God) that he cares about each of us if only we may go towards him and find rest...  and that anyone who lives a good life in accordance with his concience ( the law of God in the world) has nothing to fear of death. This is what I believe, and I know this is how we rise up from the fall into the heavens. I will die and take this hope into the grave, all the while, atheists will also die, and what will they bring into the grave? bad internet forum arguments, and despair.

Ah but I would disagree that we are spiritual beings at all, we have no spirit or soul per se at all. Yet something else you now have to prove. We have the ability because of the evolution of our brain for abstract thinking which allows us to think of not just the present and now, but the past and the futures, as well as this ability allows us as well to think outside of the "box" per se to a degree as another person. This is shown all to occur in the brain, a material part, which is where the consciousness emerges from, no brain no consciousness. Yet there is no proof that god exists, and all the evidence proves otherwise. With evolution we have started the explanation of how this all came to be in regards to humans. Yet none of it requires god in any part of it. There is no spirit per se that survives after death, no soul, there simply is the human being and human experience.

All societies rise and fall, tribal, pagans, theocracies, communist, military, feudal etc, etc, etc. If we are to go with the longest lasting then it is the egyptian empire, should be believing in egyptian gods then? they lasted far longer than any other empire or society, no empire or society lasted longer than theirs. As time has continued each society and empire lasted less and less. Each change as we advance as a species, because ideas are spread, religions rise and fall. It is that simple, it has nothing to do with god or gods. I do not betray my nature I cannot be anything more than what I am, I understand myself, but I cannot betray myself, I can only be myself and what I am, a human being. As for the answers, we have always been asking and will continue as a soceity, for me, to continue the species is one answer, to simply be is another, beyond that there is no grand scheme of god or gods, we are not their pawns or play things. The god you describe is a cruel dictator, not a good god, no maximally good at all, not that has been proven.

As for the death part, you can die with hope, but once you are dead you are dead the same as me, no hope goes with you. There is nothing else, we live and we die, I do not fear death, for I accepted this life for what it is, a cycle, we live, we die and the species continues. Beyond that we are both dead, in the grave, nothing changes that fact. Bringing something to the grave means nothing, while you live to die, I live for my family, my friends, for myself, for the soceity I live in, you believe we are ultimately live in deep darkness but I live in the now and for the future of my family and society, you live for death, that is darkness and empty.

 

 

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, took me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Damasius

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:
I think and know as a catholic that the only thing worth having in this life is the contemplation of God and of pure truth, the rest: pleasures, wordly goods, and anything temporal of physical is secondary, if we aim at the earth only, we get neither the earth or heavens, if we aim at the heavens we get the earth trown in!
I believe and know as someone who has studied and analysed humans and other life forms, as well as the universe in general, that the only real meaning in life must be chosen. There is no objective meaning to life.
Damasius wrote:
Tell me what would be better than love of God  and eternal supernatural
Pretty much anything, since what you describe as love, I describe as hatred and sheer pettiness. And anyone who wants to live forever hasn't thought it through to its inevitable conclusion of infinite boredom.

 

This is the problem , you are based on misconceptions and strawmen, you never knew God, never experienced him, do not know what christianity is, what is love you see as pettiness and hatred, you are blind , a broken human indeed.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:This is the

Damasius wrote:
This is the problem , you are based on misconceptions and strawmen

Look in the mirror. Name one argument I ascribed to you which you have not eluded to.
While you're at it, prove I am operating under misconceptions.

Damasius wrote:
you never knew God, , never experienced him

I can easily give you that. I've always been an atheist. And until god shows himself to me or otherwise proves his existence I will remain one. Unlike you I wasn't indoctrinated in fairy tales.

Damasius wrote:
do not know what christianity is,

I know exactly what christianity is: a fragmented and often dangerous cult.

Damasius wrote:
what is love you see as pettiness and hatred

The acts of your god are the opposite of loving. Your god is a brutal mass torturing and mass murdering hypocrite. Your ethics are scrambled. I could never do the horrible things to my children that your god has done to his.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote: What is

Damasius wrote:

 

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific evidence for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, aftook me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

Mine is the fact that you have not presented any evidence nor shown any proof that we have a soul, I merely deny you claim because you have failed to prove your claim. As I have already told you that is all due to the brain, more specifically how the brain evolved. With that said there have been experiments that have induced the so called god or spiritual experience, and science continues to look at the brain and religious/spiritual experience and will continue to find answers to those questions, as such if like you said your god was the only true god, all religious experiences would have the same outcome and god, yet it does not come even close, as the wide range of religions and religious/spiritual experiences. It is due to the fact that it is due to evolution and not your god or the spirit that was seeded by your god that we have different religious experiences and different interpretations. You are more than welcome to do research on the latest scientific research on the subject, but from what I see you will probably dismiss it as it differs from your own point of view.

  The reason I say the soul does not exist is simply because you have not at all in any way or form shown me nor has there ever been any evidence that the spiritual/soul that is immaterial/immortal (depending on your definition of a soul or spirit) can exist without the material. In other words if it has an immaterial existance (such as thoughts, ideas or consciousness) it has to have a material existence as well (thoughts, ideas and consciousness all existing in the brain) If you like to give us the evidence (and by evidence I mean testable/falsifiable) evidence then please present it, because as it stands right now you have not at all. So far I can say is that you have presented nothing more that falicious arguments and very much blind assertion (which makes me believe you are more or less just projecting) and many misconceptions yourself. Science has shown in many ways that the brain is the cause of all these religious/spiritual experiences. Not god, gods, spirits or souls.

None of the dead come back to tell us what happens afterwards, I go with the evidence and the evidence points to the fact that once we die our consciousness ends, that is all, you have presented no evidence what so ever that one exists beyond human desire to live and cheat death.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
No, actually

 

Damasius wrote:

And you an extremist, extremists do not discuss, so your presence on this forum is an anomaly and you are best ignored.

 

my name is a label I tagged myself with in an angrier time that has no bearing on my behaviour, as a person with any actual intellect would rapidly deduce. The fact is, since you've been here you have done nothing but talk rubbish. Spirit is a mustard seed, is it? What complete drivel. I would ask you to define spirit but your response is likely to be so utterly gormless, so channeled by the mindless dogma of the bible, as to preclude comprehension by the sensible. Are you capable of understanding what evidence actually is? Or do you just make up 'truth' as you go along?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Vastet

Damasius wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Damasius wrote:
I think and know as a catholic that the only thing worth having in this life is the contemplation of God and of pure truth, the rest: pleasures, wordly goods, and anything temporal of physical is secondary, if we aim at the earth only, we get neither the earth or heavens, if we aim at the heavens we get the earth trown in!
I believe and know as someone who has studied and analysed humans and other life forms, as well as the universe in general, that the only real meaning in life must be chosen. There is no objective meaning to life.
Damasius wrote:
Tell me what would be better than love of God  and eternal supernatural
Pretty much anything, since what you describe as love, I describe as hatred and sheer pettiness. And anyone who wants to live forever hasn't thought it through to its inevitable conclusion of infinite boredom.

 

This is the problem , you are based on misconceptions and strawmen, you never knew God, never experienced him, do not know what christianity is, what is love you see as pettiness and hatred, you are blind , a broken human indeed.

And you have never read your holy book so I can understand why you'd say this. You really ought to try reading it for yourself instead of depending on the church fathers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh, Dam

 

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? 

 

An argument for the existence of a soul made by you in material reality is an objective truth claim. You made this claim and you must prove it. We think there is no soul because you cannot even define 'soul' much less prove to us that it exists. We don't know if there is a soul or not but no one has ever described what a soul is much less confirmed its existence as a more or less provable fact. The fact you want there to be a soul doesn't prove a soul exists. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:by definition

Damasius wrote:

by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist

Then how do know it even exists?!

 

Damasius wrote:

Tell me, why does evolution seem do disfavor atheists?

Evolution favors only the ability to survive and reproduce. If believing falsehoods helps one to better survive and reproduce, then evolution will favor believing falsehoods.

 

Damasius wrote:

Its sad really, how can a person go to his death day after day without hope, without knowing God, without love... It must be a dreadfull existence indeed.

The only thing I lack out of those three is "knowing God".  As for the other two, only depression and theists typically interfere. Not all theists of course, just the ones who agree with their God that I deserve eternal punishment.

 

Damasius wrote:

This is what the spiritual is in human beings, it is the smallest mustard seed,gives rise to construcs that truly do toutch the heavens if only we water it and care for our spiritual nature, if not the seed  dies. And in its place a bush full of spikes and venomous fruit grows in its place, a bush bound to wither and die.

What replaces the bush after it withers and dies?

 

Damasius wrote:

Not at all, what I ask is that you start thinking, start looking for the truth! start trying to help others, or keep doing so, be as good as a human being as you can be

I already try to do these things...  Could you tell me why so many Christians still claim I'm wicked and evil and deserving of hell?

 

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yet to surmise who left this at my door ((some excursion))

 (No Subject)


 See : Image
  Post-apocalyptic literature was left by the JWs or the Greek Orthodox church is being more aggressive. Somebody left this . . .

..at my door ; must have been indisposed on an excursion to my garage to chew on gum or something at the time


 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:What is your

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, took me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

This kind of epistemological approach makes my head hurt.  What proof do you have that your soul doesn't have a soul, or two left feet? what proof do you have that a Klognitites do not exist?  Try the fact that you cannot define something, that in itself would make it impossible to prove.  When you have a concrete definition of a "soul" then you can attempt to prove/disprove it, until such time, you're just making baby noises.  Also, you're confusing epistemology with metaphysics.  You believe that because we supposedly gain knowledge in a certain way (spiritually), our underlining nature is such (spirituality).  

Also, you're committing a logical fallacy by conflating the term spirituality.  You're stating the fact that humans are drawn to what they label as spiritual (paranormal), due to our fear/curiosity of unknown.  Then you go on to claim that part of us is spiritual (soul, or spiritual substance, insert your favorite bs definition).  This is a non sequitur if you use the correct terminology.  Your argument from failed semantics is cute.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Damasius

latincanuck wrote:

Damasius wrote:

 

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific evidence for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, aftook me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

Mine is the fact that you have not presented any evidence nor shown any proof that we have a soul, I merely deny you claim because you have failed to prove your claim. As I have already told you that is all due to the brain, more specifically how the brain evolved. With that said there have been experiments that have induced the so called god or spiritual experience, and science continues to look at the brain and religious/spiritual experience and will continue to find answers to those questions, as such if like you said your god was the only true god, all religious experiences would have the same outcome and god, yet it does not come even close, as the wide range of religions and religious/spiritual experiences. It is due to the fact that it is due to evolution and not your god or the spirit that was seeded by your god that we have different religious experiences and different interpretations. You are more than welcome to do research on the latest scientific research on the subject, but from what I see you will probably dismiss it as it differs from your own point of view.

  The reason I say the soul does not exist is simply because you have not at all in any way or form shown me nor has there ever been any evidence that the spiritual/soul that is immaterial/immortal (depending on your definition of a soul or spirit) can exist without the material. In other words if it has an immaterial existance (such as thoughts, ideas or consciousness) it has to have a material existence as well (thoughts, ideas and consciousness all existing in the brain) If you like to give us the evidence (and by evidence I mean testable/falsifiable) evidence then please present it, because as it stands right now you have not at all. So far I can say is that you have presented nothing more that falicious arguments and very much blind assertion (which makes me believe you are more or less just projecting) and many misconceptions yourself. Science has shown in many ways that the brain is the cause of all these religious/spiritual experiences. Not god, gods, spirits or souls.

None of the dead come back to tell us what happens afterwards, I go with the evidence and the evidence points to the fact that once we die our consciousness ends, that is all, you have presented no evidence what so ever that one exists beyond human desire to live and cheat death.

 

Thats weak piss mate, and even so its irrational and even intellectualy lazy.

Look, we have no proof tjhat aliens exist, but will that lead you to conclude that they dont?? How can you be so narrow minded? I know the soul exists from spiritual experiences I have had, as do most othe rpeople who believe in the soul, do you think your lack of evidence is enough to change anyone who had this kind of experience's mind?  I was asking for your proof that the soul does not exist, since you have failed in this regard heres a new quwestion: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE SOUL EXISTS? this is a yes or no question. incidentaly: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT A GOD EXISTS? How bout that , yes or no?

 

I have not presented the kind of scientific evidence for the soul or for God you wanted, fair enough. But does that allow you to conclude that therefore the soul does not exist??? or that God does not exist?? Do you think it would be more intellectually honest of you to say I dont know?  

 

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? 

 

An argument for the existence of a soul made by you in material reality is an objective truth claim. You made this claim and you must prove it. We think there is no soul because you cannot even define 'soul' much less prove to us that it exists. We don't know if there is a soul or not but no one has ever described what a soul is much less confirmed its existence as a more or less provable fact. The fact you want there to be a soul doesn't prove a soul exists. 

 

Im sorry, but you are an extremist, look at your sig: this is an extremist position: that the only way to knowledge is ''experiences'' moreover its narrow minded. I don't try to prove anything to extremist narrow minded atheists.

Tell you what, if you KNOW experience is the only way to knowledge,  why are you wasting time in this section of the forums with this theist who obviously think thats false, that experience sure as hell isn't the only way to knowledge, and that the rest sureas hell aint poetry or whatever.

 

If you think the scientific method has the keys of the cosmos and that if we dont have scientific evidence for something then the something mustnot exist then good for you I guess....


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Damasius

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, took me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

This kind of epistemological approach makes my head hurt.  What proof do you have that your soul doesn't have a soul, or two left feet? what proof do you have that a Klognitites do not exist?  Try the fact that you cannot define something, that in itself would make it impossible to prove.  When you have a concrete definition of a "soul" then you can attempt to prove/disprove it, until such time, you're just making baby noises.  Also, you're confusing epistemology with metaphysics.  You believe that because we supposedly gain knowledge in a certain way (spiritually), our underlining nature is such (spirituality).  

Also, you're committing a logical fallacy by conflating the term spirituality.  You're stating the fact that humans are drawn to what they label as spiritual (paranormal), due to our fear/curiosity of unknown.  Then you go on to claim that part of us is spiritual (soul, or spiritual substance, insert your favorite bs definition).  This is a non sequitur if you use the correct terminology.  Your argument from failed semantics is cute.

 

There are three parts to a human being - body, spirit and soul.  See  1st Thessalonians 5:23.  The soul is your mind, will and emotions.  So are you telling me that these components do not exist?  That our distinct personalities are a result of only the physical body?  If that is the case, why don't we all act the same like other animal species?  Where does talent come from?    Why is it that a movie or song can have an emotional impact on one person ,but not on another?  Furthermore, why is man inheritly selfish and mean to others?   One example of this is generation after generation of adolescent bullying.  

 

In the atheist world, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain.  But no atheist would tell their spouse, I love you only because of these wonderful chemicals.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Here is what I would like to

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

 

 

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

 

 

 

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Ktulu

TWD39 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? I cited that we as humans are spiritual beings, that is, that we are drawn to the spiritual, that a part of ourselvesis spiritual, look at the number of spiritual experiences in the world and you will see that this is soé ow do you know no soul or ''self'' survives after death? Do you consider yourself rational?  this is what I want from you, GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON TO CONCLUDE THE SOUL DOES NOT EXIST. Do you think the mere fact you dont have any scientific for the soul is enough evidence? by definition the soul is not of the physical realm, it cant be mesured, weighed, yet it does exist.

You only ,make assertions, you are no different than us religious folks. The truth is you dont know. But you see we have a weapon you do not, we have faith and spirituality, trough spiritual experiences things are made clear, I know so, I experienced such an experience, that changed my life, stopped me from drinking, took me off the pills, stopped my panic attacks, gave me new life. I have evidence for the spiritual world, what do you have for its non existence? : a bunch of facile arguments, bloind assertions and misconceptions.

This kind of epistemological approach makes my head hurt.  What proof do you have that your soul doesn't have a soul, or two left feet? what proof do you have that a Klognitites do not exist?  Try the fact that you cannot define something, that in itself would make it impossible to prove.  When you have a concrete definition of a "soul" then you can attempt to prove/disprove it, until such time, you're just making baby noises.  Also, you're confusing epistemology with metaphysics.  You believe that because we supposedly gain knowledge in a certain way (spiritually), our underlining nature is such (spirituality).  

Also, you're committing a logical fallacy by conflating the term spirituality.  You're stating the fact that humans are drawn to what they label as spiritual (paranormal), due to our fear/curiosity of unknown.  Then you go on to claim that part of us is spiritual (soul, or spiritual substance, insert your favorite bs definition).  This is a non sequitur if you use the correct terminology.  Your argument from failed semantics is cute.

 

There are three parts to a human being - body, spirit and soul.  See  1st Thessalonians 5:23.  The soul is your mind, will and emotions.  So are you telling me that these components do not exist?  That our distinct personalities are a result of only the physical body?  If that is the case, why don't we all act the same like other animal species?  Where does talent come from?    Why is it that a movie or song can have an emotional impact on one person ,but not on another?  Furthermore, why is man inheritly selfish and mean to others?   One example of this is generation after generation of adolescent bullying.  

 

In the atheist world, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain.  But no atheist would tell their spouse, I love you only because of these wonderful chemicals.

So your soul goes away when your brain stops working? Thanks for admitting it.

No, we would tell our spouses that we love them by showing loving actions to them (that are triggered by those chemicals that generate those emotions).

That's much better than telling your spouse "God told me that I had to love you so I won't burn in hell".

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:I look foward

Damasius wrote:

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Brian Sapient actually made a large post a while ago that specifically addresses this issue. Just click on the "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?" link on the left side of the page.

 

Tell me, when are you going to respond to my previous posts?

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Here is what

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Well, as far as I know we all consider ourselves agnostic atheists.  You're correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing.  The probability of X existing, however, is indirectly proportional to the amount of unsuccessful effort put into finding X.  Also, evidence for X has to be proportional to the claim.

Now, in so far as the god claim, I will grant you a remotely slight possibility of existence only in so far as you keep your concepts vague.  As soon as you attempt to present evidence that I can prove false, I will grant you absolutely ZERO probability of existence.  

So, in other words, if your claim is that there is indeed some vague, not defined, remote possibility of a godlike entity that is completely separate from us, then I'm cool with that, you can believe in whatever you want.  As soon as you start attributing properties to your fantasy, however, I can then asses if your claim has any merit.  

You say that your god has x,y,z properties, I can check if those x,y,z properties are logically consistent, or previously observed.  I can test your logical claim for the necessity of such an entity.  So on and so forth.  

If you claim that God is ALL LOVING, then I can look around and see if we're surrounded with nothing but love.  If the entire universe is indeed objectively ALL LOVING, this would be very strong evidence for a godlike entity with that property to exist.  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The only reason I consider myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is because I consider myself to be intellectually honest.  For all practical purposes I am an ATHEIST. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Once again:

Damasius wrote:

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

The existence of extraterrestrial life is far more probable than the existence of the soul or God.

Is it also possible that the soul and God do not exist?

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Damasius

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Well, as far as I know we all consider ourselves agnostic atheists.  You're correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing.  The probability of X existing, however, is indirectly proportional to the amount of unsuccessful effort put into finding X.  Also, evidence for X has to be proportional to the claim.

Now, in so far as the god claim, I will grant you a remotely slight possibility of existence only in so far as you keep your concepts vague.  As soon as you attempt to present evidence that I can prove false, I will grant you absolutely ZERO probability of existence.  

So, in other words, if your claim is that there is indeed some vague, not defined, remote possibility of a godlike entity that is completely separate from us, then I'm cool with that, you can believe in whatever you want.  As soon as you start attributing properties to your fantasy, however, I can then asses if your claim has any merit.  

You say that your god has x,y,z properties, I can check if those x,y,z properties are logically consistent, or previously observed.  I can test your logical claim for the necessity of such an entity.  So on and so forth.  

If you claim that God is ALL LOVING, then I can look around and see if we're surrounded with nothing but love.  If the entire universe is indeed objectively ALL LOVING, this would be very strong evidence for a godlike entity with that property to exist.  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The only reason I consider myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is because I consider myself to be intellectually honest.  For all practical purposes I am an ATHEIST. 

 

Lets forget about the references to the problem of evil and to probabilities, I think this is an important admission on your part. Now tell me , in the real world, whats the difference between an ''agnostic atheist'' and an agnostic?  Do you think this is a meaningfull distinction? Now you say that im correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing. What about the other poster, he did just that, do you think he is wrong? Also, what do you mean by practical pruposes being an atheist??


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Damasius

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Well, as far as I know we all consider ourselves agnostic atheists.  You're correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing.  The probability of X existing, however, is indirectly proportional to the amount of unsuccessful effort put into finding X.  Also, evidence for X has to be proportional to the claim.

Now, in so far as the god claim, I will grant you a remotely slight possibility of existence only in so far as you keep your concepts vague.  As soon as you attempt to present evidence that I can prove false, I will grant you absolutely ZERO probability of existence.  

So, in other words, if your claim is that there is indeed some vague, not defined, remote possibility of a godlike entity that is completely separate from us, then I'm cool with that, you can believe in whatever you want.  As soon as you start attributing properties to your fantasy, however, I can then asses if your claim has any merit.  

You say that your god has x,y,z properties, I can check if those x,y,z properties are logically consistent, or previously observed.  I can test your logical claim for the necessity of such an entity.  So on and so forth.  

If you claim that God is ALL LOVING, then I can look around and see if we're surrounded with nothing but love.  If the entire universe is indeed objectively ALL LOVING, this would be very strong evidence for a godlike entity with that property to exist.  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The only reason I consider myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is because I consider myself to be intellectually honest.  For all practical purposes I am an ATHEIST. 

 

Lets forget about the references to the problem of evil and to probabilities, I think this is an important admission on your part. Now tell me , in the real world, whats the difference between an ''agnostic atheist'' and an agnostic?  Do you think this is a meaningfull distinction? Now you say that im correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing. What about the other poster, he did just that, do you think he is wrong? Also, what do you mean by practical pruposes being an atheist??


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Damasius

blacklight915 wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

The existence of extraterrestrial life is far more probable than the existence of the soul or God.

Is it also possible that the soul and God do not exist?

 

 

How is it that the existence of extra terrestials is far more probable?? where is your math? where is your proof?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Ktulu

Damasius wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Well, as far as I know we all consider ourselves agnostic atheists.  You're correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing.  The probability of X existing, however, is indirectly proportional to the amount of unsuccessful effort put into finding X.  Also, evidence for X has to be proportional to the claim.

Now, in so far as the god claim, I will grant you a remotely slight possibility of existence only in so far as you keep your concepts vague.  As soon as you attempt to present evidence that I can prove false, I will grant you absolutely ZERO probability of existence.  

So, in other words, if your claim is that there is indeed some vague, not defined, remote possibility of a godlike entity that is completely separate from us, then I'm cool with that, you can believe in whatever you want.  As soon as you start attributing properties to your fantasy, however, I can then asses if your claim has any merit.  

You say that your god has x,y,z properties, I can check if those x,y,z properties are logically consistent, or previously observed.  I can test your logical claim for the necessity of such an entity.  So on and so forth.  

If you claim that God is ALL LOVING, then I can look around and see if we're surrounded with nothing but love.  If the entire universe is indeed objectively ALL LOVING, this would be very strong evidence for a godlike entity with that property to exist.  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The only reason I consider myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is because I consider myself to be intellectually honest.  For all practical purposes I am an ATHEIST. 

 

Lets forget about the references to the problem of evil and to probabilities, I think this is an important admission on your part. Now tell me , in the real world, whats the difference between an ''agnostic atheist'' and an agnostic?  Do you think this is a meaningfull distinction? Now you say that im correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing. What about the other poster, he did just that, do you think he is wrong? Also, what do you mean by practical pruposes being an atheist??

I can help a little.

Agnosticism deals with what one knows and modifies the word atheist which describes what one believes about gods. Belief and knowledge are different standards.

Sentences would go something like, " I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist." It's not a separate position. In fact, you are likely an agnostic theist. You believe really hard in a god but don't really know.

Then again, I dispute the existence of gnostic theists or gnostic atheists in regards to all gods.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Damasius

blacklight915 wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Once again: could it be that the soul exists, could it be that God exists, hell, could it be that aliens exist?

The existence of extraterrestrial life is far more probable than the existence of the soul or God.

Is it also possible that the soul and God do not exist?

 

 

Of course, but in your case the absence of evidence FOR YOU  what do you think? does God exist? does he not exist? or do you just plain admitt that you dont know?

 

I have spiritual evidence for God, leading me to conclude he exists, however I understand this evidence is not present for everyone, so in the absence of any evidence what is the best way to go?


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damasius

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Here is what I would like to know: since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist? Or would it be better and more intellectually honest to conclude '' I don't know'' I have failed presenting you with satisfying evidence have said the members here, mea culpa, but does that allow the thinkers to conclude that a soul does not exist?? Its seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid.

Same with God, the evidence was not found compelling enoufgh for the atheists here, but would it not be better to just say '' I don'T know'' and that their could be a God, its possible after all, no arguments disproving of a Gos have ever been brought forth.

I look foward of seeing your status reverting to agnostic! ;P

Well, as far as I know we all consider ourselves agnostic atheists.  You're correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing.  The probability of X existing, however, is indirectly proportional to the amount of unsuccessful effort put into finding X.  Also, evidence for X has to be proportional to the claim.

Now, in so far as the god claim, I will grant you a remotely slight possibility of existence only in so far as you keep your concepts vague.  As soon as you attempt to present evidence that I can prove false, I will grant you absolutely ZERO probability of existence.  

So, in other words, if your claim is that there is indeed some vague, not defined, remote possibility of a godlike entity that is completely separate from us, then I'm cool with that, you can believe in whatever you want.  As soon as you start attributing properties to your fantasy, however, I can then asses if your claim has any merit.  

You say that your god has x,y,z properties, I can check if those x,y,z properties are logically consistent, or previously observed.  I can test your logical claim for the necessity of such an entity.  So on and so forth.  

If you claim that God is ALL LOVING, then I can look around and see if we're surrounded with nothing but love.  If the entire universe is indeed objectively ALL LOVING, this would be very strong evidence for a godlike entity with that property to exist.  

Do you see where I'm going with this?

The only reason I consider myself an AGNOSTIC ATHEIST is because I consider myself to be intellectually honest.  For all practical purposes I am an ATHEIST. 

 

Lets forget about the references to the problem of evil and to probabilities, I think this is an important admission on your part. Now tell me , in the real world, whats the difference between an ''agnostic atheist'' and an agnostic?  Do you think this is a meaningfull distinction? Now you say that im correct in saying that not having sufficient evidence for X doesn't automatically dismiss X as existing. What about the other poster, he did just that, do you think he is wrong? Also, what do you mean by practical pruposes being an atheist??

I can help a little.

Agnosticism deals with what one knows and modifies the word atheist which describes what one believes about gods. Belief and knowledge are different standards.

Sentences would go something like, " I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist." It's not a separate position. In fact, you are likely an agnostic theist. You believe really hard in a god but don't really know.

Then again, I dispute the existence of gnostic theists or gnostic atheists in regards to all gods.

 

 

But the problem is that the stance : I dont have any evidence for X therefore X does not exist is not practical, its intelelctually lazy and indolent. The right approach is '' i dont know'' and then striving to find the truth!


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
I don't have enough evidence

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Ktulu wrote:This

TWD39 wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

This kind of epistemological approach makes my head hurt.  What proof do you have that your soul doesn't have a soul, or two left feet? what proof do you have that a Klognitites do not exist?  Try the fact that you cannot define something, that in itself would make it impossible to prove.  When you have a concrete definition of a "soul" then you can attempt to prove/disprove it, until such time, you're just making baby noises.  Also, you're confusing epistemology with metaphysics.  You believe that because we supposedly gain knowledge in a certain way (spiritually), our underlining nature is such (spirituality).  

Also, you're committing a logical fallacy by conflating the term spirituality.  You're stating the fact that humans are drawn to what they label as spiritual (paranormal), due to our fear/curiosity of unknown.  Then you go on to claim that part of us is spiritual (soul, or spiritual substance, insert your favorite bs definition).  This is a non sequitur if you use the correct terminology.  Your argument from failed semantics is cute.

 There are three parts to a human being - body, spirit and soul.  See  1st Thessalonians 5:23.  The soul is your mind, will and emotions.  So are you telling me that these components do not exist?  That our distinct personalities are a result of only the physical body?  If that is the case, why don't we all act the same like other animal species?  Where does talent come from?    Why is it that a movie or song can have an emotional impact on one person ,but not on another?  Furthermore, why is man inheritly selfish and mean to others?   One example of this is generation after generation of adolescent bullying.  

 In the atheist world, love is nothing more than a chemical reaction in the brain.  But no atheist would tell their spouse, I love you only because of these wonderful chemicals.

Well, you completely missed my point, but I'll respond anyways, why not...

Naming something is not defining something.  Let me give you a scientific example.  Dark matter is a "something" that we infer exists because of it's gravitational effect.  We observe this in galaxy rotation, and gravitational lensing.  

Ok, so here's how this goes.  If I tell you, hey, there's some stuff out there that we call Dark Matter, and you say...  what is Dark Matter?

I would have to honestly tell you that we don't know what it is.

You would then ask, well, how do you know it exists, you could be making it up... 

I would then have to point you to observations of how gravity warps space-time and light follows the curvature.  Then we can calculate the mass of stuff that we see, and expect space-time to be warped in a certain way.  We find that it is warped WAY more then it should, so we must be missing something.  We can even calculate the mass of this "something", and since we cannot directly detect it, but we can observe its effects we'll call it something and that something is Dark Matter.

Here you can either disagree, and do the math/observations yourself, or you can just be irrational.  It is your call, but I feel rationally justified in believing that there is something there, and we call it Dark Matter.

Now let's try this same thing on your "soul" claim.

You tell me, there is something called a Soul.

I ask, what is a soul? and how do you know it exists?

Now you go ________

.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:I don't have

Damasius wrote:

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Not really. The "withholding judgment on gods" is the not believing in gods part. A belief is a judgment.  You want people to make a judgment your way (stopping the search for the truth) without having any (let alone all) of the evidence. That's intellectually lazy.

We all believe without certainty?  No. We believe things with varying degrees of certainty based on things like prior observation and experimentation. absolute certainty exists only in mathematics.

You don't even have that level of certainty with God.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:I don't have

Damasius wrote:

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh the Fuzzy Logic Smiling

let me answer the previous question Smiling 

As was stated, agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.  I am an atheist because I do not believe any gods exist.  That fits the definition of an atheist.  I am agnostic only in so far as to differentiate myself from a gnostic atheist which I believe to be an irrational intellectual stance. 

Ok, now... I had a thread a while back about some vague idea regarding probability of certainty.  I'm not sure how original the thought was, I was studying logic at the time and was influence by all the Modal bs of possible worlds and so on.  It goes something like this, this is an axiom that I pulled out of my ass:

"The probability of certainty is indirectly proportional to the frame of reference." 

Try having that stuck in your head for two weeks, not fun.  But anyways, what I was trying to get at is this.  If you take "Cogito ergo sum" as the only absolute certainty, the frame of reference is absolutely small.  You need the concept of existence, the concept of self, and the concept of thinking to generate that conclusion.  Any future assessment must include those three.  If you exclude the concept of existence, you have nothing to asses, if you exclude the concept of self, you have no fixed reference, and if you exclude the concept of thinking you have nothing to perform the assessment with.  

So, at this point you have absolute certainty of the fact that you exist, as you increase the frame of reference, to include a rock, for example, you no longer have the ability to obtain 100% certainty.  It could be that you're imagining the rock... or it could be that you're a brain in a jar... solipsistic bs... point is, that as you extend your frame of reference regarding any proposition, your ability to attain certainty decreases.  

Apply this to the proposition "god exists" and you will see that it is necessary to extend the frame of reference to infinity, therefore decreasing the probability to infinity...

Well, I'm glad I got that off my chest...  I like philosophy as much as the next guy (actually, maybe a little more then the next guy), but it still comes down to mental masturbation unless you take a pragmatic approach.  If you cannot root your philosophy in the practical, it is worth less then nothing, it is a waste of energy.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damasius

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Not really. The "withholding judgment on gods" is the not believing in gods part. A belief is a judgment.  You want people to make a judgment your way (stopping the search for the truth) without having any (let alone all) of the evidence. That's intellectually lazy.

We all believe without certainty?  No. We believe things with varying degrees of certainty based on things like prior observation and experimentation. absolute certainty exists only in mathematics.

You don't even have that level of certainty with God.

 

 

You have it ass backwards, not believeing God exists implies you think he does not exist. You simply have to withold judgment alltoghether. and say, he could exist or he may not I dont know.

 

The MOMENT you say I dont believe God exists, why? because I don't have enough evidence, you are doing it wrong and going above what you could say in such a situation, The right thing as I said is you must say: I dont have any evidence, but I wont conclude God does not exist or believe he does not exist, Il simply withold judgement as admitt, he could exist as much as he could not I just dont fucking know.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Leaving aside your

Leaving aside your gibberish, In the real world, what is a meaningfull distinction between an atheist agonstic and an agonstic?


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
''I am an atheist because I

''I am an atheist because I do not believe any gods exist.''

 

What leads you to this belief? i REPEAT: IF ITS ONLY THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. as was stated the absence of evidence for something is not enough for the belief that the thing does not exist.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
''I am an atheist because I

''I am an atheist because I do not believe any gods exist.''

 

What leads you to this belief? i REPEAT: IF ITS ONLY THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR GOD YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. as was stated the absence of evidence for something is not enough for the belief that the thing does not exist.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:jcgadfly

Damasius wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Not really. The "withholding judgment on gods" is the not believing in gods part. A belief is a judgment.  You want people to make a judgment your way (stopping the search for the truth) without having any (let alone all) of the evidence. That's intellectually lazy.

We all believe without certainty?  No. We believe things with varying degrees of certainty based on things like prior observation and experimentation. absolute certainty exists only in mathematics.

You don't even have that level of certainty with God.

 

 

You have it ass backwards, not believeing God exists implies you think he does not exist. You simply have to withold judgment alltoghether. and say, he could exist or he may not I dont know.

 

The MOMENT you say I dont believe God exists, why? because I don't have enough evidence, you are doing it wrong and going above what you could say in such a situation, The right thing as I said is you must say: I dont have any evidence, but I wont conclude God does not exist or believe he does not exist, Il simply withold judgement as admitt, he could exist as much as he could not I just dont fucking know.

Actually, I usually say "I can't believe God exists because I have no evidence on which to base a knowledge claim". But "I don't believe in God because I have no evidence that leads me to know he exists" works as well.

It's intellectually honest at least until you can give me some evidence to consider. When are you going to do that?

Again, knowledge and belief are different standards. If you know something you have no need to believe in it as well. That's redundant.

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Leaving aside

Damasius wrote:

Leaving aside your gibberish, In the real world, what is a meaningfull distinction between an atheist agonstic and an agonstic?

sigh... the gibberish was there as an explanation for my stance, if you're going to consider actual consideration gibberish you're being self defeating (look up the definition in the dictionary)

You're being dense and dismissive, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.  you may want to consider attempting to understand the gibberish. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Look, we have no proof

"Look, we have no proof tjhat aliens exist, but will that lead you to conclude that they dont?"

The LOGICAL approach is to make NO conclusions without supporting evidence.

" I know the soul exists from spiritual experiences I have had, as do most othe rpeople who believe in the soul, do you think your lack of evidence is enough to change anyone who had this kind of experience's mind?"

Learning how to think critically would instantly erode and inevitably lead to all theists giving up their beliefs after realising there's no proof at all to support them and all scientific evidence suggests the religions are primitive myth.
And you'd all stop using broken terms that mean nothing, like soul and spiritual.

"COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE SOUL EXISTS? "

DEFINE THE SOUL.

"could it be that God exists"

DEFINE GOD.

"could it be that aliens exist"

Almost certainly. But I know what alien means, so I can actually do something to figure out the likelyhood of alien life.
Not so much god or soul or spiritual.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"since we don't have

"since we don't have scientific evidence, or satisfying evidence, for a thing X does that mean we conclude that X does not exist?"

Define X.

"ts seems to me that trhis reasoning is logically invalid."

It might be if you'd go ahead and define a few things, but when you say matroyka exists and when you die your gersch goes to heaven, but you never define matroyka or gersch, then your entire claim/suggestion/hypothesis is literally incomprehensible and without meaning.

It is therefore the pinnacle of logical thinking to discard, mock, and/or ignore it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13405
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
quote]I explained that we

quote]I explained that we are spiritual beings, this is a fact

No, people can and do claim to be "spiritual". That is, however, just an ignorant way of saying that they don't know how their brain and biology works in that the word "spritual" is nothing more than a comic book fantasy masking the reality of simply missenterpreting an entense feeling.

You needlessly and stupidly call "spiritual", I call "sense of awe", and I have them too. I feel it when my cat cuddles up to me. I feel it when I see a pretty sunset. But there isn't anything magical about those intense feelings. It is merely my brain's pleasure chemicals telling me I like what I am feelling.

 

"Spiritual" is a vacuuous word on par with lucky horseshoes and rabbits feet. There are just people who use wishful thinking to stimulate the pleasure part of their brain.

We are made up of a sperm and an egg comming from two sets of DNA made up of atoms. That does not make us robots. I am sorry if reality is not sexy enough for you, but that is the fact.

Now you stupidly argue that evolution consistanly produces more religious people than it does atheists, and I agree, because we did not evolve with  rational thought being the speciees primary goal. Evolution does not favor your god over Allah over Vishnu over Thor. It's only goal is get to the point of reproduction. Saying most people believe doesn't mean the majority is right otherwise Islam is favored by Evolution and you should become a Muslim because it is consistant with producing the most.

You have become a victim of your own credulity and wishful thinking and that is all.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Damasius

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Leaving aside your gibberish, In the real world, what is a meaningfull distinction between an atheist agonstic and an agonstic?

sigh... the gibberish was there as an explanation for my stance, if you're going to consider actual consideration gibberish you're being self defeating (look up the definition in the dictionary)

You're being dense and dismissive, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.  you may want to consider attempting to understand the gibberish. 

 

 

 

 

You changed your position, now its landed:  ''I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.''

 

say we une a deist concept: the idea of a God outside of the universe, who created it, but in no way interferes with it, how does that concept fail? what do you have against a deistic concept of God? 

 

I could give the definition of the christian God, how would this definition ''fail''?? 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Look, we have

Vastet wrote:
"Look, we have no proof tjhat aliens exist, but will that lead you to conclude that they dont?" The LOGICAL approach is to make NO conclusions without supporting evidence. " I know the soul exists from spiritual experiences I have had, as do most othe rpeople who believe in the soul, do you think your lack of evidence is enough to change anyone who had this kind of experience's mind?" Learning how to think critically would instantly erode and inevitably lead to all theists giving up their beliefs after realising there's no proof at all to support them and all scientific evidence suggests the religions are primitive myth. And you'd all stop using broken terms that mean nothing, like soul and spiritual. "COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT THE SOUL EXISTS? " DEFINE THE SOUL. "could it be that God exists" DEFINE GOD. "could it be that aliens exist" Almost certainly. But I know what alien means, so I can actually do something to figure out the likelyhood of alien life. Not so much god or soul or spiritual.

 

You mean you spent all this time arguing with me all the time ignoring what the christian perspective of God and of the soul is???? go educate yourself we can always talk at a later date.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
  ''I can actually do

 

 ''I can actually do something to figure out the likelyhood of alien life.''

 

like what?


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
''Not so much god or soul or

''Not so much god or soul or spiritual''

 

Howzabout investigating the millions of spiritual experiences, NDE, etc etc people go trough everyday all over the planet? Do you think this would help somewhat?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:Ktulu

Damasius wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Leaving aside your gibberish, In the real world, what is a meaningfull distinction between an atheist agonstic and an agonstic?

sigh... the gibberish was there as an explanation for my stance, if you're going to consider actual consideration gibberish you're being self defeating (look up the definition in the dictionary)

You're being dense and dismissive, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.  you may want to consider attempting to understand the gibberish. 

 

 

 

 

You changed your position, now its landed:  ''I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.''

 

say we une a deist concept: the idea of a God outside of the universe, who created it, but in no way interferes with it, how does that concept fail? what do you have against a deistic concept of God? 

 

I could give the definition of the christian God, how would this definition ''fail''?? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would fail as soon as you used and of the omni- terms.

Omniscience and free will are incompatible.

Omnipotence and needing people to kiss his butt are incompatible

Omnibenevolence and the killing machine in the Bible are incompatible

Omnipresence and the Biblical examples of all that he doesn't see are incompatible.

You'd know about these if you'd read the Bible - you still haven't have you?

The deistic God doesn't have those attributes but still lacks evidence for its existence.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damasius

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

I don't have enough evidence to say with certainty that gods exist. Without that certainty (for all practical purposes), I can't honestly believe that gods exist."

 

This is the big problem, its ridiculous and intellectually lazy, the correct approach is: I can't honestly say that I KNOW anything about the turht or untruth of the claim. AND I MUST CONTINUE MY SEARCH FOR TRUTH. You simply have the withhold judgment.

 

Besides , we believe things without certainty all the time, our entire existence is based on these , yet we do so honestly and theirs nothing wrong with that.

 

 

Not really. The "withholding judgment on gods" is the not believing in gods part. A belief is a judgment.  You want people to make a judgment your way (stopping the search for the truth) without having any (let alone all) of the evidence. That's intellectually lazy.

We all believe without certainty?  No. We believe things with varying degrees of certainty based on things like prior observation and experimentation. absolute certainty exists only in mathematics.

You don't even have that level of certainty with God.

 

 

You have it ass backwards, not believeing God exists implies you think he does not exist. You simply have to withold judgment alltoghether. and say, he could exist or he may not I dont know.

 

The MOMENT you say I dont believe God exists, why? because I don't have enough evidence, you are doing it wrong and going above what you could say in such a situation, The right thing as I said is you must say: I dont have any evidence, but I wont conclude God does not exist or believe he does not exist, Il simply withold judgement as admitt, he could exist as much as he could not I just dont fucking know.

Actually, I usually say "I can't believe God exists because I have no evidence on which to base a knowledge claim". But "I don't believe in God because I have no evidence that leads me to know he exists" works as well.

It's intellectually honest at least until you can give me some evidence to consider. When are you going to do that?

Again, knowledge and belief are different standards. If you know something you have no need to believe in it as well. That's redundant.

 

 

 

Per your definition of agnostic atheistm or whatever it is you are talking about... do you think babies could be considered atheists? animals, rocks, atheists? with this weak piss definition of atheism you give it sure seems so. It seems you are going with a definition of atheism that apart from being very weak is not the traditional definition of ahteism, I see it as just a lame attempt to shake all burden of proof.

 

 

as for ''I can't believe God exists because I have no evidence on which to base a knowledge claim'' if their was a murder, would you say I can,t believe joe murdered X because I have no evidence on which to base a knowledge claim'' but what if he fucking did???? The correct answer would still be like I said: I dont know wether the fuck joe murdered x. PERIOD.

 

as for your distinction of belief and knowledge, well its just retarded, their are very few things you can know to a certainty, their is always an ammount of belief involved. For instance, can you prove to a certainty that your life isn'T all just a dream? I highly doubt it.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
LOL, on no! hes irrected the

LOL, on no! hes irrected the infamous ''incompatibility'' canard, what If I told you that the ''incompatiblity'' problem of God's attributes has been solved by philosophers, and there is now a concensus that this is a pseudo objection with many problems? I guess you need to try harder. If you think you have a logical version of the incompatibility problem, then by all means present it, a nobel prize awaits you.


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damasius

jcgadfly wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Damasius wrote:

Leaving aside your gibberish, In the real world, what is a meaningfull distinction between an atheist agonstic and an agonstic?

sigh... the gibberish was there as an explanation for my stance, if you're going to consider actual consideration gibberish you're being self defeating (look up the definition in the dictionary)

You're being dense and dismissive, I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.  you may want to consider attempting to understand the gibberish. 

 

 

 

 

 

You changed your position, now its landed:  ''I DON'T BELIEVE IN ANY GOD because as soon as you start defining your god concept it FAILS!.''

 

say we une a deist concept: the idea of a God outside of the universe, who created it, but in no way interferes with it, how does that concept fail? what do you have against a deistic concept of God? 

 

I could give the definition of the christian God, how would this definition ''fail''?? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would fail as soon as you used and of the omni- terms.

Omniscience and free will are incompatible.

Omnipotence and needing people to kiss his butt are incompatible

Omnibenevolence and the killing machine in the Bible are incompatible

Omnipresence and the Biblical examples of all that he doesn't see are incompatible.

You'd know about these if you'd read the Bible - you still haven't have you?

The deistic God doesn't have those attributes but still lacks evidence for its existence.

 

 

Now were cooking! atheists are starting to trot out their bad pseudo arguments against God, so far we have the incompatibility of free will with God's attributes, so if I may, does this mean you agree that free will exist? if so this falls a pic, because I have just the argument to prove the existence of the soul that rests on the existence of free will.

 

 

Let me bring this baby to the table right now:

  1. Free will exists (follows from direct perceptions).
  2. The soul is the incorporeal essence of oneself (by definition).
  3. Free will is about voluntary choice, being able to choose one’s own actions; the freedom to make choices that are not determined by prior causes. (By definition.)
  4. Therefore, free will is itself a cause and not an effect in its interactions with corporeality (follows from 3).
  5. So if free will exists, its basis must be incorporeal. (Follows from 4. If free will exists it has to have some kind of existence; and from 4 free will is not an effect in its interactions with corporeality, the basis of free will cannot be corporeal, the only alternative left is the incorporeal)
  6. The self chooses one’s own actions (part of the definition of free will, i.e. from line 3), and is thus the basis of free will.
  7. The basis of the self must be incorporeal if free will exists, since the basis of free will must be incorporeal, and the basis of free will is the self (from 2, 5 and 6).

Conclusion: The soul exists because free will exists (from 1 and 7).
 

 

You dont deny free will, so lets have a little fun, show me how my argument fails.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Damasius wrote:You mean you

Damasius wrote:
You mean you spent all this time arguing with me all the time ignoring what the christian perspective of God and of the soul is???? go educate yourself we can always talk at a later date.

I know how the christians have FAILED to define soul, god, and other terms without referring to what they ARE. Instead they define what they are NOT, which means they haven't been defined at all.

go educate yourself we can always talk at a later date.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
There's no rehabilitation for these

 

TWD39 wrote:

There are three parts to a human being - body, spirit and soul.  See  1st Thessalonians 5:23.  The soul is your mind, will and emotions.  So are you telling me that these components do not exist?  That our distinct personalities are a result of only the physical body?  If that is the case, why don't we all act the same like other animal species?  Where does talent come from?    Why is it that a movie or song can have an emotional impact on one person ,but not on another?  Furthermore, why is man inheritly selfish and mean to others?   One example of this is generation after generation of adolescent bullying.  

 

failed brains. And no doubt these people would happily watch unbelievers burned alive for not agreeing with their puerile arguments. 

TWD, just saying that there are 3 parts to a human being does not make it so. Define the parts and prove they exist, not as components of a material brain but an ethereal goo.

But I agree we are mean to each other. Look at the generation after generation of christian bullying of unbelievers. Outrageous. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10358
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The debate is still raging

The debate is still raging on free will. There is circumstancial evidence to support either position.

Christians, if they are right and their god does exist, certainly do not have free will, as I proved to you in another topic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5087
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry Dam

Damasius wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Damasius wrote:

What is your proof we have no soul? what makes you think that?  how can you affirm this with such confidence? 

 

An argument for the existence of a soul made by you in material reality is an objective truth claim. You made this claim and you must prove it. We think there is no soul because you cannot even define 'soul' much less prove to us that it exists. We don't know if there is a soul or not but no one has ever described what a soul is much less confirmed its existence as a more or less provable fact. The fact you want there to be a soul doesn't prove a soul exists. 

 

Im sorry, but you are an extremist, look at your sig: this is an extremist position: that the only way to knowledge is ''experiences'' moreover its narrow minded. I don't try to prove anything to extremist narrow minded atheists.

Tell you what, if you KNOW experience is the only way to knowledge,  why are you wasting time in this section of the forums with this theist who obviously think thats false, that experience sure as hell isn't the only way to knowledge, and that the rest sureas hell aint poetry or whatever.

 

If you think the scientific method has the keys of the cosmos and that if we dont have scientific evidence for something then the something mustnot exist then good for you I guess....

 

You've tried your hardest but this is still not a definition of 'soul'. Try again. And concentrate this time. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Damasius
Theist
Posts: 118
Joined: 2010-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The debate is

Vastet wrote:
The debate is still raging on free will. There is circumstancial evidence to support either position. Christians, if they are right and their god does exist, certainly do not have free will, as I proved to you in another topic.

 

You are right, but I am adressing the other poster, who thinks free will does exist.