Posts: 50
Threads: 1
Joined: June 2, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 12:05 am
(June 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm)whateverist Wrote: (June 15, 2013 at 11:38 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Well yes, of course. Arguments are based off of evidence and research. These aren't just senseless arguments based off of nothing. A positive and sound argument is indeed evidence for whatever you are arguing for (in this case, dualism).
Along with the couple highlighted in the wiki page there is the argument from introspection, argument from parapsychological phenomena, and the argument from disembodied existence. There are also arguments that go directly against materialism, but I think this is a healthy start. The wiki page gives a fair analysis of both sides of the coin. I also recommend Edward Feser's Philosophy of Mind. It is a great introduction to the different arguments from both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(p...or_Dualism
Seriously? Introspection, parapsychological phenomena and disembodied existence as sources of hard evidence? If those are your strongest suggestions I shudder to think who is on the second team.
But what I find cited most often by apologists are the logical implications of certain category words such as "the infinite". Take the cosmological argument. What really do we think we are in a position to assume about that which led up to (or could lead up to) a singularity. Nobody knows that and reasoning about the meaning of words people have made up seems like a poor way of determining the nature of reality. Words are tools not evidence.
Yes, seriously. Please don't come to such rash conclusions before you even read the arguments, it comes off as rather snobbish and arrogant. I've been studying philosophy of mind for the better part of this year and these arguments make a very positive case for why dualism is true. Non-physical mental states, if proven to be true, cause pretty gargantuan issues for atheists.
I'm not sure what your second paragraph has to do with the topic at hand. Weren't we talking about dualism?
All generalizations are false.
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 12:14 am
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2013 at 12:14 am by Whateverist.)
Oh sorry if I widened my focus on you there. I wasn't thinking only of dualism. My second paragraph highlights my greatest misgivings with the way apologists reason generally.
Posts: 5436
Threads: 138
Joined: September 6, 2012
Reputation:
58
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 12:30 am
So there is a soul that doesn't do anything noticeable but exists? Sounds a lot like not existing to me.
Posts: 2501
Threads: 158
Joined: April 19, 2013
Reputation:
19
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 12:58 am
Dead matter>soul(consciousness)? Or soul(consciousness)>dead matter? What is the source?
Posts: 6896
Threads: 89
Joined: January 13, 2013
Reputation:
116
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 1:30 am
What is personality then? How can newborn puppies each have their own unique personality? Just wondering.. Because it's in people too. Before the babies leave the womb they have an attitude.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!
Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.
Dead wrong. The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.
Quote:Some people deserve hell.
I say again: No exceptions. Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it. As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 5:24 am
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2013 at 5:25 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
(June 15, 2013 at 10:50 pm)Pandas United Wrote: (June 10, 2013 at 2:28 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: No.
As with every supernatural claim, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that a 'soul exists' aside anecdote and 'faith' in one.
As such, the claim that it exists can be rejected.
Actually, there are many good arguments for Cartesian dualism as well as several arguments against the materialistic approach to the mind.
I am not interested in arguments.
I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.
Posts: 501
Threads: 7
Joined: June 3, 2013
Reputation:
13
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 9:33 am
(June 16, 2013 at 1:30 am)missluckie26 Wrote: What is personality then? How can newborn puppies each have their own unique personality? Just wondering.. Because it's in people too. Before the babies leave the womb they have an attitude.
I read a study that said between 25-75 percent of a persons personality was there at birth. The rest would be up to environment.
Posts: 50
Threads: 1
Joined: June 2, 2013
Reputation:
0
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm by Pandas United.)
(June 16, 2013 at 5:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: (June 15, 2013 at 10:50 pm)Pandas United Wrote: Actually, there are many good arguments for Cartesian dualism as well as several arguments against the materialistic approach to the mind.
I am not interested in arguments.
I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.
You aren't interested in arguments? Oh, we should probably throw away neuroscience, several branches of philosophy like metaphysics and philosophy of mind, and we should probably throw away theoretical physics as well.
Arguments are based off of evidence, in case you didn't know. How do you try to portray something as true? You use rational arguments based off evidence from that respective field.
All generalizations are false.
Posts: 6990
Threads: 89
Joined: January 6, 2012
Reputation:
104
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 3:29 pm
(This post was last modified: June 16, 2013 at 3:35 pm by Fidel_Castronaut.)
(June 16, 2013 at 1:46 pm)Pandas United Wrote: (June 16, 2013 at 5:24 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: I am not interested in arguments.
I am interested in evidence. As such, my contention holds.
You aren't interested in arguments? Oh, we should probably throw away neuroscience, several branches of philosophy like metaphysics and philosophy of mind, and we should probably throw away theoretical physics as well.
Arguments are based off of evidence, in case you didn't know. How do you try to portray something as true? You use rational arguments based off evidence from that respective field.
Theoretical physics et al are based on theories as an extension of entrenched theoretical paradigms (both observed physically or mathematically) through a graduated evolution of paradigmatic themes within a given field.
The difference is there is nothing in which to base an assumption of a 'soul' on aside anecodote and the belief of the proponent. And, of course, the same type of fallacious reasoning we generally see peppered in tandem with such propositions (as above; fallacy of association, a sort of strawman as well whereby you insinuate that the aforementioned fallacy is a position that I hold).
My contention holds. There is no evidence for a 'soul'; it can be dismissed until such time evidence is forthcoming in which to base a coherent and justifiable argument on. Present some, or accept that your belief that a 'soul 'exists is based on just that; a belief.
Also, please bare in mind that I'm English, sarcasm is my second language.
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: souls
June 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm
Hee hee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDk1xRgHihA
This thread reminded me of this song. I really have nothing else to offer. Ok, I guess I could link to my own thread about souls back from when I believed in them:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-2037.html
Yeah, I think there is no evidence for souls. Dr. MacDougall had an interesting idea, but I would imagine it would be hard to get people to agree to be weighed while they die.
|