Pure Brutality

[Sheldon]

Perhaps you should learn what a straw man fallacy is?

Now does anything in that post directly address what I actually said? Or have you interjected again, with a straw man, and a long post that doesn't actually address my point?

A straw man fallacy is when you intentionally misrepresent your opponent's position in order to defeat it in argument more easily. 

If I put a question mark at the end of a sentence, that's a question. I'm asking if that's your view of what a soul is. You didn't answer my question. 

I have described how Christians traditionally view what a soul is.

Perhaps you're thinking I claimed you'd used a straw man fallacy? Or did you not see my question mark, see that means I was asking a question. I didn't answer your question because a) my (unanswered) question was to someone else, and b) your "question" has no relevance to my question, or my post. 

I have no interest in your subjective opinion of what the 2.4 billion people, who make up the 45k different global sects and denominations that make up Christianity, believe a soul to be, as again it has zero relevance to my post.

[Sheldon]

So where are we on any objective evidence that a soul or anything spiritual exists, or are even possible?

The soul is the form of the body (in the traditional Christian view) and every material object has a form. The objective evidence for the soul is that every material object has a form. 

I said this before but you ignored it. 

As I said before, the spiritual consists of the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver. What kind of objective evidence can we have that the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver have changed? 

I said these things before but you ignored them and haven't responded.

I ignored it because it had no relevance to my post, and ignored the context. I am trying to be polite, but you don't make it easy.

[Ahriman]

So where are we on any objective evidence that a soul or anything spiritual exists, or are even possible?

The soul is the form of the body (in the traditional Christian view) and every material object has a form. The objective evidence for the soul is that every material object has a form. 

I said this before but you ignored it. 

As I said before, the spiritual consists of the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver. What kind of objective evidence can we have that the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver have changed? 

I said these things before but you ignored them and haven't responded.

What is "spiritual" about thoughts?

[Belacqua]

The soul is the form of the body (in the traditional Christian view) and every material object has a form. The objective evidence for the soul is that every material object has a form. 

I said this before but you ignored it. 

As I said before, the spiritual consists of the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver. What kind of objective evidence can we have that the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver have changed? 

I said these things before but you ignored them and haven't responded.

I ignored it because it had no relevance to my post, and ignored the context. I am trying to be polite, but you don't make it easy.

Of course I disagree with you when you say that my responses are irrelevant to your questions. I think that what I've said is directly relevant, but I can see that it might not be the kind of response you want or expect. 

So we could try it from another direction. 

Normally when we judge evidence, it's because we have a good idea of the kind of thing we are looking for. So, as an example, if we go looking for Bigfoot, we'll look for footprints in the mud, or Bigfoot droppings, or dwellings, or baby Bigfoots. We would take these as evidence because we start with a pretty clear idea of what Bigfoot would be like if he existed. 

No doubt you've seen this in all kinds of science experiments. A scientist will posit that X exists, and then calculates that if X exists we should see evidence Y. The discovery of Y counts as evidence that X is real. (Not proof, but evidence.) Y counts as evidence because of the researchers' conception of what X is like. 

So to look for evidence of a soul, you would have to begin with an idea of what a soul is like. For example, if soul has the qualities X, Y, and Z, then we will surely see effects A, B, and C in the material world. Something like that. 

So for a sincere investigation into whether there is a soul, we would have to begin with some idea of what that thing would be like, and what evidence we would therefore look for.

Are you willing to answer any questions on this? What is your conception of what a soul is like? If you feel there is no evidence for one so far, what kind of evidence would you expect that is lacking? 

I'm not sure, but it looks as though you may have a very different conception of soul from what the classical theologians had in mind.

[Belacqua]

The soul is the form of the body (in the traditional Christian view) and every material object has a form. The objective evidence for the soul is that every material object has a form. 

I said this before but you ignored it. 

As I said before, the spiritual consists of the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver. What kind of objective evidence can we have that the thoughts and perceptions of the perceiver have changed? 

I said these things before but you ignored them and haven't responded.

What is "spiritual" about thoughts?

Spirit is how we perceive the world, how we interpret it, and how we react to it. That's just what spirit is. 

Traditionally, people who think of themselves as spiritual are working toward a method of perceiving, interpreting, and reacting that goes against the material mainstream. Spirit, in this view, is not some differently ontological realm, but a condition of mind. 

This is not my own idea. It goes a long way back.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plato believed that we were spiritual or mental beings trapped in physical bodies and this was bad and we needed to escape - but that was too close to the gnostic heresy that this world was created by an evil god. So there had to be revisions and corrections.

They dipped into an aristotlean vision - but this vision had been heavily influenced by physicalism which posited that spiritual stuff or mental stuff was physical stuff - and this deprived their god concept and in fact their entire worldview of it's alleged animating force.

The issue couldn't be resolved and by the 1700's cartesian dualism had entered the chat. So...that, in a nutshell, is what is "spiritual" about thoughts. It's a solution in search of a problem which will validate a reliably mistaken worldview.

[Silver]

Most conditions of mind are imaginative and for personal comfort against reality.

[Belacqua]

Most conditions of mind are imaginative and for personal comfort against reality.

This is why people who work on their spirit are attempting to overcome the conditions you describe. 

They feel they are more aware of reality than those stuck in a materialist egoistic condition. 

The means to this state are often uncomfortable.

[Ahriman]

Most conditions of mind are imaginative and for personal comfort against reality.

This is why people who work on their spirit are attempting to overcome the conditions you describe. 

They feel they are more aware of reality than those stuck in a materialist egoistic condition. 

The means to this state are often uncomfortable.

But they aren't, in fact they are even less aware of reality than most people, the spiritual people are completely living in some fantasy world in their head. I mean shit, we all have fantasies, but this is something else. Spiritual people completely reject the world as it actually is, and instead choose to believe they know a better way. They don't, but they all very much think they do. I had a therapist who was that kind of person, I trusted him for too long. I finally realized all he wanted was money, and stopped seeing him after that. I surmised that he was simply a money grubbing douche after thinking about how, after seeing him for many years, my mom was still the very same insufferable person she always was, so clearly therapy wasn't doing anything for her. But the therapist kept taking her money, and I'm sure he figured out at some point that therapy wasn't helping my mom, he just wanted her to keep coming back so he could make more money. I wanted to believe some people were better than that, but no. This dude clearly thought so highly of himself and was in fact just as much of an asshole as anyone else, if not worse. I have since refused to have any more therapy sessions with any therapist, I don't trust these people anymore. I shouldn't have trusted any of them to begin with. I am baffled at how literally ALL of the pertinent lessons a person learns in life are negative ones.

[Deesse23]

So where are we on any objective evidence that a soul or anything spiritual exists, or are even possible?

We are at the point of Bel trying to demonstrate how well versed he is in ancient philosophy, particularly near, far and middle eastern philosophy. We are at the point of Bel demonstrating his intellectual superiority to the intellectual paupers on this forum. We are at the point of Bel quoting ancient philosophers as authorites, and in case you think about rebutting any of that please consider: Bel is not presenting his own thoughts just "reporting" what Aristotle et al say, and is going to run and hide behind those "authorities" as soon as you bring forth justified criticism.
This is about Bel not souls, didnt you get it?