Theist zone

[tackattack]

---

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.

---

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?

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...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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."

---

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.

[reverendjeremiah]

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.

I disagree...but what is the point of arguing anymore?

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:

You never was clear about your imaginary soul regardless, so it makes little difference.. You need to study more on the brain. Enough said on that one. You have had plenty of time to prove your "soul" (as the burdon of proof is on you for the soul). All I have seen you do is argue non-stop but never give difinitive proof of a soul.

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

Perhaps vaguely what you are saying fits the medula oblongata. Please give affirmative proof of a soul before you try to act like it exists again.

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

I said to scoop out ALL of your frontal lobes. Lobotomies do not do that.

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.

And that proves what? that the Christian concept of the soul is correct? Must I remind you again that the soul has not been proven beyond a concept (i.e. "imaginary"). Try again. And stop beating around the bush this time. I want components, dimensions, weights, etc for a soul or otherwise you are full of shit.

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.

Using words like "qualia" does not excuse you from the burdon of proof. YOU MUST PROVE A SOUL EXISTS FIRST. I can easily invent any type of argument that mimicks what you are begging the question for..chakras, karma...you say a soul. PROVE IT or it is correct to ignore it like you ignore karma.

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.

and yet all it is is an idea. And you did state a soul wasnt biblical. You need to be better with your words.

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"

But you said that people who arent saved would be destroyed. the old testament and Jesus disagree with you. Must I post all of the verses on hell and eternal torture that Jesus will throw those who refuse to worship him in?

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.

I admited that was an ad hominim. You can disregard it. I admit it was illogical.

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."

Yet being in the lake of fire for all eternity isnt considered torture to you? If I water boarded you for ten minutes, would that be torture?
FACT: Jesus speaks of hell fire
FACT: Revelations has Jesus throwing those who do not worship him into hell fire
FACT: Revelations has Jesus throwing hell itself into the lake of fire for the second death for all eternity.
FACT: If you worship the bible Jesus, then you worship he who tortures with hell fire.
FACT: If you disagree with this then you disagree with bible Jesus like I do. Bible Jesus is a prick and a torturer.

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.

But I am so lovable and agreeable to the atheists that they will aprove of me anyways. I make cool games that they can shoot jeebus on. Why not just go over to http://www.jesuschristarcade.com and have some fun...mmmkay?

[Watson]

RJ, your insistence on 'proof' of a soul is your obvious downfall to any one with half a brain. First because you haven't outlined what it is you'd like as proof, or what consititues as, and second because any proof tack gave you would fail to satisfy your unreasonable criteria for what counts as proof. The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

[downbeatplumb]

RJ, your insistence on 'proof' of a soul is your obvious downfall to any one with half a brain. First because you haven't outlined what it is you'd like as proof, or what consititues as, and second because any proof tack gave you would fail to satisfy your unreasonable criteria for what counts as proof. The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing

There you go, now you know what breathing is.

Now what EXACTLY is a soul.

[Watson]

Try explaining breathing to a sentient creature who doesn't already know what breathing is. Oh, and put it in your own words. Don't cite some clinically written Wikipedia article.

[downbeatplumb]

Try explaining breathing to a sentient creature who doesn't already know what breathing is. Oh, and put it in your own words. Don't cite some clinically written Wikipedia article.

But the clinically written wikipedia article did the job perfectly well.
your insistance on me 'putting it in my own words' is illogical, why should I spend hours writing up how the respiratory system works, (i am trained in biology, human anatomy and medical terms and terminology so could bore the pants off you on this) when the wikipedia article works just fine.

So what is a soul? I see you dodged the question with a 'non-answer' when I asked you last time.

[Watson]

The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

It's sad that i had to quote a post which is four posts up for you to actually take stock of what is going on in this conversation. No one can tell another what exactly a soul is, for with each new person comes a new soul. There may be similarities between two souls and they may intertwine but ultimately they defy label or category, description or knowledge. You can't just ask me what exactly a soul is and expect my answer to satisfy you, because at the end of the day that is all that it is; my answer. Yours is still yet to be found, as you have ceased looking.

But the clinically written wikipedia article did the job perfectly well.

But in a face to face conversation that would not work out so well.

your insistance on me 'putting it in my own words' is illogical, why should I spend hours writing up how the respiratory system works,

Because a sentient, alien being has just asked you to describe and explain breathing to [him]* for the purpose of [his] own research and understanding. You must describe not only the physical process of breathing but the very act, the experience. This being wants you to be thorough.

This is diving too deep into the metaphor in the first place, and shouldn't really need to be expanded upon as it is now. You clearly have a lot of knowledge on the subject of the respiratory system and the act of breathing, but do you actually understand the very act, the experience of breathing? Could you explain in words what it is like for you personally?

(i am trained in biology, human anatomy and medical terms and terminology so could bore the pants off you on this)

Good. The alien you are talking to has picked a perfect person to discuss the act of breathing with, now hasn't he?

*Assuming aliens can be male or female that is...

[tackattack]

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.

I disagree...but what is the point of arguing anymore?

So you disagree with my opinion that it's never proper to ignore evidence... ok...

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

Perhaps vaguely what you are saying fits the medula oblongata. Please give affirmative proof of a soul before you try to act like it exists again.

I did cite indicative proof.. now you're moving the goal posts... ok strike 2

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.

And that proves what? that the Christian concept of the soul is correct? Must I remind you again that the soul has not been proven beyond a concept (i.e. "imaginary"). Try again. And stop beating around the bush this time. I want components, dimensions, weights, etc for a soul or otherwise you are full of shit.

We were talking about indicative proof not emperical proof.. so you're looking for emperical evidence of the intangible... ok I'll give you a foul ball on this one..

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.

and yet all it is is an idea. And you did state a soul wasn't biblical. You need to be better with your words.

Coming from some who says

You never was clear about your imaginary soul

I don't need grammar advice. Perhaps you're referring to my point 1 in post #100 where I said

1- The idea of an immortal soul is a Platonic influence on Christianity, and not supported by Biblical standards.

So not only are you intellectually dishonest, can't admit when you're wrong , misquote and intentionally throw out ad hominems. You're a hypocritical grammar nazi ... that's way beyond strike 3
I'm not feeding this troll anymore

If anyone else would like to have an intelligent discussion feel free to chime in.

[reverendjeremiah]

RJ, your insistence on 'proof' of a soul is your obvious downfall to any one with half a brain. First because you haven't outlined what it is you'd like as proof, or what consititues as, and second because any proof tack gave you would fail to satisfy your unreasonable criteria for what counts as proof. The soul is a personal thing, we find it within ourselves and all the proof one needs of it is a glance at the inner workings of oneself. It's like breathing, something you do all the time but could almost never explain.

How dare I insist on actual, quantifiable evidence for a soul. Its so childish of me to question Christian concepts like the soul and ask for stupid things like "proof". I should have took all of that babling as proof that the Christians are 100% true and souls exist and Jesus is lard. How dare I ask for a list for my reasonable criteria for proving a soul: height, width, length, components, etc. Yeah, I should have never posted that, but I deserve the blame and to be called childish for not posting criteria of what constitutes proof. breathing must be a magical, mystical concept and it can in NO WAY ever be defined or logically proven. ..thus spake the Christians...breathing prove jeebus is lard.

My apologies. I will never question a christian again. If only I could be as meek as you.

---

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah v blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...

If you cant prove your bullshit, them swamp them out with a steady stream of blah blah blah and then claim that you gave them concrete proof in that lake of bullshit you just spewed. I understand your need to vilify and ignore good questions as much as piossible. Christianity rest upon a very, very fragile foundation of myths, lies, and broken concepts..the little bit of actual reality and history mixed into barely keeps the structure from falling apart. If all of the Christians became atheists tomorrow, Christianity would be forgotten and in the past, as it has no inate connections to this planet, to science, or to the cosmos in general as it is majority a factor of human imagination. I remember when I was a Southern Baptist, and having to defend "souls", and "heaven" and such. I hated it. I hated them for asking me questions that I never thought of, or that I wanted to ignore. The bible itself cant even explain what a soul is, so it is understandable how frustrating this can be for you, as it leaves you to fill in the gaps, so you have to make stuff up quick to answer good questions. Then after a few years of doing so you look back at your past explanations and realize that not only you were making shit up, but it completely contradicts what you think a soul is now as compared to then. I know. I was once a believer like you. Look at Watson. He's saying a soul is completely different from person to person, therefore trying to explain a soul is to difficult for humans to do. He may as well say a soul doesnt exist, as it would save him time in typoing and making up excuses.

By the way, never once did I complain about your grammar. I merely complained about how you were putting some words together. I am not a grammar nazi type of person.

[tackattack]

If you would like to have a discussion on the matter Ace, since you clearly gave that shining example of atheism (as supported by my above points)
/end sarcasm a kudo, I'd be more than willing to have a conversation. At least in our previous dialogues you've been intellectually honest and reasonable.