View Poll Results: Does man have a soul?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Atheist/Agnostic and yes, he does

    3 5.00%
  • Atheist/Agnostic and no, he does not

    27 45.00%
  • Other belief system and yes he does

    14 23.33%
  • Other belief system and no, he does not

    2 3.33%
  • BTSOOM/FIIK (beats the **** out of me/fvck if I know)

    10 16.67%
  • Cake or death?

    4 6.67%
Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 105

Thread: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

  1. #71
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Very interesting video. Recomend it.



    edit: something weird going on with that ..
    Last edited by Gabriel; 07-09-10 at 04:44 PM. Reason: fixed

  2. #72
    Educator Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    10-07-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,019

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by ads1981 View Post
    Oh, we're in total agreement. But my point was finding out if agnostics or atheists believe the soul exists. Apparently even if they do, they believe it is attached to the brain, not the heart.
    Well everything comes from the same stuff.

    When I was in university I got stuck on thinking about big questions. Many people do this I guess. However I think I got a bit excited of it all. Asking questions like why not nothingness as opposed to .. everything around us. I went to physics. Now I am no physis but you can learn alot about what is going on in the field from reading book like "a brief history of time". I read a number of books even one written by Tim Alen.(not a bad book but certainly not as detailed as other books on the subject. I read a book on the lives of particular scientists since the 1600. Very interesting people. Tyco was strange.. all sorts of strange scientists that discovered so much. Sir Isic Newton was a complete slob and so on very interesting books.

    Anyhow I got stuck on infinity and nothingness. I reasoned we use 0 in math so we have reference at least in symbol on a grade 1 number line. Nothingness was mathematical. The circle represents infinity because it has an infinite number of points around it’s edge. So.. nothingness even though we cannot perceive it must be real. So why not nothing as opposed to everything?

    Now this is where my thinking became strange. Nothingness if it existed I chose to believe that it would be infinitely small and infinitely large. If it existed.. that is all there would be. So this is where I started with physics. I asked a question to that would match an infinitely large or small thing. I looked at atoms and how they are designed with an atom and electrons rotating around the nucleus. Mostly empty space in the atom between the nucleus and electrons. Now.. look at the solar system with a sun and satellites circling around it.. The universe has galaxies that spin around a nucleus.. etc. Again mostly space and the attaction of the nucleus and satilites is gravity. It seemed I found a pattern.

    Then I asked two questions. If you could grow exponentially larger and larger expanding outside the solar system galaxies .. to the limits of the universe and beyond. Would you run out of room? I asked can you run out of smaller parts by taking something in half.. and taking one of them halves cut it again.. repeat. How can you run out of smaller parts? So with this I came to believe that everythingness.. (lol) Was infinitely large and small .. the same as nothingness.

    To attach some explanation of this all I reasoned that everything is a result of the impossibility of nothingness and that everything and nothing are the same thing. At best I reasoned further that we may exist intentionally as a means of the everything/nothing to realise itself. If none were alive to perceive everything then nothingness would be reality.

    I know it is strange but it nearly drove me insane while I thought about the subject for a very long time obsessively. It was an experience that I wouldn’t trade for anything though and to me.. a relatively spiritual experience.

    EDIT: Is a very personal story I don't typically explain that experience.
    Last edited by Gabriel; 07-09-10 at 05:44 PM.

  3. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I didn't say that something does not exist because it has not been analyzed yet, furthermore, the very fact that the natives have seen it and have used it means that it has in fact been analyzed, IE science has discovered it. Something does not exist if it can NOT be analyzed.
    Yet it has no medicinal value until science decides that it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    WTF are you talking about? The natives have knowledgeable use for them, means that science has discovered it.
    No it doesn't. Traditional knowledge predates science by thousands of years. Science doesn't have to discover it for it to be valid, anymore than science has to discover it for it to be real.

    Actually, it's funny when medicine "discovers" new medications. Virtually all medications are concentrates of herbal formulae. Traditional knowledge knew about them for ages, yet science claims it is a new discovery. The arrogance is astounding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Science - Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome.
    Correctness is subjective... although I know you have a specific attachment to science as being the 'most correct' so I think you might have trouble parting with your long founded notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    It's not that the invisible heatless fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage hasn't been discovered yet it is that it can NEVER be discovered because the statement that it exists lacks any and all falsifiability the same as your claim that there is a soul.
    I am not dismissing the notion that science has not directly analyzed the soul. What I am dismissing is that you place the discovery of the soul on equal ground of possibility with finding the dragon in your garage.

    How can you make such a glaring assumption about future discoveries without any evidence? We don't know what consciousness is yet clearly it exists because we are interacting. You can't see air but you can feel it blowing. We don't know what gravity is yet we see it in motion. In fact, those electron-dot diagrams we're taught in high school chemistry are completely wrong given that no one has ever even seen an electron. We assume they exist because of their effects, which is what a lot of science rests upon.

    Inductive reasoning tells us that there must be a specific phenomenon at work, and I find it arrogant to suggest that just because deductive reasoning cannot pinpoint its material essence for analysis, it must not be real.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Science is universally practical and useful, positive assertions that lack falsifiability are never practical or useful.
    It is useful but hardly universally practical. For instance, in my field of TCM, we used herbs whose use has had thousands of years of observed, inductive results. We use acupuncture that science cannot yet explain adequately, and it works. Yet science does not agree it works simply because it cannot analyze it according to its internal framework.

    Let me give you a more practical scenario. A person comes to the western doctor's office complaining of hypochrondrium pain (your side region) that is distending. The doctor immediately checks for hernia, inquires about any symptoms that might indicate infection, and even does blood work for the liver. It all comes back clean, yet the patient complains of pain. Believe it or not, the doctor would side with the test results. "You can't be having pain because the labs came back negative." People come to me all the time with these kinds of complaints and I can actually treat them with medicinal systems whose foundations are not rooted in science. TCM is one example of a system that has some knowledge more advanced than western science, but because science cannot analyze it, it assumes it is inferior, when actually the opposite is true. It would be like aliens showing us technology that we didn't believe was possible but obviously has advanced applications, and then saying it defies science so it cannot be true.

    Last week a woman came into the clinic with a lab report showing that she had liver cysts. Her doctor would not refer her to a specialists because the cysts were not yet bigger than 10cm, yet the woman was complaining of discomfort. The doctor said, "Don't worry, your discomfort isn't that big of a problem because we know that cysts under 10cm are not dangerous." So the woman's pain was dismissed because her cysts did not conform to a statistical model.

    I am not saying science is useless, but it is young. I turn to it for certain things but not all things. There is an entire metaphysical and spiritual layer to human existence that is undeniable and has tangible results in people's lives, and science will continue to deny it because science is still akin to a child. I think someday metaphysics will become part of it. Until that day, I will be at odds with it.

    Based on your posts, I think you too are young. When I was younger I placed science on a holy grail. Travel and first hand experiences of the real world and some very interesting phenomena have taught me that there is a huge deal science cannot explain and probably won't within my lifetime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Wow, inductive reasoning is used all of the time in science for example to formulate a hypothesis.
    I don't think you understand my meaning. Inductive reasoning is not the basis of science, it is simply the preliminary thought process. If you can't prove it with some kind of diagnostic tool, then the induction is invalid. Other systems rely on induction alone just fine. If 10,000 people are treated with an herb for a specific disease and 9,500 people recover, then clearly the herb is useful. But modern medical science will ban entire herbs because the chemistry has not been analyzed sufficiently to extract the key ingredient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    There is plenty of actual scientific research which proves that near death experiences result from a massive release of dimethyltryptamine from the pineal gland along with various other neurochemical and psychological reasons.
    Yes, I imagine that science can analyze chemicals in a dead brain quite well. What does that have to do with what the person is experiencing as they die? Can science tell me what happens when someone is dying? No.

    Science can also dissect the brain and tell us how the various parts relate to physiology. It can't tell me where consciousness is though.

    You are making an existential assertion about the basis of reality and psychology simply by assuming chemicals X Y an Z create a phenomenon. Can you tell me why people have experiences being separate from their bodies, and are able to recount in fine detail what was happening outside of the room while they were clinically dead?


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The claim that there is a soul lacks any amount of falsifiability. That's my entire point, it can't be researched on. There is plenty of valid research into NDE's and it points towards psychological and neorochemical causation not metaphysical causation.
    And my entire point is: why does it have to be researched to hold any shred of validity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    It was not scientists who came up with the flat earth theory it was theists like you whose holy books told them so.
    I'm not a theist but I understand your need to try and categorize my mentality. Just be aware that categorical thought processes too have their faults.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    The displacement of space caused by mass.
    That's an effect of gravity. You're not telling me what gravity ITSELF is.

    So basically you're telling me that you believe something to exist because of its indirect effects, even though you've never directly examined the thing in question itself. How is that any different than the notion of a soul and consciousness? We cannot examine consciousness directly but we see its effects all the time. We even have psychology to study the mind. You can only examine consciousness indirectly, but you cannot materially analyze it as a natural function.

    Again, I don't propose that science can directly examine the soul at this point in time, but why is it so preposterous to believe that the soul exists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Um, lol you obviously don't even know what General Relativity is, because General Relativity explains exactly what gravity is, that's what the General Relativity Theory does.
    I know what relativity theory is. I took university level physics, thanks. Relativity describes the effects of gravity, such as displacement of space-time. It still hasn't told me what gravity itself is. I mean, is it because the universe is spinning round and round in a goldfish bowl somewhere? Is it God using magic energy to push us down? Is it an undiscovered particle (i.e. the gravitron)?

    Please tell me what gravity itself is, since you seem to think you know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I don't even know where to begin. Quantum Mechanics can explain how two objects can exist in the same place at the same time, but I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the existence of a soul.
    I'm not talking about quantum teleportation or duplication. I said quantum entanglement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    It's being worked on. Saying "god done did it" doesn't work for some of us.
    When did I say anything about god?

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    That line is getting old. Do you have anything new to offer or are you just going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la"?
    I said that because you aren't really having an open dialogue with me. You are taking your metaphysical system that holds a bunch existential assumptions about the basis of reality and trying to super-impose it upon mine as if yours is the more correct. I see no reason to back down from calling you arrogant for that.

    You're in the mind trap of "correctness" and this is what I find uncannily similar between the devout non-secular and the staunchly secular. Science holds a lot of interesting philosophy to it and I love it a lot for that, but I consider it one system among many in my journey to understand what this life is to me. I find it laughable that you think you have the holy grail, and better yet, have the audacity to pretend to be the wiser.

    None of us really know what this existence is at the end of the day. We can form some good ideas and draw from many sources, but ultimately we are all in the same boat of the unknown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I don't have beliefs I have evidence, you have faith you have beliefs.
    You have faith in gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I'm not ignoring anything except pseudoscience.
    I never claimed my beliefs were scientific? In fact, they are likely very non-scientific at this point.

    You act like science is a universal thought process. It isn't. It's one school of philosophy among many.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    There are working scientific hypothesis to explain NDEs and OBEs none of which point to the existence of a soul.
    A hypothesis is unproven, so even if they make the supposition that there is no soul, that doesn't mean the case is closed. You of all people should know that.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    Yet it has no medicinal value until science decides that it does.
    Since the Natives have useable knoweldge of it means that science does say it does.

    No it doesn't. Traditional knowledge predates science by thousands of years. Science doesn't have to discover it for it to be valid, anymore than science has to discover it for it to be real.
    Natives discovering these plants and finding uses for them IS SCIENCE.

    Actually, it's funny when medicine "discovers" new medications. Virtually all medications are concentrates of herbal formulae. Traditional knowledge knew about them for ages, yet science claims it is a new discovery. The arrogance is astounding.
    As if traditional knowledge of local plants would not be considered science.


    Correctness is subjective... although I know you have a specific attachment to science as being the 'most correct' so I think you might have trouble parting with your long founded notions.
    WTF are you talking about? How is this a valid response whatsoever to the definition of science which I presented?

    I am not dismissing the notion that science has not directly analyzed the soul. What I am dismissing is that you place the discovery of the soul on equal ground of possibility with finding the dragon in your garage.
    Of course I am putting the two on equal footing, they are both unfalsifiable positive assertions and lack any value whatseover.

    How can you make such a glaring assumption about future discoveries without any evidence? We don't know what consciousness is yet clearly it exists because we are interacting. You can't see air but you can feel it blowing.
    Exactly you can detect air through an indirect observation.

    We don't know what gravity is yet we see it in motion.
    Um no we know exactly what gravity is, it's the displacement of space caused by mass.

    In fact, those electron-dot diagrams we're taught in high school chemistry are completely wrong given that no one has ever even seen an electron.
    We assume they exist because of their effects, [/quote]

    We don't assume anything, we can actually measure electrons.

    which is what a lot of science rests upon.
    Yes a lot of science rests upon measurements. We can measure an electron we can not measure a soul.

    Inductive reasoning tells us that there must be a specific phenomenon at work, and I find it arrogant to suggest that just because deductive reasoning cannot pinpoint its material essence for analysis, it must not be real.

    How exactly does inductive reasoning lead you to the conclusion that there is a soul?

    It is useful but hardly universally practical. For instance, in my field of TCM, we used herbs whose use has had thousands of years of observed, inductive results. We use acupuncture that science cannot yet explain adequately, and it works. Yet science does not agree it works simply because it cannot analyze it according to its internal framework.
    Analysis has demonstrated that there is little to no difference between real, sham, and no acupuncture. It's called the placebo effect.

    Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups -- Madsen et al. 338: a3115 -- BMJ

    Let me give you a more practical scenario. A person comes to the western doctor's office complaining of hypochrondrium pain (your side region) that is distending. The doctor immediately checks for hernia, inquires about any symptoms that might indicate infection, and even does blood work for the liver. It all comes back clean, yet the patient complains of pain. Believe it or not, the doctor would side with the test results. "You can't be having pain because the labs came back negative." People come to me all the time with these kinds of complaints and I can actually treat them with medicinal systems whose foundations are not rooted in science. TCM is one example of a system that has some knowledge more advanced than western science, but because science cannot analyze it, it assumes it is inferior, when actually the opposite is true. It would be like aliens showing us technology that we didn't believe was possible but obviously has advanced applications, and then saying it defies science so it cannot be true.

    Last week a woman came into the clinic with a lab report showing that she had liver cysts. Her doctor would not refer her to a specialists because the cysts were not yet bigger than 10cm, yet the woman was complaining of discomfort. The doctor said, "Don't worry, your discomfort isn't that big of a problem because we know that cysts under 10cm are not dangerous." So the woman's pain was dismissed because her cysts did not conform to a statistical model.

    I am not saying science is useless, but it is young. I turn to it for certain things but not all things. There is an entire metaphysical and spiritual layer to human existence that is undeniable and has tangible results in people's lives, and science will continue to deny it because science is still akin to a child. I think someday metaphysics will become part of it. Until that day, I will be at odds with it.

    Based on your posts, I think you too are young. When I was younger I placed science on a holy grail. Travel and first hand experiences of the real world and some very interesting phenomena have taught me that there is a huge deal science cannot explain and probably won't within my lifetime.
    Some Traditional Chinese Medical remedies are valid, others are shams, they have to be taken on a case by case basis.

    I don't think you understand my meaning. Inductive reasoning is not the basis of science, it is simply the preliminary thought process. If you can't prove it with some kind of diagnostic tool, then the induction is invalid. Other systems rely on induction alone just fine. If 10,000 people are treated with an herb for a specific disease and 9,500 people recover, then clearly the herb is useful. But modern medical science will ban entire herbs because the chemistry has not been analyzed sufficiently to extract the key ingredient.
    Inductive reasoning is one of bases of science, and your example is not very useful, if one has a hypothesis regarding a certain herbal remedy and that herbal remedy is used in a double blinded study and the experimental group has a significantly higher reaction to the drug in question than the control group then science won't reject it. If the reactions between the control group and the experimental group are nearly the same then any positive reaction can be chalked up to the placebo effect.


    Yes, I imagine that science can analyze chemicals in a dead brain quite well. What does that have to do with what the person is experiencing as they die? Can science tell me what happens when someone is dying? No.
    Huh? Um no these were experiments done on live patients by providing them shots of dimethyltryptamine which resulted in NDE type of hallucinations.


    Science can also dissect the brain and tell us how the various parts relate to physiology. It can't tell me where consciousness is though.
    That's probably because there is no universal definition of the term consciousness.

    You are making an existential assertion about the basis of reality and psychology simply by assuming chemicals X Y an Z create a phenomenon. Can you tell me why people have experiences being separate from their bodies,
    I'm not assuming anything NDE's and OBE's have each been replicated through chemical means.


    and are able to recount in fine detail what was happening outside of the room while they were clinically dead?
    Well I would call bull****.


    And my entire point is: why does it have to be researched to hold any shred of validity?
    Um because that's what validity means. What use is a positive assertion which lacks falsibiability? The statement "an invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage," holds equal validity with the claim that "there is a soul," both are unfalsifiable and both are useless.

    I'm not a theist but I understand your need to try and categorize my mentality. Just be aware that categorical thought processes too have their faults.


    That's an effect of gravity. You're not telling me what gravity ITSELF is.
    No I told you what gravity is, gravity is the effect of mass on space.

    So basically you're telling me that you believe something to exist because of its indirect effects, even though you've never directly examined the thing in question itself. How is that any different than the notion of a soul and consciousness? We cannot examine consciousness directly but we see its effects all the time. We even have psychology to study the mind. You can only examine consciousness indirectly, but you cannot materially analyze it as a natural function.

    Again, I don't propose that science can directly examine the soul at this point in time, but why is it so preposterous to believe that the soul exists?

    I know what relativity theory is.
    No sir you most certainly do not or else you wouldn't have made the absurd claim that: "we don't actually know what it is," when the General Relativity Theory explains exactly what gravity is.

    I took university level physics, thanks.
    A university level physicist claiming that the displacement of space by mass is the effect of gravity when gravity is the effect of the displacement of space by mass. Sure thing pal.

    Relativity describes the effects of gravity, such as displacement of space-time. It still hasn't told me what gravity itself is. I mean, is it because the universe is spinning round and round in a goldfish bowl somewhere? Is it God using magic energy to push us down? Is it an undiscovered particle (i.e. the gravitron)?

    Please tell me what gravity itself is, since you seem to think you know.
    I already told you what gravity itself is, gravity itself is the displacement of space caused by mass, and then you laughingly stated that I was explaining an effect of gravity when gravity was the effect. And now you're claiming that you took University Level Physics and expect to be taken seriously.



    I'm not talking about quantum teleportation or duplication. I said quantum entanglement.
    I'm not sure what quantum entanglement has to do with a soul.



    You have faith in gravity.
    Um no I have empirical evidence for gravity.



    A hypothesis is unproven, so even if they make the supposition that there is no soul, that doesn't mean the case is closed. You of all people should know that.
    Working Hypothesis - a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available, or when the philosophical implications of the alternatives are considered to be absurd or otherwise undesirable.

    Your unfalsifiable positive assertion regarding a soul being responsible for something which can reproduced in the lab is absurd. Further study is needed but the working hypothesis has evidence on its side your unfalsifiable positive assertion has nothing on its side except unprovable conjecture.

  5. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Since the Natives have useable knoweldge of it means that science does say it does.



    Natives discovering these plants and finding uses for them IS SCIENCE.



    As if traditional knowledge of local plants would not be considered science.




    WTF are you talking about? How is this a valid response whatsoever to the definition of science which I presented?



    Of course I am putting the two on equal footing, they are both unfalsifiable positive assertions and lack any value whatseover.



    Exactly you can detect air through an indirect observation.



    Um no we know exactly what gravity is, it's the displacement of space caused by mass.


    We assume they exist because of their effects,
    We don't assume anything, we can actually measure electrons.



    Yes a lot of science rests upon measurements. We can measure an electron we can not measure a soul.




    How exactly does inductive reasoning lead you to the conclusion that there is a soul?



    Analysis has demonstrated that there is little to no difference between real, sham, and no acupuncture. It's called the placebo effect.

    Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups -- Madsen et al. 338: a3115 -- BMJ



    Some Traditional Chinese Medical remedies are valid, others are shams, they have to be taken on a case by case basis.



    Inductive reasoning is one of bases of science, and your example is not very useful, if one has a hypothesis regarding a certain herbal remedy and that herbal remedy is used in a double blinded study and the experimental group has a significantly higher reaction to the drug in question than the control group then science won't reject it. If the reactions between the control group and the experimental group are nearly the same then any positive reaction can be chalked up to the placebo effect.




    Huh? Um no these were experiments done on live patients by providing them shots of dimethyltryptamine which resulted in NDE type of hallucinations.




    That's probably because there is no universal definition of the term consciousness.



    I'm not assuming anything NDE's and OBE's have each been replicated through chemical means.




    Well I would call bull****.




    Um because that's what validity means. What use is a positive assertion which lacks falsibiability? The statement "an invisible dragon which breathes heatless fire living in my garage," holds equal validity with the claim that "there is a soul," both are unfalsifiable and both are useless.



    No I told you what gravity is, gravity is the effect of mass on space.






    No sir you most certainly do not or else you wouldn't have made the absurd claim that: "we don't actually know what it is," when the General Relativity Theory explains exactly what gravity is.



    A university level physicist claiming that the displacement of space by mass is the effect of gravity when gravity is the effect of the displacement of space by mass. Sure thing pal.



    I already told you what gravity itself is, gravity itself is the displacement of space caused by mass, and then you laughingly stated that I was explaining an effect of gravity when gravity was the effect. And now you're claiming that you took University Level Physics and expect to be taken seriously.





    I'm not sure what quantum entanglement has to do with a soul.




    Um no I have empirical evidence for gravity.





    Working Hypothesis - a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted when no alternatives are available, or when the philosophical implications of the alternatives are considered to be absurd or otherwise undesirable.

    Your unfalsifiable positive assertion regarding a soul being responsible for something which can reproduced in the lab is absurd. Further study is needed but the working hypothesis has evidence on its side your unfalsifiable positive assertion has nothing on its side except unprovable conjecture.[/QUOTE]

    I can see we are making no headway here. You know my position, I won't restate it. You are entitled to your beliefs and to disagree with me, though I don't feel you truly understand where I'm coming from. You seem to feel threatened which is not what I'm trying to do here. But then, a lot of staunch secularists need to feel like all of reality is knowable and quantifiable in order to feel secure in their world, so I would understand why you would be flying off the handle a little bit.

    P.S. Using "WTF??" in response to someone's thoughtful replies is REALLY rude.

  6. #76
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Define.... 'soul'.....
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    I am not closed to the concept of a soul. I disagree strongly with the idea that the soul is some sort of ghost inside me that rises to heaven or descends to hell based on some sort of dogmatic point system. I'm comfortable saying I dont really know. The problem is too large.

  8. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I can see we are making no headway here. You know my position, I won't restate it. You are entitled to your beliefs and to disagree with me, though I don't feel you truly understand where I'm coming from. You seem to feel threatened which is not what I'm trying to do here. But then, a lot of staunch secularists need to feel like all of reality is knowable and quantifiable in order to feel secure in their world, so I would understand why you would be flying off the handle a little bit.

    P.S. Using "WTF??" in response to someone's thoughtful replies is REALLY rude.
    Dude you claimed to have taken University level physics and when I told you that gravity is the displacement of space by mass you replied that I just explained an effect of gravity when gravity was in fact the effect of the mass upon space.

    Dude earlier you claimed that science once said the earth was flat when in actuality science said the earth was a sphere since the ancient Greeks and Eratosthenes using trigonometry even predicted the circumference of the earth more than two thousand years before we made it into space.

    Dude you actually claimed that science doesn't use inductive reasoning.

    Dude you actually claimed that inherently random spin correlation of twin subatomic particles some how gives credence to the idea of a soul.

    Dude you have made an unfalsifiable positive assertion which is just as useful as my unfalsifiable positive assertion that there is an invisible heatless fire dragon living in my garage. I would strongly suggest that you read The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 07-10-10 at 04:20 AM.

  9. #79
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,091

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Dude earlier you claimed that science once said the earth was flat when in actuality science said the earth was a sphere since the ancient Greeks and Eratosthenes using trigonometry even predicted the circumference of the earth more than two thousand years before we made it into space.
    Measuring the circumference of an object does not mean the object is a sphere. Pythagoras theorized(in reality he just 'guessed' as he couldn't really confirm it) the earth was spherical but then again many prominent greek scientists and phylosophers thought the earth was a flat disk. Ancient scientists(and I will use that term lightly as most 'scientists' of the time were really phylosophers and clergymen) did not confirm nor deny the sphericity of the earth. Modern science proved the sphericity of the earth. A few speculators theorized it.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 07-10-10 at 05:12 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #80
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,604

    Re: Atheists/Agnostics/Other: Does man have a soul

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Define.... 'soul'.....
    A soul is a human being. It used to be expressed in common language, such as so many souls live in this place, or not a soul was around, etc. A soul, or human being, is in possession of a body for as long as his/her mortal life lasts. After that, he/she might get a new body, or might be bodiless, no one really knows.

    That's what makes it puzzling when people express a disbelief in souls. We do know that human beings exist, don't we?
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

Page 8 of 11 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •