I don't believe in Christianity primarily because of the brain

[SerenelyBlue]

Are you a Christian? Your logic is defective. Christianity is myth and superstition. There is no proof of a god's hand in this universe. Give me proof. Your article gives no proof of the soul and I can guarantee you have no proof of the BibleGod.
Don't give me crap sprayed with aerosol and tell me it is truth. That is what Christian apologists do.

Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

I like you.

Thank you[emoji4]

[Crossless2.0]

Yeah, good point.  Let's work on a definition before we can even talk about evidence in favor of such a thing.

Did you not read the article?

That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness. 

That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.

Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?

Doing the leg work . . . like reading Lanza's philosophical forebears like Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, and Bergson (especially Bergson)? Yeah, I'm sure you're well acquainted with the tradition Lanza apes in his "theory".

'Conscientiousness' would have involved your having done such leg work before swallowing this tripe. Intellectual dishonesty anyone?

Then again, conscientiousness might also have led you to the realization that you're not trying to write 'conscientiousness' but 'consciousness'.

[SteveII]

There are many reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.  The one that makes the most sense is that there is no soul.  Without a soul there is no heaven, hell or anything to do wit spirit.

There iw no use for a soul.  Modern science is showing that the brain is responsible for all the functions human bodies have.  I evolved into a complex individual, but when my brain ceases to work, I cease to exist.  Christianity is just myth and superstition.

Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. Your position is that there is no soul (not simply agnostic about it). How do you know this? Modern science has not explain the mind or consciousness let alone how it evolved. Since humans are designed to naturally believe in the supernatural, we therefore have an intuition about a soul. Seems to me that on one side of the scale you have no scientific knowledge in which to make a determination and on the other side of the scale, we have a fairly universal intuition that one exists. So, if you can't defend you premise there is no soul, then your conclusion therefore '...there is no heaven... and ...Christianity is just a myth' is unsupported and just an opinion.

[Iroscato]

There are many reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.  The one that makes the most sense is that there is no soul.  Without a soul there is no heaven, hell or anything to do wit spirit.

There iw no use for a soul.  Modern science is showing that the brain is responsible for all the functions human bodies have.  I evolved into a complex individual, but when my brain ceases to work, I cease to exist.  Christianity is just myth and superstition.

Do you agree?

Despite what your peers say (logical fallacy: "Ad populum" ) Phycology says there is indeed a soul:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

So No I do not agree

I follow the evidence not popular thought to identify fact, you might want to give that a try.

Drich, the day you follow actual evidence is the day I sprout a second penis and fight crime as Captain Doubledick.

[Faith No More]

No, I don't agree. Your position is that there is no soul (not simply agnostic about it). How do you know this? Modern science has not explain the mind or consciousness let alone how it evolved. Since humans are designed to naturally believe in the supernatural, we therefore have an intuition about a soul. Seems to me that on one side of the scale you have no scientific knowledge in which to make a determination and on the other side of the scale, we have a fairly universal intuition that one exists. So, if you can't defend you premise there is no soul, then your conclusion therefore '...there is no heaven... and ...Christianity is just a myth' is unsupported and just an opinion.

Well, why don't you give us some evidence then? First start with a working definition for 'soul' that is clear and concise. Then tell us what the soul actually does, how it functions, how we could determine that it exists and what we would expect to see if it does exist.

And please steer clear of the litany of fallacies, e.g. arguments from ignorance and 'soul' of the gaps, most people resort to when trying to prove the soul.

[Minimalist]

I don't mean to sound nasty.  I was also a Christian and I realized that the Bible is full of errors.  It could not have been the word of God.  I know what indoctrjnation does.  I was indoctrinated.

Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

Dripshit still is.

[Drich]

Are you a Christian?  

I know you are new... but there is a "religious views" header just below your screen name and avatar. You actually fill out yours as "not religious." Mine says Bible based Christians, so yes I am a Christian.

Your logic is defective.

 My "logic" concerning this specific topic has nothing to do with God, religion or the bible. It has to do with this article, The Well respected doctor who wrote it and the Theory of Biocentrism.
Now, by your wild accusations it seems you haven't actually taken any time to research the subject being discussed, nor considered the actual evidence being provided by the article nor the theory of biocentrism..

If you still take issue with my 'logic' know Your problem is with 'science' and not religion.

Christianity is myth and superstition.  There is no proof of a god's hand in this universe.  Give me proof.  Your article gives no proof of the soul and I can guarantee you have no proof of the BibleGod.  
Don't give me crap sprayed with aerosol and tell me it is truth.  That is what Christian apologists do.

Sent from my SM-T116 using Tapatalk

Red herring/moot points as again the article provides source references that do indeed provide you with the information you claim you are looking for.

[Drich]

Did you not read the article?

That was the primary take way from it, was a defination the article gives coinsides/works with the 2007 Theory of Biocentrism. The old term 'soul' is being described in the theory as it's primary biological life force. It is conscientiousness. 

That is your definition. This theory explains makes an attempt to account for Conscientiousness as a product of biology. which Robert Lanza, M.D., the currently Chief Scientific Officer at the Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Adjunct Professor at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

For the purpose of this article drew parallels with His/our understanding of the word soul.

Both you and bobbie-value want to poo poo on this topic without doing any of the leg work.. Intellectual dishonesty anyone? How about a side of closed minded laziness?

Doing the leg work . . . like reading Lanza's philosophical forebears like Descartes, Kant, Berkeley, and Bergson (especially Bergson)? Yeah, I'm sure you're well acquainted with the tradition Lanza apes in his "theory".

'Conscientiousness' would have involved your having done such leg work before swallowing this tripe. Intellectual dishonesty anyone?

Then again, conscientiousness might also have led you to the realization that you're not trying to write 'conscientiousness' but 'consciousness'.

Who are you trying to fool?

How easy is it to simply one up a poster by googling just a little bit deeper than what is posted?

That's what you did, but that is not what I did.

I found a scientifically based theory that somewhat incorporates a religious concept. Then call people out for being intellectually dishonest when ever they only want to speak from a position of authority, of the religious component negatively, and not make themselves aware of the scientific aspects.

How is that different than what you did? I provided A and B aspects to an argument, and call out those who only speak to A for being intellectually dishonest if they refuse to acknowledge or even educate themselves on the "b" side of the argument before they speak.

You are calling me for not knowing the entomology of A and B Intellectually dishonest.

Nice try sport, but no. Maybe if you didnt get so worked up over how a word was spell-t you could take a little more time framing out how they are used, then someone like me couldn't take you to task for the intellectual dishonesty built into your fallacy of faulty comparison arguement.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...Comparison

(I know that is the sleepy emoji, but he looks smug to me/that is what I'm going for.)

[Mister Agenda]

There are many reasons why I don't believe in Christianity.  The one that makes the most sense is that there is no soul.  Without a soul there is no heaven, hell or anything to do wit spirit.

There iw no use for a soul.  Modern science is showing that the brain is responsible for all the functions human bodies have.  I evolved into a complex individual, but when my brain ceases to work, I cease to exist.  Christianity is just myth and superstition.

Do you agree?

Despite what your peers say (logical fallacy: "Ad populum" ) Phycology says there is indeed a soul:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

So No I do not agree

I follow the evidence not popular thought to identify fact, you might want to give that a try.

In order to commit a fallacy, you have to use it in an argument, which SerenelyBlue did not. Thanks for beginning your post with a complete irrelevancy.

Phycology is the scientific study of algae.

An opinion blog post in Psychology Today is not peer-reviewed medical research (and the author seems to be another Chopra type claiming quantum weirdness=eternal soul).

Anyone who read your post and the linked blog post and believed it knows less now than they would have if they had skipped it. Your claim to follow the evidence is completely laughable, you don't even seem to know what evidence of a soul would be. Hint: 'we don't understand something' or 'we don't understand everything' does not mean 'souls are realz!'.

I'll have more respect for you if it turns out you didn't even read the blog post and just grabbed the first thing on the internet that sounded 'sciencey' that you thought supported your position. If you read it and thought it was really evidence in your favor, that's just sad.

[Mister Agenda]

That is a dumb article.  Show me the evidence..

How is the article "dumb" specifically? Or are you just defaulting to another logical fallacy? Argumentum ad lapidem
(sweeping dismissal without cause)
Am I detecting a pattern of behavior?

Riddle me this sport, if you have to use fallacious reasoning to maintain your position.. what does it generally say about what you believe?

I'm glad you're studying logical fallacies, Drich; but you still have a little ways to go before your understanding of them is likely to be sufficient to try to use them for analyzing other people's statements. For example, the whole concept of fallacious reasoning doesn't apply to statements that aren't arguments.

If SerenelyBlue had argued that the article isn't correct because 'it's dumb', the fallacy would have been committed. Judging the article to be dumb is just presenting an opinion. You can't call 'fallacy!' on the reaction 'That's absurd!'. It has to be part of an argument. SerenelyBlue would have made the fallacy if the conversation went like this:

SerenelyBlue: That is a dumb article.
Drich: Why do you think it's dumb?
SerenelyBlue: Because it's obviously dumb!