Arguments against Soul

[EgoDeath]

But, can you see that you’ve built into your analogy the assumption that Bel holds positive beliefs about something? I’m not sure why you’d do that. Isn’t atheism simply a lack of belief? It makes perfect sense for him to talk about the beliefs he doesn’t hold, and the claims he is not convinced of, just like the rest of us do. That he has a particular interest in learning about the god of the philosophers doesn’t mean he holds a firm, positive belief in that god. Perhaps he feels tentatively unconvinced, but interested and motivated to do more research on the subject. We can hardly fault him, or assume he’s a closet Christian because of a philosophical and intellectual interest, IMO.

Okay, so you were incorrect about him answering me. He didn't. And yes I saw his post talking about soul: he didn't answer my questions. Next...

My assumptions weren't hasty. You were wrong in implying that. So let's move on to your next attempt.

Now you are conceding that he, in fact, doesn't talk about beliefs that he holds. However, you claim that this is reasonable because... why? Because all of us all talk of atheism as a lack of belief?

Yet, plenty of us on this board have made claims about what we do find to be true in regards to scientific findings, personal matters, so on and so forth. I rarely, if ever, see Bel doing this. His focus is always to ask questions and/or act as the contrarian. Which is fine, so long as he's cool with accepting how spineless many of us find that to be. If he wants to be AF's "devil's advocate," more power to him I guess, so long as he proudly owns the title.

Interestingly enough, the one blatant claim I have seen him make was about Richard Dawkins, who he called a "careless hack" who "doesn't care about writing the truth" in the chatbox yesterday. This claim was based off of a couple of tweets by a self-proclaimed Assyriologist who criticized a couple claims in Dawkins newest book. Lmao. Apparently, we can now write off people's entire careers based off of a few alleged mistakes. Good to know. I'm not some huge Dawkins fan, but I wouldn't write the guy's whole career off over some factual errors, either. After all, Dawkins is an accomplished author, evolutionary biologist and religious commentator. Who the hell is Belaqua? Some douche who argue with people on the internet? Oh, okay.

Keep in mind, he brought this issue up about Dawkins completely unprovoked. No one was even talking about Dawkins. It came off as this strange insult to atheism as a whole. Which is sort of silly because, why would any of us even care about Dawkins being a hack even if he was one? I'm sure he'll explain it all well and good at the next International Meeting of the Atheists. We're still going to carry out our master plan, after all.

Bel tries to come off as this educated, well-read, philosophical person, but he's constantly attempting to show everyone how intellectually superior he is, being a pompous douche to people with absolutely no motivation. He's been called on it plenty of times, and not just by me.

If you find his posts to be "poignant" and interesting, more power to you. I think the dude's an insufferable dick.

Sometimes I wonder who on this board is as argumentative in real life as they are on the forum. I wonder how well that bodes for some.