Theist zone

[Minimalist]

I'd like to look into that, actually. I have a feeling the research behind it is extremely interesting.

What boggles my mind, however, is how someone can suggest that the universe has always existed in some form or another as an infinite 'entity'(for lack of a better term), whilst denying that the same thing is possible of God.

The difference between the two being of course that the universe is real and your god is sheer speculation.

[Cinjin]

In your view, what is God?
God is Spirit, God is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, God is Holy and Righteous, God is just and good and this list could go on and on. I agree with Theophilus that the questin should be who is God and these are descriptions of who He is. I also agree that He is the creator of all.

Your god is omnipresent?

Maybe all powerful yes ... maybe a Spirit, but if he's everywhere how can he be holy and righteous if he's hanging out in a whore house or a strip joint or a gay orgy???? For that matter, why would he need angels if he's everywhere??? And if he's everywhere, wouldn't it seem that he could very easily stop things like conjoined twins, child molestations, trans-gendered births and mental retardation?? And since he IS a witness to rapes and molestations (according to you - cause he's everywhere) doesn't that then imply that he's not too terribly interested in helping mankind out at all? I mean what excuse could you possibly have for not helping out a 3 year old child escape a homicidal pedifile if you have no where else to be because YOU'RE EVERYWHERE?!??!

I actually do think God exists .... but not yours .... NO WAY. However, if you're right, and your god is truly everywhere - than he sure don't give a shit about anything or anyone on this planet and you can keep him to yourself. Enjoy the misery the Bible has been dishing out for centuries. Sounds like you're the next big lunatic called of "God" to blow up an abortion clinic.

[reverendjeremiah]

CAN I PLAY?!?

- In your view, what is god?

BEER!

- What does god do?

umm...ferment?

- Are you religious? If so do you follow all of it?

Yes, but there are some beers I shy away from.. not many though.

- Anything else?

Hot pretzels and mustard would be nice...oh, and a beer wench with an arm load of frothy Moss krugs..and a big tent, with an Oom-pah band, and roast chicken and cheese soup with roast potatoes and lots of people on picnic tables singing and having a good time. Yeah. thats my idea of a good religion and a good church. God is good.. especially when served cold.

Pictured above - An angel from heaven.

Pictured above - A minister and his helpers.

Pictured above - A church and its congregation all enjoying God in their own way.

[Watson]

Oh man. Where do I go to attend services with your church, Reverend? That angel looks worth it alone.

[Minimalist]

Yes, but there are some beers I shy away from.. not many though.

Anything with the word "Lite" in the title.

[reverendjeremiah]

The difference between the two being of course that the universe is real and your god is sheer speculation.

Its hard to have patience with them sometimes min. Us atheist types have already gone through the inner arguments and discussions and have come to that conclusion. They havent yet. They dont realize that a god is nothing more than an unnecesary addition, and a burdonsome addition at that. A massively bold claim such as a god without a single bit of proof other than "we dont know everything". Thats absurd to even worship something like a deity when you have such little knowledge and even admit it. Thats like trying Heroine for the first time just because the pusher said its safe.

[tackattack]

I believe that's not only presumptuous of you as a broad and untrue generalization where particularly it applies to me, but it's a bad case of special pleading and an appeal to emotion. Just because someone has gone through those internal arguments and discussions and came to a different conclusion doesn't automatically make your conclusion correct or mean that they haven't done through the same process. I feel that your position is in denial of indicative proof, prefering a materialistic approach which , IMO, falls woefully short of reality for me.

[reverendjeremiah]

I believe that's not only presumptuous of you as a broad and untrue generalization where particularly it applies to me, but it's a bad case of special pleading and an appeal to emotion. Just because someone has gone through those internal arguments and discussions and came to a different conclusion doesn't automatically make your conclusion correct or mean that they haven't done through the same process. I feel that your position is in denial of indicative proof, prefering a materialistic approach which , IMO, falls woefully short of reality for me.

Presumptuous? Christianity hasnt even described what a soul is, but presumes one must exist. There was no excuse for it back in the age of ignorance, there is DEFINITELY no excuse for it now. Every purpose that was excused as ignorance towards a soul has been replaced with testable knowledge to the ego of the brain.

Fact - thoughts come from the brain.
Fact - thoughts are a sum of electro chemical processes in the brain
Fact - Reflexes are stored in the lower brain and in the spinal chord
Fact - the brain is responsible for breathing
Fact - the brain is responsible for heartbeat and many bodily functions

Yet in light of all of this testable evidence, the belief in a soul continues. No soul means no need for salvation. No need for salvation means no rational need for Jesus. What is presumptuous about that? Presumptious? Going beyond what is right and proper is ignoring evidence and insisting that a fictional soul exists really exists in real life. Tell me I am using special pleading or emotion in that argument. Who is the arogant one in this situation?

You say I am in denial of "indicative proof". Fine. Show me some "indicative proof" that a soul really does exist. Until then, no soul, no need for salvation, no eternal afterlife.

Prefering a materialist approach/ WTF does that mean? Materialism is the default order of the Cosmos. what, you dont believe in Atomic theory and that life and the cosmos is the property of those atoms and their effects when they mingle? Honestly man, dont you even know basic scientific theory?

[Captain Scarlet]

I believe that's not only presumptuous of you as a broad and untrue generalization where particularly it applies to me, but it's a bad case of special pleading and an appeal to emotion. Just because someone has gone through those internal arguments and discussions and came to a different conclusion doesn't automatically make your conclusion correct or mean that they haven't done through the same process. I feel that your position is in denial of indicative proof, prefering a materialistic approach which , IMO, falls woefully short of reality for me.

Presumptuous? Christianity hasnt even described what a soul is, but presumes one must exist. There was no excuse for it back in the age of ignorance, there is DEFINITELY no excuse for it now. Every purpose that was excused as ignorance towards a soul has been replaced with testable knowledge to the ego of the brain.

Fact - thoughts come from the brain.
Fact - thoughts are a sum of electro chemical processes in the brain
Fact - Reflexes are stored in the lower brain and in the spinal chord
Fact - the brain is responsible for breathing
Fact - the brain is responsible for heartbeat and many bodily functions

Yet in light of all of this testable evidence, the belief in a soul continues. No soul means no need for salvation. No need for salvation means no rational need for Jesus. What is presumptuous about that? Presumptious? Going beyond what is right and proper is ignoring evidence and insisting that a fictional soul exists really exists in real life. Tell me I am using special pleading or emotion in that argument. Who is the arogant one in this situation?

You say I am in denial of "indicative proof". Fine. Show me some "indicative proof" that a soul really does exist. Until then, no soul, no need for salvation, no eternal afterlife.

Prefering a materialist approach/ WTF does that mean? Materialism is the default order of the Cosmos. what, you dont believe in Atomic theory and that life and the cosmos is the property of those atoms and their effects when they mingle? Honestly man, dont you even know basic scientific theory?

I agree RJ Substance Dualism has long ago been debunked, and is no longer a mainstream view of those working in the mind-brain field. Except those who want it to be true, who never define what a soul is but claim it isn't the mind (the soul containing a bit of god or soemthing). Wooly thinking I'm afraid.

[tackattack]

---

I believe that's not only presumptuous of you as a broad and untrue generalization where particularly it applies to me, but it's a bad case of special pleading and an appeal to emotion. Just because someone has gone through those internal arguments and discussions and came to a different conclusion doesn't automatically make your conclusion correct or mean that they haven't done through the same process. I feel that your position is in denial of indicative proof, prefering a materialistic approach which , IMO, falls woefully short of reality for me.

Presumptuous? Christianity hasnt even described what a soul is, but presumes one must exist. There was no excuse for it back in the age of ignorance, there is DEFINITELY no excuse for it now. Every purpose that was excused as ignorance towards a soul has been replaced with testable knowledge to the ego of the brain.

Fact - thoughts come from the brain.
Fact - thoughts are a sum of electro chemical processes in the brain
Fact - Reflexes are stored in the lower brain and in the spinal chord
Fact - the brain is responsible for breathing
Fact - the brain is responsible for heartbeat and many bodily functions

Yet in light of all of this testable evidence, the belief in a soul continues. No soul means no need for salvation. No need for salvation means no rational need for Jesus. What is presumptuous about that? Presumptious? Going beyond what is right and proper is ignoring evidence and insisting that a fictional soul exists really exists in real life. Tell me I am using special pleading or emotion in that argument. Who is the arogant one in this situation?

You say I am in denial of "indicative proof". Fine. Show me some "indicative proof" that a soul really does exist. Until then, no soul, no need for salvation, no eternal afterlife.

Prefering a materialist approach/ WTF does that mean? Materialism is the default order of the Cosmos. what, you dont believe in Atomic theory and that life and the cosmos is the property of those atoms and their effects when they mingle? Honestly man, dont you even know basic scientific theory?

---

I agree with the facts you presented. I was not aware however that the entirety of identity had been mapped and shown to not exist after the ceasing of brain activity.

Going beyond what is right and proper is not ignoring evidence; ignoring evidence is ignoring evidence. Supposition built upon already established fact is an integral part of the scientific process. Honestly man, your ad hominem falls right in line with the other nugatory arguments you have. Is this what I am to expect? It still doesn't detract from the fact that

---

Its hard to have patience with them sometimes min. Us atheist types have already gone through the inner arguments and discussions and have come to that conclusion. They havent yet. They dont realize that a god is nothing more than an unnecesary addition, and a burdonsome addition at that. A massively bold claim such as a god without a single bit of proof other than "we dont know everything". Thats absurd to even worship something like a deity when you have such little knowledge and even admit it. Thats like trying Heroine for the first time just because the pusher said its safe.

---

is still using special pleading or emotion in an argument (not to mention a false analogy and unsupported claim); but I digress... If it's arrogant to point out the flaws in your argument, then I was being the arrogant one.

Please point out where I was in denial of any presented evidence or commonly accepted facts. In the meantime, I'll share some of my views.

1- The idea of an immortal soul is a Platonic influence on Christianity, and not supported by Biblical standards. My understanding of the Christian doctrine of the soul, as well as my own personal belief, is that upon death the part of identity dependent on physical interaction dies along with the body. This is not the soul nor is it the doctrine of the Holy Spirit (I commonly refer to it as the mind). It would include experience, memory, personality, etc. However, after brain activity ceases (such as clinical death whether natural or induced), there is still an identity. Whether or not the brain can manipulate that identity is not in question, but it does not rest solely on the presence of brain activity to be present.

2- My understanding of Christian doctrine is that the spirit, upon death of the body, returns to God until judgment. All those then alive, "sleeping in the grave" or spirits in heaven, are then awakened and judged. It is then either destroyed or placed back in an incorruptible body. All of that is taken solely on faith, but a reasonable explanation if a soul exists outside of a mind. None of that denies the facts you presented, nor does it lessen the importance of living a good life in the now.