Theist zone

[reverendjeremiah]

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.