(March 8, 2011 at 1:00 am)tackattack Wrote: If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.

Sorry tacky...

"Intelectually Honest and Christianity (by whatever flavour you care to name it) in the same sentence is just an oxymoron. It just does not compute.

While our views are quite polar opposites KN, and we don't have the best track record with each other, I have enjoyed our discussions. If you'd like to point out at any time I was being intellectually dishonest, I'd be more than happy to address those, otherwise your baseless assertions and sweeping generalities aren't productive.

(March 8, 2011 at 3:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 1:00 am)tackattack Wrote: If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.

Sorry tacky...

ntelectually Honest and Christianity (by whatever flavour you care to name it) in the same sentence is just an oxymoron. It just does not compute.

When it comes to christianity... there is a lack of 'evidence' for it being true. However, it is not proven to be false (even though that is what I and many others here believe). I would hardly call Tacky ignorant, and i think his belief in christianity is genuine, and I would be extremely surprised if he should knowingly omit something relevant and important.

All in all... he isn't an intellectually dishonest person. And he is also a christian. I'm inclined to believe it isn't an oxymoron

---

The Good Reverend Jeremiah Wrote:How dare I insist on actual, quantifiable evidence for a soul. Its so childish of me to question Christian concepts like the soul and ask for stupid things like "proof".

You want tangible evidence for an intangible device?

Do you often ask people for the impossible, and then wonder why they can't give it to you?

Quote:I should have took all of that babling as proof that the Christians are 100% true and souls exist and Jesus is lard.

Not if it doesn't sit right with you, you shouldn't have. Souls are the subject of metaphysics, by nature they are taken on strong faith if taken at all.

Quote:How dare I ask for a list for my reasonable criteria for proving a soul: height, width, length, components, etc. Yeah, I should have never posted that, but I deserve the blame and to be called childish for not posting criteria of what constitutes proof. breathing must be a magical, mystical concept and it can in NO WAY ever be defined or logically proven. ..thus spake the Christians...breathing prove jeebus is lard.

My apologies. I will never question a christian again. If only I could be as meek as you.

Breathing is an interesting concept for those who do not. Monogamy is interesting to me because I am not, and I have no idea how that experience feels. I need more than a "what it is" to fully claim an understanding of it... i need to 'feel it' to actually be able to relate to those who live with monogamy. And people that are not polyamorous need to know more than "what it is" to relate to me about it.

Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.

Breathing is fucking weird. Weirder to those who don't. How very strange it would be to be Data... and no doubt he thinks it is strange to be us.

(March 8, 2011 at 5:59 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 3:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(March 8, 2011 at 1:00 am)tackattack Wrote: If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.

Sorry tacky...

Intellectually Honest and Christianity (by whatever flavour you care to name it) in the same sentence is just an oxymoron. It just does not compute.

When it comes to christianity... there is a lack of 'evidence' for it being true. However, it is not proven to be false (even though that is what I and many others here believe). I would hardly call Tacky ignorant, and i think his belief in christianity is genuine, and I would be extremely surprised if he should knowingly omit something relevant and important.

All in all... he isn't an intellectually dishonest person. And he is also a christian. I'm inclined to believe it isn't an oxymoron

---

The Good Reverend Jeremiah Wrote:How dare I insist on actual, quantifiable evidence for a soul. Its so childish of me to question Christian concepts like the soul and ask for stupid things like "proof".

Inaccurate

No one is questioning tacky's integrity or the fact that HE thinks he is being "Intellectually Honest" Whatever that means.

I understood "Intellectual Honesty' had a solid handle on reality devoid of emotional influence and the subsequent belief system attached to it.

So "Intellectual Honesty" is all about whatever you want to believe...even pie in the skydaddy give me my cookie??
This does not seem like it is the slightest bit intellectual nor honest...guess I really do live in a completely different galaxy.

(March 8, 2011 at 6:59 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Inaccurate

No one is questioning tacky's integrity or the fact that HE thinks he is being "Intellectually Honest" Whatever that means.

I understood "Intellectual Honesty' had a solid handle on reality devoid of emotional influence and the subsequent belief system attached to it.

So "Intellectual Honesty" is all about whatever you want to believe...even pie in the skydaddy give me my cookie??
This does not seem like it is the slightest bit intellectual nor honest...guess I really do live in a completely different galaxy.

It seemed to me that tacky was a christian, and you said that christians cannot be intellectually honest... so it seemed like you were indirectly suggesting that tacky was dishonest. It is really weird thinking of tacky as dishonest... but you know what: his record is too clean. He's clearly hiding something, we can't trust him i don't think

Intellectual honesty is all about what you actually believe. That is to say, not being false in presentation of what your brain tells you. Lying is not intellectually honest, neither is omitting relevant data intentionally, and saying something is true that you have doubts towards the truth of as well.

Of course, someone else might define it differently, but that's how I was understanding it. I'm nuts though, so my understanding of things is probably completely inaccurate and nonsensical for the rest of you ^_^

(March 8, 2011 at 1:00 am)tackattack Wrote: If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.

Sorry tacky, but I found the post to be entertaining.

I can't accept any large extraordinary claim without some evidence to back it up. Verifiable preferable. I have to agree with him a bit.
I've got nothing more to say on the matter.

(March 8, 2011 at 5:59 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:

The Good Reverend Jeremiah Wrote:How dare I insist on actual, quantifiable evidence for a soul. Its so childish of me to question Christian concepts like the soul and ask for stupid things like "proof".

You want tangible evidence for an intangible device?

Do you often ask people for the impossible, and then wonder why they can't give it to you?

Not if it doesn't sit right with you, you shouldn't have. Souls are the subject of metaphysics, by nature they are taken on strong faith if taken at all.

Quote:How dare I ask for a list for my reasonable criteria for proving a soul: height, width, length, components, etc. Yeah, I should have never posted that, but I deserve the blame and to be called childish for not posting criteria of what constitutes proof. breathing must be a magical, mystical concept and it can in NO WAY ever be defined or logically proven. ..thus spake the Christians...breathing prove jeebus is lard.

Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.

Nope this is not true at all. For those who posit the existence of a 'soul' and indeed an 'immaterial' diety, they cannot retreat behind 'its immaterial therefore there is no empirical evidence'. It is very clear that the soul and indeed even the immaterial diety interact with the natural material world. For example in the case of a 'soul': forming a relationship with our physical bodies and presumabley interacting with our brain to help form our thoughts and actions. In the case of an immaterial diety they regulary (apparently) perform miracles and change physical matter (water>wine). Thus the effects of these immaterial things are dedectable empirically through methodological naturalism, we would be able to see water turn into wine and witness thoughts and actions performed without internal (to the person) or material external stimulii. But guess what they have never been evidenced, and they should have been if they are there becuase the immaterial must interact and initiate that interaction with the material. There is however plenty of (and only to this point) evidence of physical, natural processes at work. So RJ is perfectly entitled to ask for the evidence, otherwise we should assume parsimony and reject the need for the immaterial as an uneccssary complication, leaving only the material world creating its own effects. It is far simpler to believe that some neurons fired in my brain to make me walk across a room (is evidenced), rather than an immaterial soul miraculously interacting with the physcial structures in my brain (is not evidenced) and guiding my neurons into firing to walk across a room.

@Cap'n Scarlet: The immaterial, metaphysical entities and devices themselves would have no empirical evidence for themselves, but you are correct in saying the impact of these things on the natural world would be observable. In the case of a soul, I refer back to what I previously stated on the subject, which was

(March 7, 2011 at 11:08 am)Watson Wrote:

Quote: The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

No one can tell another what exactly a soul is, for with each new person comes a new soul. There may be similarities between two souls and they may intertwine but ultimately they defy label or category, description or knowledge. You can't just ask me what exactly a soul is and expect my answer to satisfy you, because at the end of the day that is all that it is; my answer. Yours is still yet to be found, as you have ceased looking.

The soul is a personal thing. The impact it has on one's life is unique to the individual and observable as such. Ever felt you had a 'calling'? Ever ended up somewhere you needed to be at the exact right time? The soul is a small ripple in the current of something much bigger. You see a soul through its impact on the world, not through seeing the soul itself. I doubt you'd be able to describe a soul to someone else if you did see it anyway. It's not definable by standard means, and to ask someone to describe something so silly as its physical characteristics, such as height and weight and volume, is ridiculously petty and materialistic.

You know how we've never seen a black hole before? But yet we are aware of their existence through the impact they have on the universe? Yeah, now apply that same reasoning to the soul. Because if you can apply it to black holes but not souls, you're being dishonest with yourself.

(March 8, 2011 at 10:18 am)Watson Wrote: @Cap'n Scarlet: The immaterial, metaphysical entities and devices themselves would have no empirical evidence for themselves, but you are correct in saying the impact of these things on the natural world would be observable. In the case of a soul, I refer back to what I previously stated on the subject, which was

(March 7, 2011 at 11:08 am)Watson Wrote:

Quote: The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

No one can tell another what exactly a soul is, for with each new person comes a new soul. There may be similarities between two souls and they may intertwine but ultimately they defy label or category, description or knowledge. You can't just ask me what exactly a soul is and expect my answer to satisfy you, because at the end of the day that is all that it is; my answer. Yours is still yet to be found, as you have ceased looking.

The soul is a personal thing. The impact it has on one's life is unique to the individual and observable as such. Ever felt you had a 'calling'? Ever ended up somewhere you needed to be at the exact right time? The soul is a small ripple in the current of something much bigger. You see a soul through its impact on the world, not through seeing the soul itself. I doubt you'd be able to describe a soul to someone else if you did see it anyway. It's not definable by standard means, and to ask someone to describe something so silly as its physical characteristics, such as height and weight and volume, is ridiculously petty and materialistic.

You know how we've never seen a black hole before? But yet we are aware of their existence through the impact they have on the universe? Yeah, now apply that same reasoning to the soul. Because if you can apply it to black holes but not souls, you're being dishonest with yourself.

Firstly. The black hole analogy is a really poor one. We measure and observe the effects of black holes, 3 that I'm aware of are: Hawkings Radiation, the velocity of orbiting stars around the galagtic centre, gravitational lensing. This is backed by mathematical models which all fully support the observations. There is NO equivalent for the existence of souls and I therefore feel fully justifed AND honest in rejecting one and accepting the other.

Secondly. You have made an explictly scientific claim in that souls exist and that they are capable of interacting with our physical bodies. Would you like to back that up with some evidence or reasoning which supports substance dualism.

Thirdly. Have you met the immaterial puppet master? He controls us, I can't tell you how; he has a different set of strings for each one of us, I cant tell you how I know or believe that; some strings look alike, although I have never seen them. Doubting his existence or his effects on the material world is petty and trying to measure him is ridiculous and materialistic.

Quote:You want tangible evidence for an intangible device?

Oh. We are going THERE now? You dont have to give any evidence for it, and claim it is impossible to tell what a soul is beacause "its different from person to person", then you claim a soul is a "device" (begging the argument that it does manipulate tangible thing, yet is still intangible) and that is imposible to prove it exists because it is intagable.

Fine. I own a sword. It is called "death of dreams". It has powerful magic on it and it is able to kill a god. I killed Jesus about 3 months ago and replaced him with loki so that you will be fooled into thinking Loki is Jesus. Do you pray to Jesus and hold him up as the prince of peace? Then you are really doing so for Loki. Death of Dreams is intangible. If you believe in Jesus then that is proof that Jesus is dead and you are doing the bidding of Loki.

Quote:Do you often ask people for the impossible, and then wonder why they can't give it to you?

I understand. The soul doesnt exist because Death of Dreams killed every single soul in existence when it slayed Jeebus. I understand it is difficult for you to prove that your soul exists after I killed it so many moons ago.

Quote:Not if it doesn't sit right with you, you shouldn't have. Souls are the subject of metaphysics, by nature they are taken on strong faith if taken at all.

I agree. Just like Death of Dreams is also a subject of metaphysics as well.

Quote:Breathing is an interesting concept for those who do not. Monogamy is interesting to me because I am not, and I have no idea how that experience feels. I need more than a "what it is" to fully claim an understanding of it... i need to 'feel it' to actually be able to relate to those who live with monogamy. And people that are not polyamorous need to know more than "what it is" to relate to me about it.

Exactly. And the "Jesus/god feeling" that you are feeling is actually proof that Loki is fooling you after I utilized the intangible device of Death of Dreams.

Quote:Why does a soul need to be proven by empirical means? It would seem that you've already closed the case on the soul, and are running through the formalities. As defined, a soul is not tangible. This means that tangible measurements (height, width, weight) do not apply to it... and it cannot be proven to exist by finding these things... as doing so would not be finding a soul as it has been defined.

and since you have just tossed out the requirement of empirical evidence, then you MUST be willing to believe anything I say to you, especially Death of Dreams..or do you want Emperical evidence for my claims, but want me to not ask for empircal evidence of you? I might as well just say everything that you say is truth and real, no matter how absurd:
You = Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Me = Well, I am not allowed to ask for evidence, so it obviously must be true, especially if he "feels" it is tru in his heart. Cant go wrong there.
You = Jesus is my bitch ho
Me = WOW. You must be all powerful! Do you want me to worship you?
You = gyhtra is the way of allowing dertig to manifest in your hutry
Me = I havent the slightest idea what you said, but dare I question it or risk not having dertig manifest in my hutry? I dare not risk it!