Debating the soul

[Wile E. Coyote]

The current issue of Reader's Digest is running an article entitled "New Evidence of Life After Death". I read the article and it just contains a bunch of Near Death Experience accounts and a brief skeptical comment. It claimed that scientists are reconsidering what they know about death.

Of course, this is baloney, so I am now posting my opinions on the Readers Digest Forums (http://www.rd.com/community/index.jhtml). Unfortunately, I forgot how deluded people out there are, having been sheltered in this forum of intellectuals (for the most part).

I am fighting a losing battle. Should I just retreat? Should I stand my ground, hoping that maybe one believer will be converted? After all, that is how I came over to the enlightened side.

Should I send them here? This forum needs a few more crazy believers to spice up the debates (whatever happened to Franko?).

I am not as well versed in counter-arguments to the existence of the soul as many here may be. I am not persuaded by their nonsense, but their arguments are so deluded that I don't know where to start.

Warning: The format of the forum is terrible.

My name is tjwojo over there. Give me a hand or give me some pointers!

[Yahweh]

Warning: The format of the forum is terrible.
Even that is an understatement in itself... hot damn!

These are a few of the things I would have to say about it, feel free to use them if you havent already:

"There is no evidence that supports life after death, plenty of evidence against it".

There was a signature someone had that said "The plural of anecdotes is not data :)". I liked that signature very much.

Another sig says "If 10000 people believe a false claim to be true, it is still false".

Much the same you can also reply back "Near death experiences have a rational explanation that has nothing do with the paranormal."

"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."

Of course, many people who believe in pseudoscience would reply "The soul exists, just not in physical form, so it doesnt need to conform to physical definition of existence" (of course they wouldnt put nearly the amount of philosophical insight into that as I did...).

Respond in kind with "Making up facts doesnt constitute for a very strong arguement".

I'm very good with these counter arguements... I have a lot free time and anger...

[Wile E. Coyote]

Yahweh:

Those are some good ones. I will have to intersperse those casually. Thanks for the tips.

P.S. If you can tolerate the horrible format, feel free to join in. I hate being the only skeptic.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."


[Tongue-in-cheek] So are you saying that black holes can't exist? [/Tongue-in-cheek]

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
Yahweh:

Those are some good ones. I will have to intersperse those casually. Thanks for the tips.

P.S. If you can tolerate the horrible format, feel free to join in. I hate being the only skeptic.
Actually, I really cannot tolerate that terrible format. And, I think it would be much more fun for you to take all the credit, I dont need any of it (but just as a joke, you could use "From the mouth of Yahweh himself..." before every post).

Heres an easy one. Someone wrote:
The word "soul" with its religious implications, may present a stumbling block for some people who are still uncertain about their own spirituality. I think it is clear that there is a part of us that goes on after our physical bodies have ceased to exist, call it what you will.
My response would be:
The soul does not exist. There is no scientific or empirical evidenced to support its existence. Faith is the only thing that supports life after death and souls. But faith is defined as "The belief in something without scientific evidence to support it".

I dont know if its just me but lack of scientific evidence seems to be a pretty harsh blow against the credibility and validity of a soul. And the fact that near death experiences can be explained by completely natural phenomena is yet another harsh blow against the credibility and validity of a soul. To have a belief in something that has nothing to support it is not only completely irrational, but ignorant at the same time.

Near death experiences have no higher purpose or meaning than a dream or hallucination.

It's really hard for someone to try to reply to that... unless they want to criticize you for not being openminded... if so remind them being openminded is not the same as believing everything you hear, but instead tolerating others beliefs.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


[Tongue-in-cheek] So are you saying that black holes can't exist? [/Tongue-in-cheek]
Great flying curse words! My own logic is mildly floundered. I'll explain...

Black holes are not physical. "Black hole" is a term given to describe an area of space-time with a gravitational field so intense that its escape velocity is equal to or exceeds the speed of light. To be much more simplistic, black holes are simply an area with a lot of one particular fundamental force called gravity. (Now I'm just guessing) Gravity is a physical property of matter. For such non-physical things that exist like the fundamental forces, we can do tests and experiments to prove the their existence. Other things such as emotions are a result of evolution and natural brain functions.

I'll rephrase myself a little:
<s>"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."</s>
"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. For physical things to exist, they need to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."

Thank you for catching my mistake.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Yahweh:

Great response! I will see if I can work that in.

[Yahweh]

Another easy one:
Hi Folks! I'll start with a quote.."If the eyes had no tears, the soul would have no rainbows" I read that it was proven when your soul leaves your body at death, there is a 0.2 weight lose in the body. Why do you think the "Tin Man" in the "Wizard of Oz" wanted one so bad!? What more proof do we need?..None! Take it from this retired Airline Pilot, and all I have seen in my years flying, there definitely is a soul. Tailwinds 459skyward

My response:
You are suggesting the soul has mass. All things made of matter have mass (Note: Photons are energy, energy does not have mass. Neutrinos also have mass, dont pull the "neutrinos are massless" crap on me). If the soul is physical, why havent we detected it. One reason: It doesnt exist.

Would you care to note your source of where you read "0.2 weight loss" quote. Well, if you like to play that game then I heard from my friend that you dont and he said "Drinking blood everyday helps you live for an extra 50 years". Using you logic, drinking blood does make me live longer. No, I'm sorry, you are going to have to do much better than that.

Being a retired airline pilot does not make what you have to say anymore valid than what anyone else has to say, so I guess I wont "just take it from you".

[Yahweh]

Just for fun, I'll take the day off from JREF and register under the name Yahweh, and use simple logic and basic philosophy to "debunk" some of the crap that's flooding that board. How long will it take for someone to call me a troll simply because I dont think the same way they do...

[Samus]

Originally posted by Yahweh
My response:
You are suggesting the soul has mass. All things made of matter have mass (Note: Photons are energy, energy does not have mass. Neutrinos also have mass, dont pull the "neutrinos are massless" crap on me). If the soul is physical, why havent we detected it. One reason: It doesnt exist.

Would you care to note your source of where you read "0.2 weight loss" quote. Well, if you like to play that game then I heard from my friend that you dont and he said "Drinking blood everyday helps you live for an extra 50 years". Using you logic, drinking blood does make me live longer. No, I'm sorry, you are going to have to do much better than that.

Being a retired airline pilot does not make what you have to say anymore valid than what anyone else has to say, so I guess I wont "just take it from you".
heh, nice one. Here's my response to him (I'm on those forums now as gotCorn):

"What does being a pilot have to do with the soul? I'm a pilot, and I don't believe the soul exists. Losing 0.2 pounds at death is hardly proof of a soul, even if the change in weight does indeed occur (which I've never heard before, do you have a cite for that?) Besides, from all accounts I've heard, you can't weigh a soul."

[Wile E. Coyote]

Yes! Yes! Let's overwhelm them! This is exactly what I was hoping for. I have spent the past two days floundering to come up with responses to claims that are absolutely ridiculous. I see the tide turning.

More. We need more. (Agent Smith)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I'll rephrase myself a little:
<s>"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."</s>
"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. For physical things to exist, they need to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."


Aah! But now your argument is no longer consistent. If souls are not physical, what do the nature of physical existance matter? You have presumed that souls must be physical to exist, but you give no reason why that is a necessity.

(Edited for word-choice)

[Dallin]

Originally posted by Yahweh
The soul does not exist. There is no scientific or empirical evidenced to support its existence. Faith is the only thing that supports life after death and souls. But faith is defined as "The belief in something without scientific evidence to support it".


Yahweh,

Is this a valid way to approach the debate? It seems to me that lack of scientific evidence does not prove that something does not exist.

If I lived 3000 years ago and said "I believe all matter is made of something I call 'subatomic particals'" without proof, it would be based on faith. In which case by your assertion:


To have a belief in something that has nothing to support it is not only completely irrational, but ignorant at the same time.


... a belief in subatomic particals 3000 years ago would be completely irrational and ignorant... ?

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Dallin

... a belief in subatomic particals 3000 years ago would be completely irrational and ignorant... ?

If you had the evidence, then it would not be irrational. However, 3,000 years ago it would be very unlikely to have that evidence, so let's just take it that the claim is not based on evidence...

Yes, it would be irrational, because the claim is not based on evidence.

[Brian the Snail]

Hi Folks! I'll start with a quote.."If the eyes had no tears, the soul would have no rainbows" I read that it was proven when your soul leaves your body at death, there is a 0.2 weight lose in the body. Why do you think the "Tin Man" in the "Wizard of Oz" wanted one so bad!? What more proof do we need?..None! Take it from this retired Airline Pilot, and all I have seen in my years flying, there definitely is a soul. Tailwinds 459skyward


This ran a bell, so I did a search, and found it mentioned in this Randi commentary:

http://www.randi.org/jr/042602.html

Might be good to point them to this link- who knows, it might be a subtle way of getting some of them over here!

[no one in particular]

I am not about to log into that debate with the formatting mess. Plus, the rational contingent is going up with you folks already logged in. However, this one is hilarious.
hnrast Thu 08/07/03, 12:28:28

I propose a simple test for all the unbelievers out there. Take a short piece of bare wire, bend it like the letter u, about half inch apart, hold the wire between your thumb and forefinger, now insert the two ends into an electrical outlet. Would you rationalize that electricity does not exist? To which the reply is painfully obvious: "Wow, hnrast, you have devised an excellent experiment for proving the existence of electricity! Ben Franklin would be proud. Since you are so good at this, would you, please, devise an experiment to test for the existence of souls?"

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Leif Roar


Aah! But now your argument is no longer consistent. If souls are not physical, what do the nature of physical existance matter? You have presumed that souls must be physical to exist, but you give no reason why that is a necessity.

(Edited for word-choice)
My god, you sound just like an eager philosophy student :D...

Materialistically: The reason for for being physical is the necessity is to exist.

To which you would probably reply:
Perhaps being physical isnt a necessity to exist.

Then I'd reply:
That would suggest the mind/soul exists indenpently of matter. That belief is called dualism. While dualism is certainly philosophically valid (and ambigious), philosophy is based on logic, not empirical or scientific evidence (I dont know why). Logically dualism can exist as well as materialism, but they are conflicting. Philosophical validity does not mean correct.

To which you would probably reply:
So which one is correct?

Then I'd reply:
Philosophy is nice but when you get down to the scientific criteria, the idea of the existence of the soul is absurd. Why? Because science is based on materialistic logic.

Orginally posted by Dallin
...snip...

... a belief in subatomic particals 3000 years ago would be completely irrational and ignorant... ?

Yes. Science without proof really puts to the test the credibility of a claim.

And remember, the great thing about science is it can be refined. Many moons ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation. Of course, that was based on very shoddy empirical evidence (if it even deserves that kind of title) without scientific evidence. It took good men like Pasteur and those other guys I cant remember right now to think outside of faith, and really put to test so many ignorant claims.

[Tricky]

If you need a snappy one-liner, how about:

"If I borrowed some real money from you, would you be upset if I paid you back with dead money that didn't exist in the physical world?"

[Suddenly]

Yahweh stated:"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. For physical things to exist, they need to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."

This argues that a physical soul does not exist. Does a soul need to be physical? I'm not convinced belief in an non-physical eternal soul is supernatural, depending on the definition of "soul"

Most modern religion attributes physical properties (location for one) to a "soul." That is claiming a physical existence for the soul, and the above objection applies.

However, non physical things can exist. Concepts for one. My concept of the number 3 is not physical. It can only be expressed, examined or discussed through physical means, but the concept of "3" is not by itself physical.

I think it was Aristotle who originated this concept that a person's "soul" is analogous to a computer's program. Thus, to keep it brief, a person's soul is in fact the essence of what they are. Instead of the concept of the number 3, we have the concept of "Bill Jones." Bill Jones is his personality, memories, thought processes, etc., and not his body.

The main hypothetical litmus test for this sort of thing is thus: If we destroy "Bill Jones'" body, and replace it with an exact replica (and I mean exact, down to the subatomic level) would the new person be "Bill Jones?"

Those who believe in a "ghost in the machine" type soul would have to say no. However, saying yes to this question seems to require that someone be something other than just his or her body. Not anything supernatural, just that that person's "program" is relected in their body structure, and that program, much like the concept of "hot" or the number "3" , exists apart from the physical world.

Or am I just a nut stuck on semantics?

(edited to add a "t")

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Then I'd reply:
Philosophy is nice but when you get down to the scientific criteria, the idea of the existence of the soul is absurd. Why? Because science is based on materialistic logic.


To which I'll reply "So?" That it makes no sense to talk about the existence of a non-physical soul in a scientific debate does not mean that it never makes sense to talk about the existence of a non-physical soul or that non-physical souls do not exist. Furthermore, the idea of a non-physical soul is not scientifically absurd. It is scientifically irrelevant since it can't be measured but just because science limits itself to the study of the physical world, science doesn't necessarily deny that there might be more to reality than the physical world. That a person only understands English doesn't mean that someone who speak in another language is speaking gibberish.

[Dallin]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Yes. Science without proof really puts to the test the credibility of a claim.

And remember, the great thing about science is it can be refined. Many moons ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation. Of course, that was based on very shoddy empirical evidence (if it even deserves that kind of title) without scientific evidence. It took good men like Pasteur and those other guys I cant remember right now to think outside of faith, and really put to test so many ignorant claims.


Yahweh,

Whenever I have used this argument against a believer, they always reply with something to the effect of:

"Yes, today we can't prove that souls exist, but that doesn't mean 3000 years from now we won't find conclusive evidence. Therefore, while it may be irrational now to conclude that souls exist, it may not be incorrect"

This brings about the point which, to me, is the problem with atheism. Atheists consider believers irrational/incorrect because their beliefs are based on faith. But isn't an atheist's beliefs - that of no god existing - based on faith as well (eg, faith that lack of current evidence of god's existance proves god does not exist)? Hmmm, maybe this is a topic for another day and another thread... but I am curious how you would answer the above argument.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Dallin



Yahweh,

Whenever I have used this argument against a believer, they always reply with something to the effect of:

"Yes, today we can't prove that souls exist, but that doesn't mean 3000 years from now we won't find conclusive evidence. Therefore, while it may be irrational now to conclude that souls exist, it may not be incorrect"

This brings about the point which, to me, is the problem with atheism. Atheists consider believers irrational/incorrect because their beliefs are based on faith. But isn't an atheist's beliefs - that of no god existing - based on faith as well (eg, faith that lack of current evidence of god's existance proves god does not exist)? Hmmm, maybe this is a topic for another day and another thread... but I am curious how you would answer the above argument.


You don't understand atheism. We acknowlede a God could exist, but there is no evidence to support that claim so we reject it.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dallin
"Yes, today we can't prove that souls exist, but that doesn't mean 3000 years from now we won't find conclusive evidence. Therefore, while it may be irrational now to conclude that souls exist, it may not be incorrect"
Its usually very hard to reply to something like that. While it is certainly completely valid, its just that "What if..." and "You can never know until..." that gets me. In those cases, the "what if" and "you dont know" is completely ambigious. You cant use rational reasoning to support belief or disbelief in a claim.

Another thing to remember, (although this isnt necessarily an entirely solid point) if we never find evidence to support a claim, can we somehow suggest it is not false? Well, lack of evidence after intense scrutiny is a kick the gonards to the claims credibility (though not solid proof validity or invalidity).

And for all intents and purposes, because I wouldnt want to speak out of my field of expertise, the answers I have to questions science hasnt validated one way or another is simply "I dont know".

[Wile E. Coyote]

It appears we are smothering them with logic. No one who replies will be converted, but those who are already on the fence and just reading will realize the logic you all are presenting is more reasonable, and perhaps they will start leaning towards this side of the fence.

All this support is excellent.

[Yahweh]

I must say, I usually dont try to make other people look stupid for my amusement, but I'm having a lot of fun on over on those boards.

Hey, and even if these people will never be converted, its always nice that they are learning new words.

[rustypouch]

The American Atheist site has a good eassy on the topic here. (http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html)

[Skeptical Greg]

Wile E. Coyote,

hnrast has just hit you with an incredible display of reasoning, with a question you cannot possibly answer!!


tjwojo Why is the US dollar more plausible than the countless counterfeit US currencies out there?


I see no way you can defend your evil Atheistic position..

[Dallin]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth

You don't understand atheism. We acknowlede a God could exist, but there is no evidence to support that claim so we reject it.

I just had a read of the definition of atheism here:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

From that, I would tend to call your position 'weak' atheism, which to me sounds identical to agnosticism. But it is just my opinion of an ambiguous word's definition, right? It doesn't change what you believe.

But, using the above definitions, point well taken. I could stand to be clearer - my assertion about 'problems with atheism' is geared towards strong atheists, not weak ones.

[Yahzi]

Here's my contribution to that board of loonies (I'm Yahzi there, too). I love how the format almost enforces sound-bites instead of structured arguments - you can't even put in paragraphs. I guess we're lucky it doesn't just force you to type in upper case. =)


Alzheimer's. How can you believe in a soul if you know someone with advanced Alzheimer's disease? How can you look at the hollow shell of someone you loved and loved you, and know that the only difference is a buildup of plaque on their brain, and because of that plaque, the person you loved is gone? Are you saying the soul can survive death but not plaque? Or are you saying that person is already dead, their soul departed, even though the body lives and breaths and occasionaly - just occasionally - looks at you with eyes that remember? Or are you saying that the soul can somehow figure out how to interact with matter enough to operate a healthy brain, but not enough to operate through plaque. Are you saying that the people you love are trapped in a broken machine for decades while you suffer, and they can't even just leave the body and free everyone from this misery? What, exactly, are you saying when you say man has an immortal soul? Have you ever really thought about the implications of what it means to people who have first-hand evidence that our personality resides in that fragile lump of cauliflower in our skulls?

[Cristina]

I've just read the entire discussion. That is the most irritating board layout ever!

Nonetheless, the discussion is fascinating and the JREFers are certainly to be commended.

I'm posting to put a bit of focus on Kenneth. I hope you know I've always been rooting for you, even if I haven't always been able to post. I read your posts over on the RD board with a bit of apprehension. I was expecting you to blast the believers away. But I was pleasantly surprised. Your posts are respectful, thoughtful and well written. You have matured a great deal in a few months. Good for you! Keep going, Kenneth, you are doing really well.

I reread this and it sounds patronizing. That is not my intention. I was really worried about you a few months ago. I'm just delighted by your progress. Hope that comes through.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Dallin


I just had a read of the definition of atheism here:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

From that, I would tend to call your position 'weak' atheism, which to me sounds identical to agnosticism. But it is just my opinion of an ambiguous word's definition, right? It doesn't change what you believe.

But, using the above definitions, point well taken. I could stand to be clearer - my assertion about 'problems with atheism' is geared towards strong atheists, not weak ones.


It's not agnosticism because we think there isn't a god-- same way we don't believe in elves.

But we would believe if the evidence would arise.

[Cristina]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Here's my contribution to that board of loonies (I'm Yahzi there, too). I love how the format almost enforces sound-bites instead of structured arguments - you can't even put in paragraphs. I guess we're lucky it doesn't just force you to type in upper case. =)




Yahzi
I found your post especially provocative. I'm looking forward to their responses.

I work with patients with AD and I know those moments you describe incredibly well. They break my heart. If nothing else, the thought of a "soul" or "personality" being trapped in a degenerating nervous system is enough to make one hope that the soul does not exist, that the personality and the memories degenerate.

Oh well...I am on the verge of thread-jacking, so I'll stop.

Thanks for your powerful post.

C

[Martin]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
My name is tjwojo over there. Give me a hand or give me some pointers! Have you ever used that handle here, or have I run into you on another forum?

In any case, I'm over there now.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."


I'd just like to point out that ideas exist, actions exist, qualities exist (etc)... These are things that are not made of matter, that do not necessarily exist in the 3 spacial dimensions. Anyway, go back to the regular discussion.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by c4ts


I'd just like to point out that ideas exist, actions exist, qualities exist (etc)... These are things that are not made of matter, that do not necessarily exist in the 3 spacial dimensions. Anyway, go back to the regular discussion. These "exist" as "things" only in a metaphorical sense. It is a trick of our language. Point to an action without an actor, and I'll retract my statement. :p

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mercutio
These "exist" as "things" only in a metaphorical sense. It is a trick of our language. Point to an action without an actor, and I'll retract my statement. :p

But if these things do not truly exist, then what is existence? Take qualities, for example. How can you have something round if roundness does not exist?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dallin


I just had a read of the definition of atheism here:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html

From that, I would tend to call your position 'weak' atheism, which to me sounds identical to agnosticism.

Then you need to read it again.

Strong atheism = belief
Weak atheism = lack of belief
Empirical agnosticism = lack of knowledge
Strict agnosticism = knowledge unattainable

[swstephe]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Philosophy is nice but when you get down to the scientific criteria, the idea of the existence of the soul is absurd. Why? Because science is based on materialistic logic.

Yes. Science without proof really puts to the test the credibility of a claim.

And remember, the great thing about science is it can be refined. Many moons ago, we used to believe in spontaneous generation. Of course, that was based on very shoddy empirical evidence (if it even deserves that kind of title) without scientific evidence. It took good men like Pasteur and those other guys I cant remember right now to think outside of faith, and really put to test so many ignorant claims.

What? There was a time when philosophy and science were synonyms. Scientists still get "doctorates in Philiosophy". I think science would look pretty idiotic without logic to back it up ... "every time I hit this it hurts", "I wonder why", "let's get some more empirical data", "hit it again". Without philosophy theoretical physicists would be out of a job. Black holes would be especially irrelevant. There is a big debate about whether anything on the other side of the event horizon "exists" since it is not possible to measure it. Is it even part of the "universe"? (And I'm one who always get annoyed at the term "parallel universe"). I mean, if something is taken beyond the reach of any possible measure of our senses, does it cease to exist? The object in Randi's box exists because it could potentially be measured by our senses. It probably exists because it has that potential.

I thought dualism was the most widely accepted philosophy of the mind, (as opposed to monism), but the exact nature was hotly debated. Is it a taboo subject here? I thought clinical psychologists were making some interesting discoveries on this topic. Such as experimental evidence of the difference between reaction and mental activity. A classic example is when you are driving in your car and suddenly realize that your mind was not an active participant in the driving process for the past 5 minutes. Who was driving during that time? If my mind was somewhere else, where was I?

I'm not saying anything about the soul just yet, but it is certainly fodder for good philisophical debate.
:c2:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by swstephe
A classic example is when you are driving in your car and suddenly realize that your mind was not an active participant in the driving process for the past 5 minutes. Who was driving during that time? If my mind was somewhere else, where was I?


Such a thing has never happened to me as I have never driven while asleep or in a coma. My attention might have been on things other than the other cars, businesses and billboards, and the last five minutes of my drive might have already dumped from my long term memory, but my mind was active at all time. It's absurd to suggest that just because your brain didn't see fit to store the last five minutes for the long term that somehow your mind was "elsewhere" during that time.

[Hexxenhammer]

I'm logged in as Mightor over there.

"Mightor smash your puny argument with club of logic!"

[calladus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Even that is an understatement in itself... hot damn!
.....

I'm very good with these counter arguements... I have a lot free time and anger...

Are you stirring things up over there? I see your handle.

Hey, check this, this is the kind of responses being posted:
JAMESBOND7 Thu 08/07/03, 9:12:45

YAHWEH, YOU REALLY DO PUT MORE FAITH IN SCIENCE AND THINGS THAT DO NOT MATTER. THE BIBLE IS THE INERRENT, INFALIBLE AND CORRECT WORD OF GOD. I THINK YOU ARE TREADING ON DANGEROUS GROUND FOR AS YOU SOUL IS CONCERNED. THAT BIBLE QUOTE IS TRUE AND REAL ESPECIALLY TO A BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE IN HEAVEN OR HELL? IF YOU DON'T, THEN WHEN YOU CLOSE YOUR EYES IN DEATH, YOUR SOUL WILL REALLY HAVE A RUDE AWAKENING AND SORRY FOR YOU IT IS TOO LATE FOR YOU. YOU CANNOT COME BACK AND MAKE IT RIGHT WITH GOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEALED YOUR FATE. THAT BIBLE QUOTE IS TELLING THE CHRISTIAN THAT WHEN HE WALKS THROUGH THE VALLEY OF DEATH, JESUS IS WAITING FOR HIM IN HEAVEN, BOY WHAT A PROMISE FOR THE BELIEVER. I THINK YOU SHOULD REALLY GET SERIOUS IN YOUR LIFE AND LOOK FOR JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SEEK HIM WHILE HE CAN BE FOUND. GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU JAMESBOND7

Wow! I had heard of these kinds of rabid, lost caps lock fundamentalists, but I rarely get to see them in their natural habitat. Now I know how Jane Goodall (http://www.janegoodall.org/) feels.

It's not even an argument, just an exhortation!

[swstephe]

the example wasn't mine, and I don't agree with it either. Something about "alpha state" and "beta state" and the way fish sleep. I was giving the classic example of why some psychologists come up with reasons for your mind being "somewhere else" while your brain does some activity in automatic mode. The idea is that your mind would get overloaded trying to handle so many inputs, so it basically just focuses on what it needs to, while your brain is able to take care of other things, (like walking and chewing gum), that your mind doesn't have to think about.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Dallin



Yahweh,

Whenever I have used this argument against a believer, they always reply with something to the effect of:

"Yes, today we can't prove that souls exist, but that doesn't mean 3000 years from now we won't find conclusive evidence. Therefore, while it may be irrational now to conclude that souls exist, it may not be incorrect"

The problem with 'What ifs' is that they can be taken to the absurd.
What if we prove souls exist 3000 years from now? What if we invent biological immortality and souls are not needed anymore? What if we prove that invisible pink unicorns DO exist? What if we find out that there is scientific evidence that proves that a god CANNOT exist?

It is a meaningless question, a conversational null.
This brings about the point which, to me, is the problem with atheism. Atheists consider believers irrational/incorrect because their beliefs are based on faith. But isn't an atheist's beliefs - that of no god existing - based on faith as well (eg, faith that lack of current evidence of god's existance proves god does not exist)? Hmmm, maybe this is a topic for another day and another thread... but I am curious how you would answer the above argument.

No - this is not completely correct.
While there ARE people who activly DIS believe in god, what you might term 'faith', there are also quite a few who do not activly disbelieve.

Some, like me, have found that there is not enough evidence to believe in, or disbelieve in, ANY god. That means that I have the same amount of proof for God, for Allah, for the god of the Jews, for the gods of the Hindu, etc.

I don't believe in any one god, or group of gods, because the evidence for these supposed beings isn't compelling. I don't actively disbelieve in any god or group of gods, because I have no reason to think any do NOT exist.

I live my life without belief, or disbelief, by acting as if there are no gods. I figure that if there IS a god, of whatever religion, then eventually he will let me know. Until then, there is no point.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by calladus


Are you stirring things up over there? I see your handle.

Hey, check this, this is the kind of responses being posted:


Wow! I had heard of these kinds of rabid, lost caps lock fundamentalists, but I rarely get to see them in their natural habitat. Now I know how Jane Goodall (http://www.janegoodall.org/) feels.

It's not even an argument, just an exhortation!

The funniest thing over there was this response:

Mightor say even though he not speak English so good, at least Mightor knows how to use his caps lock key. Mightor say you make big claim about Gotcorn's beliefs. Mightor say better to live without fear of things he cannot feel or touch. If cannot feel, see, or touch them, like soul, then they do not exist.

- edit Just went back to page 1 and found out who Mightor is... you little scamp.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
- edit Just went back to page 1 and found out who Mightor is... you little scamp.
Kinda sad that I'm funnier over there than I am over here.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wow, the first post set a bad and yet oddly prescient precident didn't it.

rdigest1 Tue 07/08/03, 5:30:10

I believe that there is a different kind of life after death. The soul has to exist, because if it doesn't then we are like animals basically. We eat meat and plants, that means that we kill other people like us. I am not too sure about the cells communicating because they do not include brains in the celluar system. I really suggest that scientists move on to research that about a life after death. Those who believe in Christ keep faith, this may be a chance to show others that God exists.

[Wile E. Coyote]

There is some good work going on over in the rd forum. I think at least one person (someone named Sue, unless that is someone from here) has seen the light.

We should do this more often. It is like missionary work for the skeptical movement. For every 100 people that reject our arguments, spew bible nonsense, and then retreat, there is one lurker sitting there thinking, "Hmm, these guys are pretty smart. I wonder what they have to say."

We have overwhelmed the forum with logic. It is not like the RD site is Christian oriented. In fact, it is supposed to be for anyone to join. So going in there and stating our point of view is valid, not like entering a Christian forum and being trolls.

[Skeptical Greg]

I invited suecephas to join us.. I really enjoyed her(?) post also..


I also invited JAMESBOND7 to join us also.. Har Har..

Have you noticed we do not seem to have much genuine Christian perspective around here lately..

[Hexxenhammer]

Bump. People are really missing out if they haven't caught the action over at the readers digest site. This is more fun than playing with kittens.

[Wile E. Coyote]

The believers are weakening or tiring. Although they probably will not be converted, we have created one less place where they can spew their nonsense.

Sometimes this this board gets boring because we can all mostly agree on a lot of things. Sometimes it is like going home to the spouse after an uneventful day and then trying to find something to talk about.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Dallin



Yahweh,

Whenever I have used this argument against a believer, they always reply with something to the effect of:

"Yes, today we can't prove that souls exist, but that doesn't mean 3000 years from now we won't find conclusive evidence. Therefore, while it may be irrational now to conclude that souls exist, it may not be incorrect"

This brings about the point which, to me, is the problem with atheism. Atheists consider believers irrational/incorrect because their beliefs are based on faith. But isn't an atheist's beliefs - that of no god existing - based on faith as well (eg, faith that lack of current evidence of god's existance proves god does not exist)? Hmmm, maybe this is a topic for another day and another thread... but I am curious how you would answer the above argument.
This question has come up over and over again on this forum. Do a search for "invisible pink unicorns".

Part of it is about burden of proof, and the most reasonable position to take when there is no evidence. I won't rehash it all here.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
The believers are weakening or tiring. Although they probably will not be converted, we have created one less place where they can spew their nonsense.

Sometimes this this board gets boring because we can all mostly agree on a lot of things. Sometimes it is like going home to the spouse after an uneventful day and then trying to find something to talk about.
I think you're right. They're not responding very much anymore.

Mightor has done his duty.

Maybe you could find some more suitable boards to swoop upon Wile E. Coyote?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by calladus


Are you stirring things up over there? I see your handle.
I admit, I'm being a lot "meaner" over there than I really think I should. Thats not the kind of person I am at these boards, and thats not the kind of person I am in real life. But, I dont like to hold back.

About my handle "Yahweh", I chose it because I've been using Yahweh for such a long time. I became obsessed with Yahweh and the Old Testament. Of course, I never believed any of it but I thought Yahweh was such an awesome guy. My favorite story goes something like this (I'll probably... probably, what am I saying, I will mess it up and butcher the story as I havent read bible in such a long time):

When Moses returned down from the mountain, he saw his people praying to the golden calf. This enraged Moses. He said "everyone who want to worship the Golden Calf go over and build a hut, and ask for a miracle, everyone who wanted to follow Yahweh, come over to Moses and build a hut and we'll ask for a miracle from my God".

For seven days, the people prayed for a miracle from the golden calf and for seven days nothing happened. Moses said "See, your calf gives you nothing. Yahweh I ask of you a miracle!" and at that moment Yahweh sent down a bolt of lightning from the clouds that destroyed the golden calf's hut.

And Moses and his followers slaughtered all of those who had not had faith in Yahweh.

Is that not the funniest story you've ever heard in your life.

Hey, check this, this is the kind of responses being posted:

Wow! I had heard of these kinds of rabid, lost caps lock fundamentalists, but I rarely get to see them in their natural habitat. Now I know how Jane Goodall (http://www.janegoodall.org/) feels.

It's not even an argument, just an exhortation!
Its like trapping an animal in a corner isnt it. When I attack these peoples beliefs (and I admit, I am attacking them *evil laughter*), they will lash out at me. What they say doesnt even need to be an arguement... and if its in all caps it doesnt really need to be coherent. Oh well, I am really (I think the word "really" is pushing it a bit... oh well) good with answering all sorts of questions like this (although I repeat myself over and over again... oh well, theres no reason why one counter-arguement wont work with many claims).

To me, it seems that most of these believers think being right involves being the last person to post. And they think if they can be the last reply, they are the correct ones and I am wrong. I think not, it takes a lot more than having the last word to be correct.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

I think you're right. They're not responding very much anymore.

Mightor has done his duty.

Maybe you could find some more suitable boards to swoop upon Wile E. Coyote?
I applaud you Mightor!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I applaud you Mightor!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks. As you said Yahweh, I'm not very mean on the JREF boards either. Mightor let me blow off a little steam and channel my inner Tricky and Shemp.

A small sample of Mightor's wisdom and responses from others(not to toot my own horn or nothin', this also shows now intelligent many believers that come to the JREF are. Those at the Readers Digest were fish in a barrel)

hnrast Fri 08/08/03, 2:10:23
Mightor- Produce scientific proof that the soul does not exist!

Mightor Fri 08/08/03, 2:18:53
Mightor say doesn't work that way. hnrast makes extraordinary claim. hnrast has to produce proof that the soul does exist. Mightor say, would it make sense for Mightor to say "hnrast- Produce scientific proof that invisible, intangible, silent, flying monkeys are not flying out of your rear." Mightor say, no it would not. hnrast would tell Mightor to prove it since it is not observable.

hnrast Fri 08/08/03, 11:28:28
Mightor, MartinM Your statements confirm the validity of the Bible, especially Corinthians 2: 13-15

Mightor Fri 08/08/03, 12:27:06
"13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[3] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment." Mightor agree. Your spirit words are foolish to Mightor. This also say that spiritual truths are spoken with spiritual words. Mightor say this fine and dandy. But you, puny human, try to prove scientific truths with spiritual words. Don't work that way. Talk science truths with science words and spirit truths with spirit words. Mightor say the two do not mix. Like sabertooth tiger and megatherium.

thad1 Fri 08/08/03, 12:48:07
our perception of truth changes but eternal truth is just that.

Mightor Fri 08/08/03, 1:46:18
Eternal truth is when Mightor drops rock, rock falls to ground. Mightor call that "Gravity". Mightor also say strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and magnetism also eternal truths. But not stories of goat-herders in middle east.

shebear Thu 08/07/03, 10:17:51
Soul is a happy being. My beliefs teach that we, the we who we really are, is soul. Not our body but the realness that resides in us that make us who we are. So I don't think of my self as being a certain person or a certain name or whatever. And I treat everyone else the same way. When our body dies soul moves on to a new destination. Soul is eternal. We are co-workers with god on earth and elsewhere. We also may complain about our lots in life but I know that my terrible childhood and all the experencies(whether perceived good or bad)I have gone through I thank my lucky stars that I learned and grew spiritualy from them. It all depends on your point of view.

Mightor Fri 08/08/03, 1:56:28
Let Mightor see if Mightor got this straight. "My beliefs teach that we, the we who we really are, is soul." So you just make up beliefs and teach them to puny humans? Mightor's beliefs teach him that shebear spend to much time eating mushrooms she found in woods. Does that make Mightor right?

And Tormac was just as nice over there as he is over here:

Tormac Fri 08/08/03, 2:19:42
Why does there seem to be no consistency in the notion of spirituality? Descriptions of the "soul" vary so widely from culture to culture. One holds that cannibalism is wrong, another holds that true cannibalism is wrong, but ritualized cannibalism is a key to salvation, another still holds that cannibalism is part of the proper way to show respect to the soul of a loved one . . . The notion of soul seems to be dependent on cultural factors. We all have a bias to believe firmly in what our own cultural myths are, without regard to any physical evidence, or lack there of. While absence of evidence is not true evidence of absence, I suspect that if there was an objective object popularly called a "soul" or "spirit", human spirituality would be have more common themes or absolutes, instead of a myriad of mutually exclusive and contradicting tenants. Science has show that even language is "hard wired" into human consciousness, with the laws of transformational grammar predicting that there are overall rules that every human language, not matter how diverse follows. Does anyone know of an attempt to find over all rules that define the notion of a "spirit"? Is the notion of a "spirit" or "soul" dependent on social forces rather than physical ones?

And good ol' Lord Kenneth, just as sensetive as always!

anom Fri 08/08/03, 3:55:25
In the August Reader's Digest, Anita Bartholomew's article about life after death dealt only with the medical side of the story. She did not touch upon the spiritual side which is much more important. Seek out a medium from the Spiritualist Church for enlightenment. The Science and Religion of Spiritualism proves there is life after death.

LordKenny Fri 08/08/03, 4:03:29
Spirtualism is a fraud. People do not need this "spiritual" crap that is nothing more than blind uneducated speculation.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Strange, I posted a message, but now it's not there. Hmmm.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Strange, I posted a message, but now it's not there. Hmmm.

A couple of my posts disappeared also.. Hmmmm, Hmmmm.

One was where I made the observation that bible thumper JamesBond7, had chosen the nickname of a fornicator with a license to kill.. Guess that was a little too controversial for RD..

[Hexxenhammer]

Notice how you can't report anything to a moderator? Stuff just disappears without anyone knowing why.
Sheriff Hal you are greatly appreciated here.

[calladus]

Anyone got any information about this?

Part III A.) Vertical evidence- This is seeing something that would have been outside the visual range of the person. Unfortunately this is often difficult to verify. However, the Lancet medical study of Dec 2001 did verify one case of this. This one case alone destroys any internal explanation for the NDE. B.) The Atlanta study conducted by Dr Sabom. This study had two control groups of cardiac patients, one group that had an NDE and another group which did not have the NDE. He quizzed both groups over the medical operations that had been done to them. ( I need to note that neither group of patients were medical laymen, they were simply patients) The group that did not have the NDE made numerous errors describing their operations, while the NDE group accurately described every aspect of their operations. The best explanation for this is that the NDE group saw their operations, demonstrating that they gained new knowledge and that they actually saw the operation, it was not just a hallucination.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I was curious about that claim myself. I don't have time now to read them, but here's my google results.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=lancet+near+death+experience+2001
And it looks like the study is available.

I'll comment more later.

I will post the skepdic link:
http://skepdic.com/nde.html

[Hexxenhammer]

This krkey guy is good. More with it than the JE believers here. It's hard to type as a caveman and remain coherent.

[UnrepentantSinner]

krkay seems nice. I hope he comes to play with us.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
This krkey guy is good. More with it than the JE believers here. It's hard to type as a caveman and remain coherent.

Mightor should no try and get all Ontological on his butt.

[swstephe]

I thought somebody did a test. Told a heart transplant patient there was a clipboard with a message on top of a cabinet. He was told to report what was written on the clipboard. Nobody who did the test could give them that information.

One thing that really blew it for me. I was really curious if people who grew up in non-Christian cultures would report on meeting Jesus. Turns out they don't. They meet whoever they were expecting to meet. Some people even met people who were not dead yet! So, even if you accepted the claims of what they saw, it didn't appear to be objective truth.

Finally, many classical theologians don't accept NDE's because their scriptures seemed to indicate that the dead are "asleep" and unaware until they are awoken on the day of judgement.

My father was a combat pilot. Flew and trained jet fighters where they had to worry about the pilot blacking out because of the pressures of sharp turns. They were required, as part of their training to be put under those pressures, losing oxygen to the brain and black out. Many people reported some similar experiences to NDE afterwards.

[swstephe]

here is a quote

The NDE tunnel vision is caused by hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain)
Jet fighter pilots experience "tunnel vision" as they gradually lose consciousness as a result of blood draining from their brains because of the extreme gravity forces generated during flight. Their peripheral vision darkens and blurs while the circle of vision becomes smaller as the pilot nears unconsciousness. However the pilot still perceives the material world during this experience. The central area of vision that remains still shows the cockpit gauges and the horizon.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by calladus
Anyone got any information about this?

-----------------------------------------
Part III A.) Vertical evidence- This is seeing something that would have been outside the visual range of the person. Unfortunately this is often difficult to verify. However, the Lancet medical study of Dec 2001 did verify one case of this. This one case alone destroys any internal explanation for the NDE. B.) The Atlanta study conducted by Dr Sabom. This study had two control groups of cardiac patients, one group that had an NDE and another group which did not have the NDE. He quizzed both groups over the medical operations that had been done to them. ( I need to note that neither group of patients were medical laymen, they were simply patients) The group that did not have the NDE made numerous errors describing their operations, while the NDE group accurately described every aspect of their operations. The best explanation for this is that the NDE group saw their operations, demonstrating that they gained new knowledge and that they actually saw the operation, it was not just a hallucination.
-----------------------------------------


I've been ignoring all those long replies. It would be nice if this person provided a link because this story sounds like the accuracy of it could be a bit "skewed". It sounds like it was invented by the SciFi channel. Or it could be pseudoscience presented as fact. Or it could be completely fabricated bulls**t.

And I doubt that "one case" had "destroyed" the that limited visual range idea.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I've been ignoring all those long replies. It would be nice if this person provided a link because this story sounds like the accuracy of it could be a bit "skewed". It sounds like it was invented by the SciFi channel. Or it could be pseudoscience presented as fact. Or it could be completely fabricated bulls**t.

And I doubt that "one case" had "destroyed" the that limited visual range idea.

{hand ****

Oooo. Oooo. Oooo. Mr. Christian, I did my homework!!!

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11755611&dopt=Abstract
http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


{hand ****

Oooo. Oooo. Oooo. Mr. Christian, I did my homework!!!

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11755611&dopt=Abstract
http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html
Good work! You get a gold star and first one to pick from the toy box :)!

Some of the information from those links is extremely interesting. My breif reading of the articles in them reveal that none of them actually suggest Out Of Body experiences are anything paranormal.

An interesting quote from one of those documents is:
With a purely physiological explanation such as cerebral anoxia for the experience, most patients who have been clinically dead should report one.
Is that use of the word "should" meaning "on average, expect to hear a NDE report" or does it mean "for some reason, not enough people report near death experiences"?

I would assume the latter (because 18% of the 344 cardiac patients reported a NDE). If all of these people had similar circumstances concerning their health and treatment, Why dont more people have Near Death Experiences?

[swstephe]

The Lancet study seems unscientific to me, but I'm sure I'm not the first or last to mention it.

Background Some people report a near-death experience (NDE) after a life-threatening crisis. We aimed to establish the cause of this experience and assess factors that affected its frequency, depth, and content

They immediately assume the NDE is an actual experience and seek to establish a cause for it. That implies that NDE is a real memory of a real experience. Could it be that it was a false memory? I saw a recent study where people were told a lot of things, then later asked to recount what actually happened to them, (a memory), and what they had been told. One example was that many people remembered being hugged by Bugs Bunny as a child in Disney World. Despite the fact that Bugs Bunny isn't even a Disney character. They could be on a wold goose chase unless they first establish that there was an actual "experience", (some consistent facts in all the subjective memories).

Methods In a prospective study, we included 344 consecutive cardiac patients who were successfully resuscitated after cardiac arrest in ten Dutch hospitals. We compared demographic, medical, pharmacological, and psychological data between patients who reported NDE and patients who did not (controls) after resuscitation. In a longitudinal study of life changes after NDE, we compared the groups 2 and 8 years later

There are a few chuckles in that statement. (1) Obviously they intereviewed successfully resuscitated patients, otherwise they would have to bring in John Edwards! (2) It isn't a "control group" if they have already had their hearts stop and have reported no NDE. The are actually in the first phase of trying to determine a cause. They have already assumed that cardiac arrest causes NDE. They should have picked 100,000 people at random and asked them if they had NDE's and try to determine a possible cause. They might find a lot of candidates from people who simply experienced apoxia, so they need to determine some characteristic that is common in every NDE that is different than anoxia, and establish the cause of that effect.

I've only known one person who has had an NDE, personally, and she seemed to be the kind that could have generated false memories quite easily as she had a fairly vivid imagination and paranoid delusions. It seems interesting that someone who claims to have a NDE gets a lot more attention than someone who claims an out-of-body experience with no cardiac arrest involved.

[UnrepentantSinner]

There is some commentary on the study in subsequent issues of the Lancet, but you need a subscription to access them on the web. I wish someone would do that for us.

Maybe if I googled a bit more..

[Denise]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I applaud you Mightor!

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I second that! I haven't read the entire thing yet... but it looks pretty fascinating.

[Denise]

Originally posted by swstephe
I thought somebody did a test. Told a heart transplant patient there was a clipboard with a message on top of a cabinet. He was told to report what was written on the clipboard. Nobody who did the test could give them that information.

One thing that really blew it for me. I was really curious if people who grew up in non-Christian cultures would report on meeting Jesus. Turns out they don't. They meet whoever they were expecting to meet. Some people even met people who were not dead yet! So, even if you accepted the claims of what they saw, it didn't appear to be objective truth.

Finally, many classical theologians don't accept NDE's because their scriptures seemed to indicate that the dead are "asleep" and unaware until they are awoken on the day of judgement.

My father was a combat pilot. Flew and trained jet fighters where they had to worry about the pilot blacking out because of the pressures of sharp turns. They were required, as part of their training to be put under those pressures, losing oxygen to the brain and black out. Many people reported some similar experiences to NDE afterwards.

There was a study done in a cardiac lab. I can't find it at the moment and it takes a long time to find. I had it bookmarked on my old comp, and hopefully someone will find it. They had a scrolling sign that was facing the ceiling. It was above eye level so none of that patients were aware it was there. The message could clearly be read if one was "hovering" over their body. I believe the experiment lasted a year and none of the people who experience NDE's noticed the sign.

[Hexxenhammer]

This board went right back to self-validating crap as soon as we stopped posting regularly. Here are some examples:

mrmdeal Sun 08/10/03, 11:27:39
First I would like to say that this is not the place to speak like a three year old child(mightor). If you speak, speak with intelligence not ignorance. Secondly, to the christians and believers do not beat people over the head with the bible; If they do not believe now then you only drive them further away with those actions. Everyone has a soul, it is your free will, your thoughts, what makes you you. You can believe in life after death and you can also believe that after life is just death. For the scientists, our souls are pure energy, something beyond what we can understand. For those that do not believe in anything after this life, I am truly sorrowful for you.Because you have no hope in anything after this life. It takes faith, faith in what you cannot see or understand. But if you deny that there is a soul then you deny that you exist, that you are capable of free thought. I for one know that there is a life after this one, I do not have to prove it to anybody either to make me believe it. If you do not want to believe then that is your right. The mind can block the heart from speaking,listen to your hearts then you will know what the truth is. you do not have to prove or disprove anything. You simply have to believe.

Teej21 Sun 08/10/03, 7:21:44
Of course there we have a soul. We are composed of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. Our body is our flesh and blood, our soul is our will and emotions, and our spirit is what communicates with God. When you die you will either go to heaven or hell. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the only way to heaven. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.......What is the purpose of us to be on this earth just to live and die? No, we serve a greater purpose...to glorify our awesome creator and God!

CHUMMYGEO Sun 08/10/03, 5:42:43
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR THE HUMAN SOUL IS A WASTED OF EFFORT BETTER USED IN RESOLVING REAL WORLD PROBLEMS. GOD IS ALL WAYS IN CONTROL AND WITH HIM ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. FAITH IS THE REJECTION OF BELIEF AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF FACT. TO BELIEVE IS TO BE EITHER LUKEWARM OR VERY COLD. "So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot or cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." The soul is directly related to our Freedom of Choice, A GOD GIVEN GIFT TO ALLOW US TO FOLLOW HIS WILL OR REJECT IT. THE SPIRITUAL IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD SO MUCH AS TO BE RESPECTED AND ACCEPTED AS A FACT THAT WE ARE CREATED IN HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS. ACCETANCE REQUIRES NO FURTHER EXPLANATION. REJECT PERMITS ANY EXPLANATION. OUR REARCH NEEDS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE THINGS WE CAN CHANGE NOT WASTING TIME AND ENERGY ON THINGS WE CAN NOT CHANGE AND OUR ABILITY TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. GEORGE H ALFREDSON

Some still don't know how to use the caps lock key. This last guy obviously cut and pasted that bible verse since it's in lowercase. I replied to the top guy in particular because he got my goat. What a jerk.

[calladus]

At first it's fun for nonbelievers to reply on mega-Christian boards because you feel like you are doing some good, like a salmon fighting your way upstream. Then you realize that you're only a spider in a water spout.

Makes me discouraged sometimes.

[Yahweh]

The board was interesting but I've lost interest. But, for whatever reason, I havent posted in more than 20 minutes!!!!! I'll make a few quick responses... just for fun.

mrmdeal Sun 08/10/03, 11:27:39
First I would like to say that this is not the place to speak like a three year old child(mightor).If you speak, speak with intelligence not ignorance.
The way a person chooses to speak does not reflect on their intelligence. Now why you gotta be like that.
Secondly, to the christians and believers do not beat people over the head with the bible; If they do not believe now then you only drive them further away with those actions. Everyone has a soul, it is your free will, your thoughts, what makes you you. You can believe in life after death and you can also believe that after life is just death.
You are mistaken. The soul and consciousness are not the same. The words are not interchangeable.
For the scientists, our souls are pure energy, something beyond what we can understand.
Now you are just making up your own facts. This constitutes for an incredibly weak arguement. Oh, and the soul/consciousness is not pure energy. Consciousness is a term used to describe knowledge of one's own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc. In no way does that definition suggest that consciousness is made of "pure energy".
For those that do not believe in anything after this life, I am truly sorrowful for you.
F**k you too.
Because you have no hope in anything after this life. It takes faith, faith in what you cannot see or understand. But if you deny that there is a soul then you deny that you exist, that you are capable of free thought.
And go to Hell. Again, the mixing up of the words "soul" and "consciousness".
I for one know that there is a life after this one, I do not have to prove it to anybody either to make me believe it.
Inner convictions are not evidence and they are not proof. I'm sorry, that arguement is entirely meaningless.
If you do not want to believe then that is your right. The mind can block the heart from speaking,listen to your hearts then you will know what the truth is. you do not have to prove or disprove anything. You simply have to believe.
Sorry, transcendence (the idea that if you can conceive of something, then it exists) just exists on paper. And yes, I think it is much more intelligent to supply evidence to support belief or disbelief in a supreme being.

That was almost too easy... I'm disappointed. Maybe this next one will be a little more difficult.

Teej21 Sun 08/10/03, 7:21:44
Of course there we have a soul. We are composed of three parts, body, soul, and spirit.
Sure, if you completely disregard of that matter that composes the body and the world around us. I dont know what you mean by "soul" and "spirit", its always been my assumption that those too were kinda... uhhh... the same.
Our body is our flesh and blood, our soul is our will and emotions, and our spirit is what communicates with God.
Oh, I get it now. The body is made of matter. The soul is a description of the part of consciousness that involves feeling. The the spirit is a very optimistic delusion.
When you die you will either go to heaven or hell.
Not according to hindu... why are you right and the hindu wrong?
Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he is the only way to heaven.
What about that whole "judge people by their merit and actions" thing. I'm a good person who loves animals and people... of course I'm going straight to Hell because I dont believe in god???
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only son, that whoever believes in Him would not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16.......
The bible has a very questionable scientific and historical accuracy. I dont think bible quotes should be taken as a literal account, rather as a tool to help you live morally. So, whats wrong with my belief that "living good" isnt as important with "having faith"?
What is the purpose of us to be on this earth just to live and die?
Dont try to apply a higher purpose to existence. But, if you really crave "purpose" that much, you are here on this earth to contribute in a positive way to your community... oh, and enjoy yourself because you are fortunate enough to be able to take enjoyment out of life.
No, we serve a greater purpose...to glorify our awesome creator and God!
I SERVE NO ONE! I REFUSE TO BOW DOWN!

The first person tried to use the "I dont need to prove nothin" technique, sorry hun, thats not acceptable. Then the next guy is completely delusional. A quick glance at the third one... ehh, all caps dont exactly make what you have to say more important or anymore "correct". All caps dont mean much in the face of logic, dumbass.

CHUMMYGEO Sun 08/10/03, 5:42:43
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR THE HUMAN SOUL IS A WASTED OF EFFORT BETTER USED IN RESOLVING REAL WORLD PROBLEMS.
Owwie, my eyes.
GOD IS ALL WAYS IN CONTROL AND WITH HIM ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
Well, if all things are possible, can he make a rock so big that he himself could not lift it. Neither "yes" nor "no" is possible which exposes the logical inconsistancies of an "always in control" or "omnipotent" god. If you say god exists outside of logic and reason, the god has the ability to place an apple next to another apple and have it be 11 apples. If that is the case no rational arguement that can be used to support belief or disbelief in the existence of god (properly called an ambigious arguement), and an arguement like that is inherantly flawed and meaningless.
FAITH IS THE REJECTION OF BELIEF AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF FACT.
WRONG! Faith is defined as "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". (Wow, no logic needed to flatten that arguement.)
TO BELIEVE IS TO BE EITHER LUKEWARM OR VERY COLD. "So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot or cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."
WTF?! Thats not any bible quote I've ever heard. Second, an analogy like that is flawed (its a baseless bias and some people might like to drink very cold beer as well as very hot coffee. I like my coffee lukewarm). Analogies themselves dont constitute as any form of logic, reasoning, fact, or evidence.
The soul is directly related to our Freedom of Choice, A GOD GIVEN GIFT TO ALLOW US TO FOLLOW HIS WILL OR REJECT IT.
Sorry, free-will is not a gift. How do you reason that free-will is a gift?
THE SPIRITUAL IS NOT TO BE UNDERSTOOD SO MUCH AS TO BE RESPECTED AND ACCEPTED AS A FACT THAT WE ARE CREATED IN HIS IMAGE AND LIKENESS.
When do we try not to make sense and understanding out of fact. I'm sorry, accepting something as true without understanding is called faith, not fact.
ACCETANCE REQUIRES NO FURTHER EXPLANATION.
Belief or acceptance doesnt translate into a fact.
REJECT PERMITS ANY EXPLANATION.
Nothing wrong with that.
OUR REARCH NEEDS TO BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE THINGS WE CAN CHANGE NOT WASTING TIME AND ENERGY ON THINGS WE CAN NOT CHANGE AND OUR ABILITY TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. GEORGE H ALFREDSON
First, that in no way suggest "God" or "soul". That quote has many interpretations. Second, I think its extremely important to understand everything. To not do so would be defineing the things you believe by faith. I dont accept faith as form of justifying a belief.


Wow... that took about a half hour... time well spent.

(Edited to add colors. It looked a little crammed together.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]
Even that is an understatement in itself... hot damn!

These are a few of the things I would have to say about it, feel free to use them if you havent already:

"There is no evidence that supports life after death, plenty of evidence against it".



I'm afraid you're seriously misinformed.



Much the same you can also reply back "Near death experiences have a rational explanation that has nothing do with the paranormal."



Why cannot a paranormal explanation be a rational explanation also?

What are these elusive "rational" explanations? None have ever been proposed which cover all the relevant phenomena.



"Souls cannot exist. They are not physical. To exist, something needs to be made of matter and exist in the 3 spatial dimensions."



Hell, even the materialists don't maintain that! :rolleyes:




I'm very good with these counter arguements... I have a lot free time and anger...

Same here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]


Heres an easy one. Someone wrote:

My response would be:
[i]The soul does not exist. There is no scientific or empirical evidenced to support its existence.


Where do you get this information from? Where do all skeptics get their information from??



Faith is the only thing that supports life after death and souls.



Complete and total unadulterated nonsense. What would be true to say is that faith is the only thing which supports annihilation.



I dont know if its just me but lack of scientific evidence seems to be a pretty harsh blow against the credibility and validity of a soul.



What scientific investigations have there been to detect a soul? Details please. I suggest thst the reason why you're a materialist is because you have been "brainwashed" into an unthinking embracement of the common western metaphysic.



And the fact that near death experiences can be explained by completely natural phenomena is yet another harsh blow against the credibility and validity of a soul.



Consciousness cannot in principle be scientifically explained. Even assuming it can NDE's certainly haven't been explained. Get your facts right.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yahweh stated:

This argues that a physical soul does not exist. Does a soul need to be physical? I'm not convinced belief in an non-physical eternal soul is supernatural, depending on the definition of "soul"

Most modern religion attributes physical properties (location for one) to a "soul." That is claiming a physical existence for the soul, and the above objection applies.

However, non physical things can exist. Concepts for one. My concept of the number 3 is not physical. It can only be expressed, examined or discussed through physical means, but the concept of "3" is not by itself physical.

I think it was Aristotle who originated this concept that a person's "soul" is analogous to a computer's program. Thus, to keep it brief, a person's soul is in fact the essence of what they are. Instead of the concept of the number 3, we have the concept of "Bill Jones." Bill Jones is his personality, memories, thought processes, etc., and not his body.

The main hypothetical litmus test for this sort of thing is thus: If we destroy "Bill Jones'" body, and replace it with an exact replica (and I mean exact, down to the subatomic level) would the new person be "Bill Jones?"

Those who believe in a "ghost in the machine" type soul would have to say no. However, saying yes to this question seems to require that someone be something other than just his or her body. Not anything supernatural, just that that person's "program" is relected in their body structure, and that program, much like the concept of "hot" or the number "3" , exists apart from the physical world.

Or am I just a nut stuck on semantics?

(edited to add a "t")

No, to be a consistent materialist you would need to say the self equates to information. Not the actually "stuff" of our bodies.

[Interesting Ian]

Yahweh

science is based on materialistic logic.


Your statements are as stupid as Stimpy's. "Materialistic logic" has no meaning. It is wholly devoid of any meaning.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth



You don't understand atheism. We acknowlede a God could exist, but there is no evidence to support that claim so we reject it.

There is no evidence??? :rolleyes: Tell me, what would the world need to be like before you considered there would be evidence?? BTW, I am not interested in the atheistic definition of "god" i.e the god of the gaps conceptualisation of god.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
It appears we are smothering them with logic. No one who replies will be converted, but those who are already on the fence and just reading will realize the logic you all are presenting is more reasonable, and perhaps they will start leaning towards this side of the fence.

All this support is excellent.

They must be really stupid if they think the "logic" presented by Skeptics could remotely be construed to be reasonable.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cristina



Yahzi
I found your post especially provocative. I'm looking forward to their responses.

I work with patients with AD and I know those moments you describe incredibly well. They break my heart. If nothing else, the thought of a "soul" or "personality" being trapped in a degenerating nervous system is enough to make one hope that the soul does not exist, that the personality and the memories degenerate.

Oh well...I am on the verge of thread-jacking, so I'll stop.

Thanks for your powerful post.

C

No one denies there is a correlation between brain states and mental states. But this argument is of no avail to the materialist since such correlations are equally explicable under the transmission theory (http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=86&pgtype=1)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote


We have overwhelmed the forum with logic. It is not like the RD site is Christian oriented. In fact, it is supposed to be for anyone to join. So going in there and stating our point of view is valid, not like entering a Christian forum and being trolls. [/B]

From the few posts I've read over there I am unable to discern any logic whatsoever, from either side of the "debate". What logical posts are there? I can't find any.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

This question has come up over and over again on this forum. Do a search for "invisible pink unicorns".

Part of it is about burden of proof, and the most reasonable position to take when there is no evidence. I won't rehash it all here.

And the point I've addressed over and over and over again is that a non-atheistic conceptualisation of God cannot be construed as being remotely like an invisible pink Unicorn. The invisible pink Unicorn's consciousness perhaps, yeah.

[Hexxenhammer]

Just updating the url. They moved the thread from their "featured discussions" section.

Is there a soul debate (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@19.m6p9a1kHsKt.17@.efe9a79/1623)

I'll be the first to admit that I'm trolling over there a little bit. If you look back a couple of pages Ian, you'll see a much more reasonable debate with me, Unrepentant Sinner, and a guy named krkey. You'd like him. Actually, you should go over there too and contribute some, try to get some more people who are really interested in debate to come over to this website. Some show an inkling of brainpower. I admit that just a month over here has made me a much better thinker and debater (that a word?). But I still have to look up every other word YOU use as long as it's not 6 Guiness Ian talking.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by swstephe
[B]I thought somebody did a test. Told a heart transplant patient there was a clipboard with a message on top of a cabinet. He was told to report what was written on the clipboard. Nobody who did the test could give them that information.

One thing that really blew it for me. I was really curious if people who grew up in non-Christian cultures would report on meeting Jesus. Turns out they don't. They meet whoever they were expecting to meet.



Scarcely. But anyway wouldn't it be most bizarre if our cultural expectations didn't influence what we see? Our everyday perceptions are, so why should our perceptions during NDE states be different?



Some people even met people who were not dead yet!



Children do so on occasions before their experience reverts to a stereotypical NDE. More generally speaking, apparitions of the living (in non-NDE states) are not particularly uncommon. It is not clear to me how this provides compelling evidence against the survival hypothesis.


So, even if you accepted the claims of what they saw, it didn't appear to be objective truth.


Objective truth?? Only the subjective is real.



Finally, many classical theologians don't accept NDE's because their scriptures seemed to indicate that the dead are "asleep" and unaware until they are awoken on the day of judgement.

My father was a combat pilot. Flew and trained jet fighters where they had to worry about the pilot blacking out because of the pressures of sharp turns. They were required, as part of their training to be put under those pressures, losing oxygen to the brain and black out. Many people reported some similar experiences to NDE afterwards.

No they are not similar at all. A lie told and repeated by "Skeptics".

[Hexxenhammer]

Oops. I see you have posted over there already.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by swstephe
here is a quote



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NDE tunnel vision is caused by hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain)
Jet fighter pilots experience "tunnel vision" as they gradually lose consciousness as a result of blood draining from their brains because of the extreme gravity forces generated during flight. Their peripheral vision darkens and blurs while the circle of vision becomes smaller as the pilot nears unconsciousness. However the pilot still perceives the material world during this experience. The central area of vision that remains still shows the cockpit gauges and the horizon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/B]

The tunnel in NDE states is a cultural artefact.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by swstephe
[B]The Lancet study seems unscientific to me, but I'm sure I'm not the first or last to mention it.



They immediately assume the NDE is an actual experience and seek to establish a cause for it. That implies that NDE is a real memory of a real experience. Could it be that it was a false memory?



Incompatible with "Death-bed visions" which are almost identical to NDE's except the people who have the experiences actually die. Indeed NDE's were subsumed under DBV's until the late 70's.

Free book you can read about them here (http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/books/barrett/dbv/contents.htm) . Published in 1926 as well, so the reports won't be influenced by the huge publicity over NDE's since 1975 (with the undoubted inevitable distorting and even outright fabrication of accounts).

[Wile E. Coyote]

I believe I might be making some of the believers on the RD forum cry. They are complaining about how I am ridiculing them and belittling their beliefs.

I am am merely pointing out facts that contradict their beliefs. It is because their beliefs are "ridiculous" that they feel "ridiculed" by the truth.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on them. If I am, someone let me know. I don't want everyone to think that atheists are jerks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
I believe I might be making some of the believers on the RD forum cry. They are complaining about how I am ridiculing them and belittling their beliefs.

I am am merely pointing out facts that contradict their beliefs. It is because their beliefs are "ridiculous" that they feel "ridiculed" by the truth.

Perhaps I am being too harsh on them. If I am, someone let me know. I don't want everyone to think that atheists are jerks.

I've been following your posts.. You are being quite gentle and patient. Good work...


They should thank the Lord (:D ) that Yahzi hasn't joined in...

[Skeptical Greg]

Just saw this little tidbit by Iceone:

Proof negates faith. If you *know* there is a God, then you don't have faith, you have knowledge. So



Such profundity is rare in those discussions.. Of course, like Sundog would say:

"The problem with intellectual TKO's is that they usually fly right over the loser's head."

[Wile E. Coyote]

OK, for those of you who participated in the RD crusade and eventually threw your hands into the air in frustration, there is new blood.

Of course, they are using the fact that "the atheists have disappeared" as proof that they were right and that God is stronger than the Devil.

I am holding my own quite nicely, but if anyone wants to rejoin the fray, please jump in.

The Reader's Digest Forums (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@141.9aSTa14wsMQ.35@.efe9a79/2103)

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Wile E. Coyote
OK, for those of you who participated in the RD crusade and eventually threw your hands into the air in frustration, there is new blood.

Of course, they are using the fact that "the atheists have disappeared" as proof that they were right and that God is stronger than the Devil.

I am holding my own quite nicely, but if anyone wants to rejoin the fray, please jump in.

The Reader's Digest Forums (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@141.9aSTa14wsMQ.35@.efe9a79/2103)

Tell them if they don't behave themselves you will summon the all-powerful Mightor to smite them with Club of Logic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm there tonight.

Is kkey or whatever posting? I'd really like him to join us here...

[Wile E. Coyote]

I have not seen krkey in a while. The only fundie left from before is cinnamon. But there are a few new ones.

[Mercutio]

Just bit the bullet and logged on. What a horrible format.

(see if you can guess who I am) :D

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Just bit the bullet and logged on. What a horrible format.

(see if you can guess who I am) :D

The format is absolutely painful. But you get used to it after a little while.

I am guessing that you are "heathen". That was a very well-articulated post. Also, the post time was only a few minutes before your reply to this thread.

[Mercutio]

Serves me right for not disguising my times...:hit:

[Samus]

Guys, enough with the soul already! That discussion is dead. What you really want to debate is whether religious prayer should be allowed in the workplace! Oh, yeah. :)

Come join the fun! In case you forgot, I'm on the RD forums as gotCorn.

Religion in the workplace (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@121.qbJ1ajWQsLo.15@.ef9efbe/155)

Edited to add: Crikey, I didn't realize how old those messages were. No use in arguing with people now...

[Starrman]

I had to bump this thread when I ran into this Gem at the RD Forum:

Final word to the disbelievers: How much more foolish are those who depend upon words and seek understanding by their intellect! They try to hit the moon with a stick. They scratch their shoes when their feet itch.

Eveyone stop using words and intellect immediately! Just sit back and wait silently for the rapture. Thank you.

[Mercutio]

A new handful of posters there, for those of you who enjoy shooting fish in a barrel.

[Mercutio]

Starrman10, you are missing bojna2j....what fun...

[Starrman]

Starrman10, you are missing bojna2j....what fun...

Bajna2j is one big fish in one small barrel. A PHD in Theology? To quote bajna2j herself... NOT!

I take it you are 'heathen'?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Starrman
Bajna2j is one big fish in one small barrel. A PHD in Theology? To quote bajna2j herself... NOT!

I take it you are 'heathen'? You are more polite than I am.

I think this crowd needs to visit landoverbaptist.org.

[Starrman]

More important what does Jesus think of your behavior, one day your hot for Him and the next day your not! SHAME ON YOU, HEATHEN!!!

I just wanted to preserve this gem, that bonja2j dropped on Mercutio in the forum. :roll:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Starrman


I just wanted to preserve this gem, that bonja2j dropped on Mercutio in the forum. :roll: In fairness (HA!!!), I am posting with Heathen as my name, so she didn't pick that bit up from my writing!

[sorgoth]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Yahweh stated:

However, non physical things can exist. Concepts for one. My concept of the number 3 is not physical. It can only be expressed, examined or discussed through physical means, but the concept of "3" is not by itself physical.

I think it was Aristotle who originated this concept that a person's "soul" is analogous to a computer's program. Thus, to keep it brief, a person's soul is in fact the essence of what they are. Instead of the concept of the number 3, we have the concept of "Bill Jones." Bill Jones is his personality, memories, thought processes, etc., and not his body.

Here's one: If your soul is your personality, memories, ect. Basically your 'mind', right? So why do mind/personality influencing drugs work? The soul isn't physical, and thus shouldn't be affected by them.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sorgoth


Here's one: If your soul is your personality, memories, ect. Basically your 'mind', right? So why do mind/personality influencing drugs work? The soul isn't physical, and thus shouldn't be affected by them.

Whoa!! This has not ocurred to me before..

Have you ever tossed this out over at "General Skepticism and The Paranormal "?

[sorgoth]

Thanks. I've convinced 12 people(Real life, face to face) that God doesn't exist so far. Pretty good, eh? :D It takes good points like that....just telling them it isn't 'logical' isn't going to change their minds. Also, analogies work well, for example:

"Okay, there's a fire in the forest. Now, some camper could have forgot to put out his fire or there could be an undiscovered species of animal that breathes fire that started it. While we can't PROVE the animal didn't do it, which is more likely?" And then lead the conversation into comparing that with religion.

And no, I don't go to GS&P, not much good conversation there.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Here's one: If your soul is your personality, memories, ect. Basically your 'mind', right? So why do mind/personality influencing drugs work? The soul isn't physical, and thus shouldn't be affected by them.

The sprititualists have a pat answer for this one that I feel falls to Occam's Razor immediately, but they'll tell you that the brain is the interface for the soul and just like when you shoot your television set you can't pick up TV signals, brain malfunction or injury just f***s up the interface while not affecting the signal.

[sorgoth]

But...isn`t that just like saying that the brain can do everything the soul is supposed to do exept live forever? So why even bother adding a `soul`to account for behavior?

[Samus]

I thought I was done with those RD forums, but there were a couple posts that were just too good to pass up. Like the guy exclaiming that we have a soul because we have emotions; apparently that's proof enough for him!

[Starrman]

The problem over there is that whenever a logical point is made in a thread, it seems to die. I had asked how the mind/soul being seperate from the physical brain can account for personality and memory upheavals caused by brain injuries and alzheimers disease. I haven't checked today, but when I tried to focus in on that question they simply stopped responding.

[Mercutio]

I'm beginning to feel concerned for bojna2j; I think there is a very real possibility she is off her meds and needs professional help. Not *what* she is saying, but *how* she is saying it. What do you think? (I came really close to suggesting it after a couple of her posts, but thought otherwise).

[Starrman]

Dr. bojna2j has lost it. Now she has accused me of copying or something like that. Her posts are especially mean-spirited and rambling since she came back today (she even called me a 'PHD of Dumbness'). I have responded a couple of times today, but I don't think I will anymore, since it has pretty much devolved to her name-calling and and me pointing out how un-Christian her behavior is. In other words, I think you are right.

[Hexxenhammer]

The fact that bojna2j can think that Lillies is some kind of traitor are what amazes me. Lillies is nice to everyone over there. Someone tell her Mightor says hi. I just can't bring myslef to post over there anymore.

[Mercutio]

I came really close to posting the following...then pondered for another 10 minutes and copied it for later. I can always post it later, but I don't think I can delete it on that forum. Would I be going too far?A private message for bojna2j....seriously, if you are not her, don't read this message. I have no way of contacting her personally, and so am trying it this way. There is nothing here for you to see if you are not her....just go away................................... ......................... ............................ ................................. ................................ ................................. .............................. ...................... ................. ..................................... .............................. ..................bojna2j, I am seriously concerned about you. Not *what* you are saying--there are plenty here who say similar things. No, it is the way that you say them. If you are not just playing around and pretending to be something you are not, then you may wish to consider seeking professional help. I hope I am wrong, but there are enough warning signs in your anger, your disjointed thoughts, your claims of persecution and of grandeur. If you are just playing around, please be aware that concerned people might look at your words as indicative of mental illness. Look, I don't know you from anybody, but it is part of my job as a human being to care for others; please don't take this as an insult, it is not intended as one. If you are just playing, congratulations, you fooled me. If you don't know what I'm talking about, have a friend whom you trust read through some of your more recent posts. If they don't see what I am suspicious of, fine. But if somebody who cares about you sees it too, you may be persuaded to seek help. Again, I hope I'm wrong, but I cannot sit by when I think somebody is in trouble. I hope you are not offended.

I may delete this in a day or so, as it is intended to be private, but I really want advice.

[Hexxenhammer]

I don't think you should post it. Either bojna2j is not rational and will take it the wrong way, or they're faking and will reply like they're taking the wrong way. Either way, there will me a major freak out.

[Mercutio]

I'm just ready to scream...it is so depressing there right now...

[UnrepentantSinner]

I haven't hopped over there in a while, but I'm assuming the Soul debate is still going on and that a rational believer like "kkey" is no where to be found?

[Starrman]

Lillies is the only tolerable believer over there. She states flat out that she cannot answer questions posed about NDE's and whatnot, because she doesn't need them to believe. She knows it is faith and accepts that - which is truly refreshing.

But bojna2j there takes the cake - he has now proclaimed that I don't believe because I am jealous that I have not had a paranormal experience. And, of course, I cannot prove the paranormal does not exist - therefore it does. It is worth it to go over and see heathen's (Mercutio) discussion with bojna2j about her PHD.

[Mercutio]

Actually, Starrman, bojna2j is a she...unless he, she, it, or they are lying about that too.

I agree about Lillies--she, like the vast majority of christians I have met, is usually a nice and reasonable person. These creationist types are more than irritating. I just want one, just once, to either tell a bit about the history of the bible, or to admit they don't know it. Just one tiny step toward intellectual honesty, that's all I hope for.


...ain't holding my breath...

[Scott Wheeler]

This weight loss as evidence of a soul is ridiculous. I have had the unfortunate experience of being at the bedside of people who are dying. There was no rush to accurately weigh them directly before and then derectly after death. That would be unacceptably intrusive. I don't believe there is any such data. Without direct accurate measurements right before and right after death, any wieght loss can be atributed to numerous other factors including use of different scales, clothing, dehydration, etc. A person's wieght varies throughout any given day with the bodily functions. The claim is obviously ridiculous.

[Starrman]

Actually, Starrman, bojna2j is a she...unless he, she, it, or they are lying about that too.

And she has recently posted some useless, but relatively well-written posts, which I suspect she is copying and pasting from somewhere else. I have been searching the net for a source, bu have been unsuccesful so far. I see you busted her on the reference to it being the year 2000 in one of them - amazing how quickly she goes away when cornered.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by c4ts


But if these things do not truly exist, then what is existence? Take qualities, for example. How can you have something round if roundness does not exist?

Now you're just being deliberately dense. This already answered. "Exist" can be used in different ways. Clearly, when one says a rock exists and "roundness" exists, they are obviously using the word in different senses.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Starrman
And she has recently posted some useless, but relatively well-written posts, which I suspect she is copying and pasting from somewhere else. I have been searching the net for a source, bu have been unsuccesful so far. I see you busted her on the reference to it being the year 2000 in one of them - amazing how quickly she goes away when cornered. But, damn the luck, she keeps coming back!

I had not thought to search for her source. Good luck!

(Wouldn't it be hilarious if she actually was quoting from her own dissertation? Stranger things have happened...haven't they? I mean, they must have...can't think of any right now, though...

[Starrman]

(Wouldn't it be hilarious if she actually was quoting from her own dissertation? Stranger things have happened...haven't they? I mean, they must have...can't think of any right now, though...

You must be psychic, because that is what she is now claiming. Read the post where she breaks it to me, and see if it could possibly be written by the same person.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Starrman


You must be psychic, because that is what she is now claiming. Read the post where she breaks it to me, and see if it could possibly be written by the same person. izzat the one where she says she wrote it in 2000?

So the year is 2000, the subject is messianic scatology, er, eschatology...how many more clues until we find her name...or the name of her source...

current possibilities:

1) she's telling the truth completely.:roll:

2) she's lying through her teeth and plagiarizing to boot.

3) she actually did do a diss on that subject, but her degree is from a fundy diploma mill, not certified, and the dissertation was therefore not included in Diss Abstracts.

4) dissociative identity disorder? :nope:

What am I forgetting...?

[Mercutio]

:confused: I swear diogenes posted here today...am I going crazy? Something about an "objectionable words" message from the RD people? I was going to say I had gotten one before, but couldn't see a reason then, either...


...ever see the movie "gaslight"? That's what this feels like...

[Hexxenhammer]

You're not crazy, I read the post too. The stupid RD site censored me too, but only when I was quoting creepy bible verses.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mercutio
:confused: I swear diogenes posted here today...am I going crazy? Something about an "objectionable words" message from the RD people? I was going to say I had gotten one before, but couldn't see a reason then, either...


...ever see the movie "gaslight"? That's what this feels like...

I'm sorry.. I deleted a long post that I coudn't post over there, that was clean as a whistle..

The ' Net Nanny ' over at RD seems to be responding to random HTML tags.. I couldn't paste a link to Fox news, and had to settle for M$NBC...

I should be ashamed.. ( I am, sort of .. ) I've got cinnamon81 tempting the ' Net Nanny ' herself..

(So be gone! You have no authority here!) God is wise! And I am FAR from ignorant, you varmint spitting reptile!! God shows His anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.


I think the " (So be gone! You have no authority here!) " part, is where she is calling me Satan..

I sort of take that as a compliment..

[UnrepentantSinner]

Hey guys, krkey has joined us as of the 18th. Make sure you make him feel welcome if he choses to post.