Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Interesting piece of sophistry Tacky,but I think you are using argument from from ignorance, trying to convert an implication (suggestion) into an inference.(conclusion)
As far as I''m aware ,theists have yet to meet the burden of proof for the soul. Ie that anything survives brain death. Don't care who said what about the matter; there is currently no evidence to support such a claim.
That the entirety of the function of the brain may not yet be known may be used to imply all kinds of things.However, it may not be used to infer anything.
You mentioned Plato; the platonic method demands evidence in support of claims. It has been the so-called neo platonists (such as Augustine) who have argued truth can be established by reason alone.
The notion of the soul and an afterlife, like a belief in god(s) remains a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.
(July 29, 2010 at 9:32 pm)Watson Wrote: 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.
Agreed, it's a a double standard, but no naturalists worth their weight would claim it so it's not really a problem, just like a theist who claims that something uncaused cannot exist and then say God is uncaused, both are a case of special pleading.
Interesting piece of sophistry Tacky,but I think you are using argument from from ignorance, trying to convert an implication (suggestion) into an inference.(conclusion)
As far as I''m aware ,theists have yet to meet the burden of proof for the soul. Ie that anything survives brain death. Don't care who said what about the matter; there is currently no evidence to support such a claim.
That the entirety of the function of the brain may not yet be known may be used to imply all kinds of things.However, it may not be used to infer anything.
You mentioned Plato; the platonic method demands evidence in support of claims. It has been the so-called neo-platonists (such as Augustine) who have argued truth can be established by reason alone. I thought I listed where something is survived clinical death, but perhaps that was before I accidentally deleted and rewrote the post. I'll do it again here:
Quote:Evidence has shown that if the heart can be restarted after the criteria for death have been met; then, an individual can be brought back to life and the human mind and consciousness can remain intact. Recent studies of near death experiences during an objective period of clinical death
The notion of the soul and an afterlife, like a belief in god(s) remains a religious belief based on faith,not evidence.
If that were my only argument then it would be from ignorance, but seeing as I stated that Jesus isn't God, and am a Christian, there's obviously more to my belief then that. The identity of self does not cease at the ceasing of brain activity. The identity of self is stored can be manipulated in a physical sense. Therefore logically there is more to identity than the physical influences it has. One explanation is that it is independent of the physical, thus saying that there are at least 2 substances identity consists of. For simplicities sake I don't assume any more than that one other state I term as Spiritual self. Hopefully that explains why I believe in substance dualism. I'm not experienced enough in the field to fully explain the properties of the other substance (especially since it's not based in measurable evidence, yet), but Christianity provides an adequate solution for this, IMO.
I agree with an Augustine-like approach that think the unsubstantial can be reasoned, where they do not deny evidence.
I only cited the platonic belief in an eternal soul that it is unsupported by Biblical doctrine.
Quote:
The most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error--namely, Plato's invention of Pure Spirit and the Good in Itself. But now when it has been surmounted, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again draw breath freely and at least enjoy a healthier--sleep, we, whose duty is wakefulness itself, are the heirs of all the strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. It amounted to the very inversion of truth, and the denial of ... the fundamental condition ... of life, to speak of Spirit and the Good as Plato spoke of them; indeed one might ask, as a physician: "How did such a malady attack that finest product of antiquity, Plato? Had the wicked Socrates really corrupted him? Was Socrates after all a corrupter of youths, and deserved his hemlock?" But the struggle against Plato, ... the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity (FOR CHRISTIANITY IS PLATONISM FOR THE "PEOPLE"), produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul, such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals.
Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900), from the preface to his book entitled Beyond Good and Evil (1886).
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Quote:Evidence has shown that if the heart can be restarted after the criteria for death have been met; then, an individual can be brought back to life and the human mind and consciousness can remain intact. Recent studies of near death experiences during an objective period of clinical death
The definition of what death is has changed recently (it used to be lack of heart beat, but is now a more complex equation) and as you can see from this case, is more of a grey area than people would imagine.
Miraculous recoveries happen all the time, I see no evidence for anything other than a man who was lucky, certainly nothing that would lead me to believe in a soul.
March 6, 2011 at 1:39 pm (This post was last modified: March 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm by reverendjeremiah.)
(March 6, 2011 at 12:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:Miraculous recoveries happen all the time
And they are usually the result of doctors busting their butts not some fucking 'god.'
Yeah. That really pisses me off sometimes. Fundies will get sick, go to every doctor they can, go through surgery and take modern medicine that was created using evolution as a model to predict newer and better medications, using state of the art machinery and computers that are a result of skeptical and materialistic science, and once they finally get better they say "thankyou Jesus. It was a miracle. Prayer healed me".
So you were praying before you even knew you got sick, you been praying while you were sick..and you have been praying for the last ten years...if it was prayer that healed you then how come prayer didnt prevent the disease in the first place you slope headed knuckle dragger?!?! If prayer was the cure, then why did you go to a hospital? If you REALLY beleievd b=prayer was a miracle cure you would not even consider a hospital a viable option for you. You would ask the ambulance to take you to a church when they cut you out of that mangled pinto with the jaws of life.
(March 4, 2011 at 7:17 pm)Watson Wrote: Oh man. Where do I go to attend services with your church, Reverend? That angel looks worth it alone.
I agree...that is a beautiful angel, and look at her mad skills! Six masskrug in each hand. The closest thing we have to this where I live is October fest in Bush Gardens. I would love to start my own beer garden (like in the bottom picture)..maybe one day I will...there is just something about beer gardens to me. As I soon as I walk into one its like every burdon I have at the moment leaves my shoulders and I cant help but smile. Islam would ban it.
Islam would ban beer? Islam would shut down beer gardens and that would be highly offensive to me. Any religion that bans cold beer, the music the beer garden plays, the dress that beautiul angel is wearing, and bacon is a mad, mad, MAD religion to say the least. WHO BANS BEER AND BACON!!?!?!?!?!?! that is an affront to all that is just and right in this world!
tackattack Wrote: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.
Really? You have no idea that the entirety of identity is in the brain? where do you think some of it resides? In the sex organs? I know what you are trying to do, and Im not falling for it. If you do not think that the brain is the entirety of your identity, then please allow me to scrape out that worthless gray matter called "the frontal lobe". If you really, TRULY believe in a soul then this shouldnt bother you..as the brain isnt the entirety of identity in your point of view. Do you really beleive what you jst said, or are you just saying it for show?
tackattack Wrote: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
REALLY? So you consider ignoring evidence to be right and proper sometimes? Ignoring the truth is right and proper? Lets look at what you said again...
tackattack Wrote:Going beyond what is right and proper is not ignoring evidence
So ignoring evidence does not go beyond being right and proper? So if I find evidence that someone actually didnt murder some people, then you would consider it not beyond whats right and proper if I just ignored it and convicted him for murder anyways? I put my foot down stern on this one. Ignoring evidence is BAD! Accepting evidence, even if it goes against your wishes, is RIGHT and PROPER! Perhaps that is the biggest difference between me and you. I take evidence very seriously, and would consider it an affront to personal integrity if others didnt agree. You apparently dont place much value on evidence.
tackattack Wrote: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.
No it isnt. I didnt have one single emotional pleading in that post. You were not, and STILL ARE NOT, pointing out flaws in my arguments..and yes, you are very arrogant for believing you are something special and that you get to be immortal after you die in paradise. That to me SCREAMS "Im an arrogant and super special SOB!". What makes you any more special than a Paramecium that you get to live forever but other people who dont agree with you will be burned forever? The height of arrogance my friend.
tackattack Wrote: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.
You JUST said in this post: "Going beyond what is right and proper is not ignoring evidence". You say that ignoring evidence is okay, then you demand that I show you where you were in denial of evidence. Do you ever proof read your own posts?
tackattack Wrote: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.
WHAT? You say an immortal soul is a platonic influence on Christianity, but it is NOT supported in the bible? That makes ZERO sense and seems like a contradiction if you ask me. How can something influence christianity but not be supported by biblical standards? Lets see what JESUS has to say on the subject:
Matthew 10:28 says, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Looks like it is supported in the bible to me. Even Jesus himself is basing his entire ministry on it. And to say; "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.". SERIOUSLY? No, honestly, you are seriously THAT ignorant about the human body and modern science on anatomy? If what you are saying is actually what you think, then my 10 year old son has blown you out of the water in terms of knowing science. Yes, you can call that last sentence an ad hominim attack if you like. I think you actually deserved a falacy to be thrown at you after saying what you said.
tackattack Wrote: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.
You are correct all the way up until the "destroyed" part. The bible is VERY CLEAR that unsaved souls are tortured in a lake of fire for eternity. They do not get "destroyed". They get "punished" (which is a nice way of saying TORTURED). Other than that your theology on #2 is correct. I do not consider that to be a reasonable explanation. That is a fantastical statement that should be backed up with amazing amounts of evidence across different fields of sciences or be rejected outright as a fanciful tale from ancient and ignorant humans. It denies every single fact I presented. As far as living a good life? I dont consider living a lie, and avoiding evidence, to be a "good" life.
(March 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: You are correct all the way up until the "destroyed" part. The bible is VERY CLEAR that unsaved souls are tortured in a lake of fire for eternity. They do not get "destroyed". They get "punished" (which is a nice way of saying TORTURED).
Who is to say that destruction does not constitute as punishment, RJ?
(March 6, 2011 at 2:57 am)padraic Wrote: That the entirety of the function of the brain may not yet be known may be used to imply all kinds of things.However, it may not be used to infer anything.
Yeah, how do you like that? He posts a kazillion words that all bascially say: "We dont know every single thing about the brain, therefore heaven exists, and Jesus, and God, and souls. And if you say otherwise, then you are ignoring evidence and arrogant."
March 6, 2011 at 9:11 pm (This post was last modified: March 6, 2011 at 9:12 pm by ozgoat.)
(March 6, 2011 at 1:55 am)tackattack Wrote: 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.
I'm assuming that you can understand what a strange doctrine that is for non-believers to comprehend.
I don't see anything reasonable about it at all, especially in the light of the fact that "god" only gave humans a soul, so I'm told by theologians. All life forms on Earth evolved from the same original first life forms, so are we to understand that at some stage in the evolution of humans that "god" decided to allocate a soul or spirit to a then current development of the human? Which version of human started being allocated a soul, I wonder, and why?
Or perhaps it was just Constantine and his henchmen inventing it for their version of Christianity? Taking a little bit of doctrine from the Egyptians, a little bit from many other religions and beliefs and putting it all together in a neat package to make Christianity more palatable and giving an added carrot for more power and control over those upon whom whom they forced their religion.
Aristotle made much more sense, to me:
"Aristotle was concerned to belabor the point, in no uncertain terms, that intellectual activity, i.e., the human soul, ceases to exist upon death. Intelligence and memory is carried on, if at all, in the only way possible: by people who are still alive and by generations yet to come."
Doesn't that seem more feasible?
There are many intelligent Christians, no doubt, but an "intellectual Christian", is surely an oxymoron.
