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!
(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?
It is feasible if upon death identity and self and experience ceased. I do understand that it can be a difficult dogma for unbelievers to swallow. I'm not asking anyone to. I'm here to discuss substance-dualism, physical-ism and identity. I was just carrying that particular point to a further conclusion. Hopefully though you can see that to a theist who didn't have religion forced upon him, belief in a soul (while untestable) is also a possible solution to physicalism and materialism where they apply to mind-body theory.
(March 6, 2011 at 3:41 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
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.
Wow that was the biggest load of crap I'd ever read. You're an expert cherry picker. Let me bullet this so you can follow:
1- I never said that ignoring evidence is good thing. If you actually read my post (which you did by quoting out of context) I was saying the exact opposite. However you're implying supposing or hypothesizing (going beyond what's right and proper) ignores evidence by default (and by false analogy). In fact it is an integral part of the scientific process. I did not say it is OK to ever ignore evidence, merely that your analogy was false that "going above what's right and proper" is a good thing at times (hypothesizing). As far as my stance on ignoring evidence, I don't feel it's ever proper to ignore evidence. Hope that's clearer and can get over your need to argue and read we're in agreement on this.
2- I believe I clearly stated that I don't believe the entirety of identity is located in the brain. I thought I referenced it as well, something I've yet see you do. To put it simply, the brain would be the mechanism for physical interaction with tangible reality for the mind. The subjectivity of experiences, accumulated qualia, and the entirety of identity are what is deemed as the mind. Currently no theory I'm aware of can successfully tie all qualia and identity to a physical mechanism A few examples:
2a- Sense of time requires no physical or external input. It merely requires the brain to be "on". This informs me that some aspects of the mind are independent of input. While sense of time is stored in the brain there it is clearly not a need for external input
2b- There are plenty of cases of frontal lobe disorder, as well as countless case studies of prefrontal lobotomies, where people aren't zombies as they are commonly portrayed in movies. If you do a tiny bit of research, even Google will perhaps show you that identity is not stored in the frontal lobes as you're all but saying with
Quote: 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"
3- The example I showed in a previous post are fairly straightforward. There was no breath, no blood flow, no blood in the brain, no brain electric activity in the brain. I wasn't citing it for any angle on the miraculous or the special, it's not unique. However it does show that identity doesn't cease at death (no matter how complicated your criteria DBP). Then what would hold identity? Monist materialists or any physicalists feel free to answer that question.
4- Using that same reference as one example people have cited things they could not have known during cases where there was no brain activity (thus no input from perceived reality or manufacturing of qualia). What recorded that experience? It obviously can't have been the brain.
5- The idea of an IMMORTAL soul is platonic. I never stated that a souls wasn't Biblical, it of course is. As the verse you so aptly quoted shows it isn't immortal if it can be destroyed.
5a- That brings up another misconception you have of me, I never stated I believed you would be eternally punished in hell. I don't feel that is clearly Biblical teaching and would cite the same verse you quoted. It is "destroyed", not "tormented for all eternity"
6- If you think my understanding of anatomy is trumped by your 10 year old son, please be specific and cite references.Or this will cease being productive and you would have proved yourself an ignorant troll.
7- Your references to my comment 2 in the prior post should be more specific. I feel it isn't Biblical principles to be tortured forever, nor is it intuitive (see point 5a). At least we can agree on the point that I also "don't consider living a lie, and avoiding evidence, to be a "good" life."
(March 6, 2011 at 3:49 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(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."
Completely off and incorrect. I clearly laid out several points, the gist of which you clearly don't fathom. I didn't bring up God or Jesus others did. I don't believe nor have I stated that ignoring evidence is a good thing. I don't believe you're being arrogant, just inconsiderate and ignorant as I clearly laid out in points above. If you wish to prove me wrong address them directly and effectively and stop seeking approval from your fellow atheists.
"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