RE: Arguments against Soul
September 23, 2019 at 12:49 pm
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2019 at 12:57 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(September 23, 2019 at 12:28 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:(September 23, 2019 at 12:13 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: 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...
Im not trying to be a dick, but I really do think you have reading comprehension issues. Bel wrote:
Quote:So, to repeat, here is Aristotle's definition. "Soul" is the morph part of hylomorphism. It is the form of the body, as opposed to its matter. In this case "form" means more than "shape." (A newly-dead body has the same shape, but not the form, in this sense, of a living body.) Form here means shape but also the functions, interactions, and operations. The things that the body does, by its nature.
When the body dies, the matter is still there (at first) but the soul is gone, because it is no longer capable of doing human things.
I think using the word "soul" in this way is still useful, because it gives a more general word to the totality of a person. It includes habits, mental memory, body memory, dispositions, many other things. If you wanted to avoid the word "soul" because of its modern implications you could substitute some longer phrase, like "all the memories, thoughts, habits, and dispositions of what I am."
The only thing spooky about soul, in this sense, is the Christian idea that at death the soul is transferred from its first, fleshly body into a different body, made of some different matter. And the Christians who assert this, if they're honest, recognize that this belief about the transfer of the soul is not at all provable, but only faith-based.
In what capacity does this response fail to answer the questions you asked? Which question do you feel has not been answered?
Quote: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?
What beliefs, Ego? He says he’s an atheist, lol. Would you like him to make something up just so you can knock it down? I’m sure you know which fallacy that is. Why are you badgering a self-proclaimed atheist to tell you what he believes about a god or gods? That doesn’t make any sense. If you ask someone if they believe a claim about god and their answer is, “I don’t know yet; I’m still gathering information”, you realize that is a perfectly intellectually honest answer that doesn’t violate the definition of atheism, yes?
Quote: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.
Is there something you’ve asked him about science or his personal affairs that you feel he didn’t answer forthrightly?
Quote: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.
Well, I, for one, appreciate having my reasoning to atheism challenged. We all should.
Quote: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.
I don’t agree with Bel that that makes Dawkins a careless hack, but his thoughts on the man aren’t evidence he’s a theist.
Quote: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.
Well, he certainly is a well-read, intelligent, and philosophically-minded person. He’s more well-read on god philosophy than I will ever be. I guess some atheists find that intimidating. *shrugs* Also, not everyone takes philosophy seriously, and that’s fine. It’s not for everyone.
Quote:If you find his posts to be "poignant" and interesting, more power to you. I think the dude's an insufferable dick.
You’re certainly welcome to your opinion.
Quote: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.
Me. But, only with people who I know will tolerate it. 😁
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.