Heads up advice for atheists.

[Mystic]

Why would you come into a forum where these debates often happen and present a claim like that if you had no intention of formally defending it, then?

It was just sharing my disagreement that the scientific method is the only way to verify the soul existing. I I'm allowed to share my belief. We can see ourselves existing, I can claim I see myself as a soul existing, while you claim you don't see that.

Either way to deny my claim or not, you can't prove by scientific method.

Sure we can all make claims about anything, but, in this case, I am making a claim about a shared human experience, mainly what it means to exist and our very existence. I see that a spiritual existence a reality beyond the physical world.

When it's said that I am only allowed to believe things through scientific method or formal arguments, I can say no, I am allowed to believe in free-will without that, I can believe in morality without that, I can believe in a soul without that, and I can believe even in God without that.

There is nothing to show otherwise. So at this point. I merely showing my disagreement.

We are allowed to voice our opinions and share our experiences.

If we are looking for formal proof, I have no formal proof that I have free-will, nor am I aware of it being proven by the scientific method.

I hope you don't tell me I have to prove free-will to claim I have it.

[Brian37]

Why would you come into a forum where these debates often happen and present a claim like that if you had no intention of formally defending it, then?

It was just sharing my disagreement that the scientific method is the only way to verify the soul existing. I I'm allowed to share my belief. We can see ourselves existing, I can claim I see myself as a soul existing, while you claim you don't see that.

Either way to deny my claim or not, you can't prove by scientific method.

Sure we can all make claims about anything, but, in this case, I am making a claim about a shared human experience, mainly what it means to exist and our very existence. I see that a spiritual existence a reality beyond the physical world.

When it's said that I am only allowed to believe things through scientific method or formal arguments, I can say no, I am allowed to believe in free-will without that, I can believe in morality without that, I can believe in a soul without that, and I can believe even in God without that.

There is nothing to show otherwise. So at this point. I merely showing my disagreement.

We are allowed to voice our opinions and share our experiences.

If we are looking for formal proof, I have no formal proof that I have free-will, nor am I aware of it being proven by the scientific method.

I hope you don't tell me I have to prove free-will to claim I have it.

There is no such thing as a "soul". There is only your brain in motion, once your brain dies you die. Just like when car engine dies beyond repair the car can no longer speed.

Your claim of a soul has a very evolutionary psychological reason for existing. It is your flawed perception of reality. Just like seeing a butterfly in an inkblot. You are projecting your own desire to live on which is not a reality, just your real ignorance of our evolutionary drive to reproduce. "Soul" is your ignorance of your own finite existence because evolution drives us to reproduce. It is merely a flawed perception.

You were not around 4 billion years ago, nor 13 billion years ago, you never claim to have a pre birth "soul" so what makes you think you are going to have a disembodied "soul" 13 billion years from now?

[Cyberman]

It was just sharing my disagreement that the scientific method is the only way to verify the soul existing. I I'm allowed to share my belief. We can see ourselves existing, I can claim I see myself as a soul existing, while you claim you don't see that.

Either way to deny my claim or not, you can't prove by scientific method.

Define 'soul'.

[fr0d0]

Your logic defeats itself Brian. Evidence of material objects is not possible of non material subjects. That is scientific fact.

"No one has knowledge of God" is what I was saying.

That's what everybody said - you have faith, not evidence.

And that's what I corrected if you read... I have evidence, just not the kind that you would apply to something immaterial, such as the xtian God, because such evidence would be illogical. Or to use Brians words: not the same evidence as gravity.

---

Deducing things from fact requires intellect. Some things, like mathematical truths can be deduced without facts. But I've yet to see anyone demonstrate god either factually or by a priori proof.

I understood you to mean you had knowledge of god without either. Are you now claiming a priori proof and if so, what is it?

So if you're aware a posteriori of mathematical non facts what do you call that?

Are you saying that you don't consider anything unless you have prior information?

In this case, we do have prior information to use. I'm guessing you're aware of it. We can test our own experience against it and confirm it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Christians test each other using the same method. Testimony is producing evidence of your salvation.

A 'demonstration' of facts to someone who doesn't accept those facts is not going to prove anything to that person. That person first needs to understand and accept them to be true. All that differs between audiences is the information received, understood and accepted. This subject is one where you have to have complete freedom to decide either way, hence belief and not proof beyond doubt. You might be sad that you can't state as fact either way, but no one can, and that's the most accurate truth here. I believe, you don't. Trying to claim victory over lack of hard evidence is futile and self demeaning intellectual suicide. Don't be stupid and claim that.

[faileddata2]

Dr. Kagan asks us to present arguments for the existence of a soul along with arguments for the immortality of a soul in this open course. Yes, this is lengthy, however, I found it to be interesting. When I first challenged my personal beliefs, rather like an intellectual inventory, I was surprised. How freeing was it to walk away from years of fear based religious gibberish. Atheism, for me, requires no apology or excuse. Sides, if I needed a soul...surly I'd have been issued one upon puberty. Right? lol http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/phil-176#sessions

[Brian37]

That's what everybody said - you have faith, not evidence.

And that's what I corrected if you read... I have evidence, just not the kind that you would apply to something immaterial, such as the xtian God, because such evidence would be illogical. Or to use Brians words: not the same evidence as gravity.

---

Deducing things from fact requires intellect. Some things, like mathematical truths can be deduced without facts. But I've yet to see anyone demonstrate god either factually or by a priori proof.

I understood you to mean you had knowledge of god without either. Are you now claiming a priori proof and if so, what is it?

So if you're aware a posteriori of mathematical non facts what do you call that?

Are you saying that you don't consider anything unless you have prior information?

In this case, we do have prior information to use. I'm guessing you're aware of it. We can test our own experience against it and confirm it's accuracy or inaccuracy. Christians test each other using the same method. Testimony is producing evidence of your salvation.

A 'demonstration' of facts to someone who doesn't accept those facts is not going to prove anything to that person. That person first needs to understand and accept them to be true. All that differs between audiences is the information received, understood and accepted. This subject is one where you have to have complete freedom to decide either way, hence belief and not proof beyond doubt. You might be sad that you can't state as fact either way, but no one can, and that's the most accurate truth here. I believe, you don't. Trying to claim victory over lack of hard evidence is futile and self demeaning intellectual suicide. Don't be stupid and claim that.

No you do not have evidence. "Evidence" the way you are using it is nothing more than your false perception allowing you to look for excuses to believe. That is nowhere even close to being REAL evidence as demonstrated through scientific method.

It is your false perceptions and wishful thinking, that hardly constitutes evidence.

[fr0d0]

Yes Brian. I've detailed what kind of evidence I have. Subjective evidence. Like it or not, you don't get to rule what dictionary definitions say to reflect the truth about life. Do you see how you're trying to control what people can think? And you don't think that's dangerous?

Your wishful thinking, which goes against human life, doesn't make my evidence invalid. You need to get over that.

I believe in God, and I ask you for the right to do so. You have no logical objection to my stance. I am not claiming anything that contradicts science or its methods one tiny bit.

[Whateverist]

Yes Brian. I've detailed what kind of evidence I have. Subjective evidence. Like it or not, you don't get to rule what dictionary definitions say to reflect the truth about life. Do you see how you're trying to control what people can think? And you don't think that's dangerous?

Your wishful thinking, which goes against human life, doesn't make my evidence invalid. You need to get over that.

I believe in God, and I ask you for the right to do so. You have no logical objection to my stance. I am not claiming anything that contradicts science or its methods one tiny bit.

Yeah, otherwise the only way to argue for what a novel or poem means would be to get into the laboratory and test stuff.

[Chas]

Yes Brian. I've detailed what kind of evidence I have. Subjective evidence. Like it or not, you don't get to rule what dictionary definitions say to reflect the truth about life. Do you see how you're trying to control what people can think? And you don't think that's dangerous?

Your wishful thinking, which goes against human life, doesn't make my evidence invalid. You need to get over that.

I believe in God, and I ask you for the right to do so. You have no logical objection to my stance. I am not claiming anything that contradicts science or its methods one tiny bit.

"subjective evidence" is an oxymoron.

[Whateverist]

I believe in God, and I ask you for the right to do so. You have no logical objection to my stance. I am not claiming anything that contradicts science or its methods one tiny bit.

Well .. alright, but just this one time. Everyone else get out of those churches, put down those bibles and get secular. NOW!