Souls
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thread/380c35a42481098d/
> Here's from the Bible:
>
> New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> living being."
>
> King James Bible:
>
> Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> living soul."
>
> I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
living soul.
I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
things as souls.
Isn't that ironic??
There is nothing at all that I know of, apart from a soul, that is
capable of making such an irrational demand. I was going to write,
that is like a dog asking us to prove there are dogs, but in point of
fact dogs don't have such irrational thoughts. Only certain humans
do.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 23, 10:46 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living being."
>
> > King James Bible:
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living soul."
>
> > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> living soul.
>
> I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> things as souls.
Yes, but you're delusional.
> Isn't that ironic??
No, it's kinda sad.
> There is nothing at all that I know of, apart from a soul, that is
> capable of making such an irrational demand.
Poisoning the well fallacies are not evidence that it is irrational to
require valid evidence that "souls" exist.
> I was going to write,
> that is like a dog asking us to prove there are dogs, but in point of
> fact dogs don't have such irrational thoughts.
Sort of poetic that you have deluded yourself into thinking that you
know the mind of God and the mind of Dog.
> Only certain humans do.
Poisoning the well fallacies are not evidence that it is irrational to
require valid evidence that "souls" exist.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 24, 3:31 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Merry Christmas.....yaha...don't you believe that the tongue holds the words
> of life or death
The tongue holds taste buds.
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 24, 3:48 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well this is true: Don't you think what you words you can say to one another
> can make you put on a smile on your face or hurt and saden you..
Yes. And being told I'm going to be tortured by someone else's
imaginary friend for eternity saddens me. Why say stuff like that to
other people if you can't back it up with valid evidence? It's
institutionalized antisocial behaviour.
> are words
> are key of suggestion?
>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Dec 24, 3:48 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well this is true: Don't you think what you words you can say to one another
> can make you put on a smile on your face or hurt and saden you..are words
> are key of suggestion?
Observer
Just a little confused Briscoe? Words are the tools of the
communicator and not to be confused therewith.(the communicator that
is)
What words can say to one another ?
Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Psychonomist
> > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Buns...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > .
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide
> > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > --
>
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> > > > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > .
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > --
>
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>to quote the most extreme examples of dogma, and pester you to cough
up some proof of 'god', because their disbelief is kept alive by the
lack of physical proof. the concept of 'god' as non-physical 'entity'
seemingly cannot penetrate their 'reasonable' cranium. not to fear
though, this restricted view will supply you with endless fodder for
'debate'. ;^-)
On Dec 25, 9:17 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is sad I agree. But it is not God that tortured's...and valid
> evidence..what would you consider valid? Something you can see? Something
> you can feel? (by touch) Something you can Smell? Something that is
> written down with pen and ink? What really would be valid if everything was
> written by Man?
>
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 25, 6:17 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is sad I agree. But it is not God that tortured's
If is God who is in charge, even if he gets someone else to do the
dirty deed.
>...and valid
> evidence..what would you consider valid? Something you can see?
Yes.
> Something
> you can feel? (by touch)
Yes.
> Something you can Smell?
Yes.
> Something that is written down with pen and ink?
Not necessarily.
> What really would be valid if everything was
> written by Man?
Everything IS written by "Man," and not everything written by "Man" is
valid evidence for God. The Bible isn't, for instance.
Here is an article about evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
And since this (God) is a question of existence, then I require
scientific evidence that he exists. Here
is an article specifically about scientific evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
Come up with some of that about God and I will believe that he exists.
> > > > <atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com<y%252Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 25, 7:17 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some people do not grasp the parable concept dj ...
Hey, genius. Christians believe in Heaven and Hell.
> they will continue
> to quote the most extreme examples of dogma,
So we should not discuss "You believe I am going to be tortured for
eternity by a being that you are trying to tell me is full of love"
because it is "extreme"? The extremity of this belief, the slippery
slope to another Inquisition, is exactly why we should be discussing
it.
> and pester you to cough up some proof of 'god',
Because it's such an imposition on a great man like you to get you to
stoop so low as to offer evidence for your wild claims.
> because their disbelief is kept alive by the
> lack of physical proof.
Well, duh.
> the concept of 'god' as non-physical 'entity'
> seemingly cannot penetrate their 'reasonable' cranium.
Sure it can. I get it. People have imaginary friends and are too
intellectually lazy, or inept, to take the time to understand science
and reality.
> not to fear
> though, this restricted view will supply you with endless fodder for
> 'debate'. ;^-)
Your view is equally restricted in relation to reality, from which you
are out of touch.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> things as souls.
>
> Isn't that ironic??
>
"soul", except as the object in an argument to prove no such thing
exists. It was a useless word until the "black [em]power[ment]"
movement came along back in the 60's and they reminted the concept as
the essence of being "black". What are you trying to do now Joe, steal
it back?
>
On Dec 23, 10:46 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living being."
>
> > King James Bible:
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living soul."
>
> > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> living soul.
>
> I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> things as souls.
>
> Isn't that ironic??
>
> There is nothing at all that I know of, apart from a soul, that is
> capable of making such an irrational demand. I was going to write,
> that is like a dog asking us to prove there are dogs, but in point of
> fact dogs don't have such irrational thoughts. Only certain humans
> do.- Hide quoted text -
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
not possibly be interested in the answers. Only a soul can have such
an interest.
If you disagree, go ahead and "prove no such thing exists."
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>>
does a human being not have an innate sense of curiosity and common-
sense? I know I do.
>
> Material configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
> not possibly be interested in the answers.
>
>
> Only a soul can have such an interest.
>
in the entire old or new testament?
>
> If you disagree, go ahead and "prove no such thing exists."
>
in search of it?
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequoted text -
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> lol typical drivel
Disdain is not evidence that I don't get the Bible is a parable, but
it is yet more evidence that you have a narcissistic personality
disorder:
"People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated
and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these
dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any
slight criticism, real or imagined."
Not only that, you have a specific type of narcissism:
"...the hypervigilant subtype (of narcissist) neutralizes devaluation
by seeing others as unjust abusers. This hypervigilant type does not
fend off devaluation; he is obsessed with it."
It's uncanny, really.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext -
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 25, 10:18 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A soul is that which is capable of interest in the question.
>
> Why is it that only a soul is capable of interest in the question? Why
> does a human being not have an innate sense of curiosity and common-
> sense? I know I do.
>
A human being is a living soul, by definition.
> > Material configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
> > not possibly be interested in the answers.
>
> That is because they are non-living.
>
Exactly.
> > Only a soul can have such an interest.
>
> Or a human!
False dichotomy. Humans are souls.
>Why is it not a single mention of human, or what is human
> in the entire old or new testament?
>
There is.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and
breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
> soul.
>
credit. And if you can't see the results of your bias I would hardly
call it human, nor "soul-full". Why don't you give me your definition
of soul since you are the one who thinks it exists. And this must be a
complete example for any analysis to be meaningful.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 25, 10:18 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A soul is that which is capable of interest in the question.
>
> Why is it that only a soul is capable of interest in the question? Why
> does a human being not have an innate sense of curiosity and common-
> sense? I know I do.
>
> > Material configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
> > not possibly be interested in the answers.
>
> That is because they are non-living.
>
> > Only a soul can have such an interest.
>
> Or a human! Why is it not a single mention of human, or what is human
> in the entire old or new testament?
>
> > If you disagree, go ahead and "prove no such thing exists."
>
> Where is it Joe?
Not located in the lower four dimensions of time and space. The soul
is in a higher, fifth dimension, which we may call interior
experience. You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
you have a soul. Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
experience. It does not even make any sense to call your interior
experience an illusion, since an illusion would also be an interior
experience. Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
contradiction.
>Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> in search of it?
>
You hurt me.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> > >soul.
>
> > Well this is obviously your bias, I think you give yourself too much
> > credit. And if you can't see the results of your bias I would hardly
> > call it human, nor "soul-full". Why don't you give me your definition
> > of soul since you are the one who thinks it exists. And this must be a
> > complete example for any analysis to be meaningful.
>
>
> Not located in the lower four dimensions of time and space. The soul
> is in a higher, fifth dimension, which we may call interior
> experience.
>
superior to us "slimers".
>
> You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
> you have a soul.
>
Mine is down-to-earth.
>
> Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> experience.
>
so that it may be examined.
>
> It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> experience an illusion, since an illusion would also be an interior
> experience.
>
>
> Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
> the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
> then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
> contradiction.
>
>
> >Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> > in search of it?
>
> You hurt me.
>
are not hurt. And I am not cold, callous, and indifferrnt to the
sufferings of my fellow human-beings neither, just because they won't
join my stupid atheist club. I just consider the source, and consider
your level of understanding. I look at it as a joke, as an irony, but
you seem to think it is something sacred. How is your knowledge any
better than mine? What a bigot. We can all understand the same things
about the world and about life without getting personal, yet it is
imbedded in your knowledge and psyche. Your every breath oozes
bigotry.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 26, 2:05 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and
> > breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
> > soul.
>
> Well this is obviously your bias,
No, actually, it is Scripture.
> I think you give yourself too much
> credit.
Where none is too much.
> And if you can't see the results of your bias I would hardly
> call it human, nor "soul-full". Why don't you give me your definition
> of soul since you are the one who thinks it exists. And this must be a
> complete example for any analysis to be meaningful.
>
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm
Soul
(Greek psyche; Latin anima; French ame; German Seele).
The question of the reality of the soul and its distinction from the
body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it
is bound up the doctrine of a future life. Various theories as to the
nature of the soul have claimed to be reconcilable with the tenet of
immortality, but it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every
attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault
on the belief in existence after death. The soul may be defined as the
ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by
which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this
principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes
the source of our vegetative activities as well. That our vital
activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself,
is the thesis of thesubstantiality of the soul: that this principle is
not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and
intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality.
If there be a life after death, clearly the agent or subject of our
vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the
body. The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from
the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of
life. Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul
almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort.
The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during
sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination
and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while
awake—all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something
besides the visible organism, internal to it, but to a large extent
independent of it, and leading a life of its own. In the rude
psychology of the primitive nations, the soul is often represented as
actually migrating to and fro during dreams and trances, and after
death haunting the neighbourhood of its body. Nearly always it is
figured as something extremely volatile, a perfume or a breath. Often,
as among theFijians, it is represented as a miniature replica of the
body, so small as to be invisible. The Samoans have a name for the
soul which means "that which comes and goes". Many peoples, such as
the Dyaks and Sumatrans, bind various parts of the body with cords
during sickness to prevent the escape of the soul. In short, all the
evidence goes to show that Dualism, however uncritical and
inconsistent, is the instinctive creed of "primitive man" (see
ANIMISM).
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 26, 2:28 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and
> > > >breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living
> > > >soul.
>
> > > Well this is obviously your bias, I think you give yourself too much
> > > credit. And if you can't see the results of your bias I would hardly
> > > call it human, nor "soul-full". Why don't you give me your definition
> > > of soul since you are the one who thinks it exists. And this must be a
> > > complete example for any analysis to be meaningful.
>
> > > Where is it Joe?
>
> > Not located in the lower four dimensions of time and space. The soul
> > is in a higher, fifth dimension, which we may call interior
> > experience.
>
> I have interior experience, but describe yours and how it is so
> superior to us "slimers".
>
I do not recall having used such an adjective to describe you and your
ilk. Surely that isn't a self-description, and since it isn't one
I've used, my question is, where do you come up with it?
We are equal in having a soul. Your soul thinks (in self-
contradiction) that what we call a soul does not exist. My soul
acknowledges its own existence.
> > You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
> > you have a soul.
>
> Whatever you want to call it. I just don't attribute any magic to it.
Neither do I.
> Mine is down-to-earth.
>
I have never been to any other plane besides this earthly one.
> > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > experience.
>
> That is not how I see it. Why don't you describe your soul in entirety
> so that it may be examined.
>
I gave the Catholic definition in the other part of the thread, so you
can address this there.
> > It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> > experience an illusion, since an illusion would also be an interior
> > experience.
>
> An illusion has no basis in fact.
>
Incorrect. An illusion is a misapprehension of fact. There has to be
an underlying fact, to be misapprehended.
> > Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
> > the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
> > then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
> > contradiction.
>
> Your rationalizing.
>
Where employing straightforward logic is rationalizing. But that
isn't usually the way we use the word.
> > >Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> > > in search of it?
>
> > You hurt me.
>
> Why should it hurt you?
Because of the lack of blackness in my heart.
>It's what you think about us
No it isn't.
>and my feelings
> are not hurt.
If it were what I thought about you and it wasn't true, then it would
have to hurt your feelings, unless you were to simply despise all my
words as unworthy of your consideration. Since I do not so despise
your words, and since you do express it about me and it isn't true, I
am hurt by it.
>And I am not cold, callous, and indifferrnt to the
> sufferings of my fellow human-beings neither,
It seems you make an exception for me.
>just because they won't
> join my stupid atheist club. I just consider the source, and consider
> your level of understanding. I look at it as a joke, as an irony, but
> you seem to think it is something sacred.
Evidence that you do despise my words, and by extension, my thoughts.
>How is your knowledge any
> better than mine?
It is, if it is true.
>What a bigot.
How would acknowledging a reality make me a bigot?
>We can all understand the same things
> about the world and about life without getting personal, yet it is
> imbedded in your knowledge and psyche. Your every breath oozes
> bigotry.
>
That may be what you think, but you do not think it because of any
accurate knowledge in you.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 26, 11:09 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 25, 10:18 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > A soul is that which is capable of interest in the question.
>
> > Why is it that only a soul is capable of interest in the question? Why
> > does a human being not have an innate sense of curiosity and common-
> > sense? I know I do.
>
> > > Material configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
> > > not possibly be interested in the answers.
>
> > That is because they are non-living.
>
> > > Only a soul can have such an interest.
>
> > Or a human! Why is it not a single mention of human, or what is human
> > in the entire old or new testament?
>
> > > If you disagree, go ahead and "prove no such thing exists."
>
> > Where is it Joe?
>
> Not located in the lower four dimensions of time and space. The soul
> is in a higher, fifth dimension, which we may call interior
> experience.
Arguments by assertion fallacies are not evidence that there is a
"higher, fifth dimension" of "inner experience." We have inner
experiences with the standard four dimensions, there is no need to
posit a fifth, and more to the point, you have no valid evidence there
is a fifth dimension.
> You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
> you have a soul.
"Interior experience" = thought. All that is required to have
"interior experience" is a brain. A brain is not a soul, despite your
penchant for renaming nouns.
> Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> experience.
Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
and all interior experience ceases. That is not a coincidence. Since
we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
matter can have "interior experience." You have no valid evidence for
"soul." You are wrong, as usual.
> It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> experience an illusion,
It would make sense to call someone's interior experience an illusion
if they imagine things that aren't real. Schizophrenics are prone to
doing this, and since you've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, you
are prone to doing this. Your claims about "soul" can be rationally
explained as your schizophrenic delusion, and your schizophrenic
wishful thinking, because you have no valid evidence that soul
exists.
> since an illusion would also be an interior
> experience.
An illusion is a special category of "interior experience" that has no
valid correspondence to the external world.
> Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
> the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
> then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
> contradiction.
The subject could be imaginary, thus making the experience an
illusion.
> >Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> > in search of it?
>
> You hurt me.
You tell us that we're going to be tortured for all eternity by your
loving God if we don't become Catholic. Your heart IS black.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 26, 4:25 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 11:09 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 10:18 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A soul is that which is capable of interest in the question.
>
> > > Why is it that only a soul is capable of interest in the question? Why
> > > does a human being not have an innate sense of curiosity and common-
> > > sense? I know I do.
>
> > > > Material configurations could be programmed to ask questions, but they could
> > > > not possibly be interested in the answers.
>
> > > That is because they are non-living.
>
> > > > Only a soul can have such an interest.
>
> > > Or a human! Why is it not a single mention of human, or what is human
> > > in the entire old or new testament?
>
> > > > If you disagree, go ahead and "prove no such thing exists."
>
> > > Where is it Joe?
>
> > Not located in the lower four dimensions of time and space. The soul
> > is in a higher, fifth dimension, which we may call interior
> > experience.
>
> Arguments by assertion fallacies are not evidence that there is a
> "higher, fifth dimension" of "inner experience." We have inner
> experiences with the standard four dimensions, there is no need to
> posit a fifth, and more to the point, you have no valid evidence there
> is a fifth dimension.
>
Where in time and space do your interior experiences take place?
> > You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
> > you have a soul.
>
> "Interior experience" = thought. All that is required to have
> "interior experience" is a brain. A brain is not a soul, despite your
> penchant for renaming nouns.
>
I wouldn't call the brain a soul. The brain is a body part. A brain,
by itself, can't do anything. Like a computer, a brain needs an
operator.
> > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > experience.
>
> Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> and all interior experience ceases.
Begging the question, can you prove that?
> That is not a coincidence.
Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
> Since
> we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> matter can have "interior experience."
How? Describe the mechanism.
> You have no valid evidence for
> "soul." You are wrong, as usual.
>
> > It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> > experience an illusion,
>
> It would make sense to call someone's interior experience an illusion
> if they imagine things that aren't real. Schizophrenics are prone to
> doing this, and since you've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, you
> are prone to doing this. Your claims about "soul" can be rationally
> explained as your schizophrenic delusion, and your schizophrenic
> wishful thinking, because you have no valid evidence that soul
> exists.
>
> > since an illusion would also be an interior
> > experience.
>
> An illusion is a special category of "interior experience" that has no
> valid correspondence to the external world.
>
Close. Since there is an interior world, your qualification of
"world" isn't valid.
An illusion is a special category of interior experience that has an
invalid correlation to the world.
We can experience exterior illusions, e.g. the famous stick-bending-in-
water illusion, and we can also experience interior illusions, e.g.
thinking one has the strength to do what is actually beyond one's
ability.
> > Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
> > the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
> > then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
> > contradiction.
>
> The subject could be imaginary, thus making the experience an
> illusion.
>
Who, apart from a real subject, might possibly be illuded?
> > >Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> > > in search of it?
>
> > You hurt me.
>
> You tell us that we're going to be tortured for all eternity by your
> loving God if we don't become Catholic. Your heart IS black.
No, on the contrary, I have hope. I hope that, despite what you think
at present, one day God will convert you, and you won't incur eternal
torment.
Accepting facts as facts does not mean one's heart is black. I know
that IF you reject God with finality, THEN you will incur eternal
torment. I can't change the factual nature of Catholic Doctrine. But
I hope you haven't done that, and will not ever do that. If I hoped
the opposite, then you could legitimately say my heart is black; but I
don't. I have, in fact, more hope for you than you have for yourself.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>In our brains.
> > > You have interior experience (how do I know???) and thus
> > > you have a soul.
>
> > "Interior experience" = thought. All that is required to have
> > "interior experience" is a brain. A brain is not a soul, despite your
> > penchant for renaming nouns.
>
> I wouldn't call the brain a soul.
But you are, since you are saying that the "soul" is where our
"interior experiences" take place, and we already have a word for that
location - the brain.
> The brain is a body part. A brain,
> by itself, can't do anything.
Right. That does not mean that the brain is not where our "interior
experiences" take place.
> Like a computer, a brain needs an
> operator.
Bad analogy. The brain is part of the biological system that is the
human body just as the CPU is part of the mechanical system that is
the computer. The brain IS the "operator" in the human body.
> > > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > > experience.
>
> > Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> > not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> > and all interior experience ceases.
>
> Begging the question, can you prove that?
"Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to
be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
Please demonstrate how I was "begging the question."
Otherwise, when someone has their brain removed they are dead. We know
from millions of years of observation that dead people cease all forms
of communication, and show no indication of any interior experience.
There is no sign of any biological activity in the brains of dead
people as there is in the brains of living people. And then of course
many dead people are cremated and all dead people's brains eventually
rot.
"Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
measured by EEG." (Wikipedia article on the human brain)
I may not have been begging the question, but you certainly managed to
ask an idiotic one.
And if you mean to imply that "we don't know that we don't have
interior experiences" then you're about to commit an argument from
ignorance fallacy. We know what we observe, and we observe that dead
people don't have interior experiences.
> > That is not a coincidence.
>
> Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
Argument from ignorance fallacy, just as I predicted.
> > Since
> > we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> > matter can have "interior experience."
>
> How? Describe the mechanism.
Biochemical signals travel through our nerves sending signals to and
from our brain, which is a collection of neurons much analagous to a
computer circuitboard - on and off switches. Get your head out of your
scriptures and go study some biology.
> > You have no valid evidence for
> > "soul." You are wrong, as usual.
>
> > > It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> > > experience an illusion,
>
> > It would make sense to call someone's interior experience an illusion
> > if they imagine things that aren't real. Schizophrenics are prone to
> > doing this, and since you've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, you
> > are prone to doing this. Your claims about "soul" can be rationally
> > explained as your schizophrenic delusion, and your schizophrenic
> > wishful thinking, because you have no valid evidence that soul
> > exists.
>
> > > since an illusion would also be an interior
> > > experience.
>
> > An illusion is a special category of "interior experience" that has no
> > valid correspondence to the external world.
>
> Close. Since there is an interior world, your qualification of
> "world" isn't valid.
Our "interior world" is like the RAM in a computer - it vanishes when
the power is turned off. Our "interior world" is also known as our
"imagination." That is why when someone says there is something exists
for which there is no valid evidence we say they are "imagining" it.
You are imagining the "soul," just as you are imagining "God."
> An illusion is a special category of interior experience that has an
> invalid correlation to the world.
Thanks for correcting me and repeating what I just said, professor.
> We can experience exterior illusions, e.g. the famous stick-bending-in-
> water illusion, and we can also experience interior illusions, e.g.
> thinking one has the strength to do what is actually beyond one's
> ability.
Or that there is a soul, or that there is God.
> > > Thus, you could experience any number of illusions, but
> > > the fact of interior experience per se could not be an illusion, since
> > > then it would have to be an illusion without a subject, which is a
> > > contradiction.
>
> > The subject could be imaginary, thus making the experience an
> > illusion.
>
> Who, apart from a real subject, might possibly be illuded?
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said, I think. Let me try again.
If the object does not exist, such as "soul" (for which there is no
baled evidence), and you imagine it does, then your "interior
experience" is of an illusion, and you can considered to be
delusional. And then, of course, the subject may try to impose their
illusion/delusion upon others, at which point they not only are a
potential danger to themselves, they become a danger to others. You
may not like it when I bring up the fact that you are a diagnosed
schizophrenic, but it is completely relevant, because since you have
no valid evidence to support your religious claims your religious
claims can be considered the delusions of a schizophrenic. And anyone
who knows history knows just how dangerous the religious can be if
given political power. So it's best to confront the insane early on,
before they can gather any sort of following. I consider it a moral
imperative to point out what you are.
> > > >Do I have to cut your black heart out of your chest
> > > > in search of it?
>
> > > You hurt me.
>
> > You tell us that we're going to be tortured for all eternity by your
> > loving God if we don't become Catholic. Your heart IS black.
>
> No, on the contrary, I have hope.
But no evidence, so your hope is delusory, narcissistic (worshipping
God is just worshipping Joe by proxy), and it is sadistic to threaten
people to get them to believe no matter how passively aggressively you
couch the message.
> I hope that, despite what you think
> at present, one day God will convert you, and you won't incur eternal
> torment.
Passive aggressiveness is not evidence that God or the soul exist.
> Accepting facts as facts does not mean one's heart is black.
Except you aren't accepting facts, you are experiencing a delusion and
trying to impose your delusion on others.
> I know
> that IF you reject God with finality, THEN you will incur eternal
> torment.
Right. A sadistic argument by force fallacy, since you have no valid
evidence that God exists.
> I can't change the factual nature of Catholic Doctrine.
Argument by assertion fallacies is not evidence that Catholic Doctrine
is "factual."
> But
> I hope you haven't done that, and will not ever do that. If I hoped
> the opposite, then you could legitimately say my heart is black; but I
> don't.
I don't think you hope that anyone chooses not to be Catholic. I think
you hope that they choose to worship God/Super Joe. But without valid
evidence that God exists, you are just engaging in the threat of
force, and an eternal threat of force at that, to convince us to
believe. It takes a black heart to do that, no matter how passively
aggressively you want to couch this message.
> I have, in fact, more hope for you than you have for yourself.
I don't regard threatening me with eternal torture as having "hope."
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> You know there is no threats:]
I know there are, and idiotic smiley faces don't make them any less
threatening.
> But this was my point, that we have heard of
> many stories,of outside the body experinces.
Just because we've heard of them doesn't mean they are true.
> And the Doctors of my Brother'
> surgery and revived him was stumped how could he tell them what was said
> when they were trying to revive him..dj
He was conscious and remembered what they said.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> No he was dead at that point...
No, he wasn't. Dead is when you don't come back to life again. He was
only near death.
> yes you are right just because they smile
> does not mean they are smart or even counted as able to fuction beyond
> idoit!
>
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>Wrong. Your own analogy plays you false. You just made the analogy,
brain:body::CPU:computer. Bravo, by the way, that analogy is
correct. Thus, your thesis, that the brain could operate the body all
by itself, is false by your own logic. A CPU does not, in fact, do
anything, until a human being tells it what to do.
> > > > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > > > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > > > experience.
>
> > > Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> > > not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> > > and all interior experience ceases.
>
> > Begging the question, can you prove that?
>
> "Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to
> be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
>
> Please demonstrate how I was "begging the question."
>
You assume that the soul == the brain, and by corollary, interior
experience == brain activity. That is what you need to prove, you
can't assume it in order to prove it, as that is begging the question.
> Otherwise, when someone has their brain removed they are dead. We know
> from millions of years of observation that dead people cease all forms
> of communication, and show no indication of any interior experience.
> There is no sign of any biological activity in the brains of dead
> people as there is in the brains of living people. And then of course
> many dead people are cremated and all dead people's brains eventually
> rot.
>
> "Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
> measured by EEG." (Wikipedia article on the human brain)
>
> I may not have been begging the question, but you certainly managed to
> ask an idiotic one.
>
> And if you mean to imply that "we don't know that we don't have
> interior experiences" then you're about to commit an argument from
> ignorance fallacy. We know what we observe, and we observe that dead
> people don't have interior experiences.
>
What does an interior experience of another person look like, exactly?
> > > That is not a coincidence.
>
> > Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
>
> Argument from ignorance fallacy, just as I predicted.
>
> > > Since
> > > we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> > > matter can have "interior experience."
>
> > How? Describe the mechanism.
>
> Biochemical signals travel through our nerves sending signals to and
> from our brain, which is a collection of neurons much analagous to a
> computer circuitboard - on and off switches.
My point exactly. Nothing in a series of switches is conscious.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 2:24 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How would you know.
Know. . . what?
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:13 PM, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com>
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>barking up. anything that isnt physical cannot be discussed with your
opponent. if you cant lay it on a slab in a lab, dont bother even
bringing it up because you will be climbing a mountain with no top.
you wont even benefit from a good view on your never ending endeavor.
for some reason, your analogy of the computer is not snagging on any
brainwaves. everybody has a brain, not many can be rocket scientists.
the steerer of the ship gets little consideration from most, and
therefore they will not find 'soul', 'spirit', 'god', or
'whateveronewantstocallit'. it is this enthusiastic skepticism, or
more often abject disbelief, that will inhibit some from finding 'it'.
those who do not look, shall not find. the problem with your
discussion is that you are dealing with someone who wants another to
prove something to him, instead of one who is looking for the proof
himself. therefore, prepare for the long haul.
i agree with your computer assessment. most peoples knees work the
same way, and to make the knees function properly, the brain works
similarly for all humans. yet no two mind thinks alike. one would
think that this concept would get some traction, but if you are
dealing with one who considers the brain and the mind to be the same,
significant headway will not be gained. you have good tires, but they
are spinning in a rut on this journey with your passenger.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> ilk. Surely that isn't a self-description, and since it isn't one
> I've used, my question is, where do you come up with it?
>
> We are equal in having a soul. Your soul thinks (in self-
> contradiction) that what we call a soul does not exist. My soul
> acknowledges its own existence.
>
little hell-fire and brimstone to start your day. Tell me this isn't
part of your "SOUL". And in my wickedness, I have gathered up all of
the "SOUL"s in Ezekiel (there are 25 of them) and put them on display
for all the world to see, that your ignorance may be made known to all
who care to peruse such non-sense, and the rest of this grand work is
laced with the same kind of filth throughout.
>
What do you think the message is here in Ezekiel? And this is just one
chapter. And if this work is the basis of what you believe, how can
you say that you have no bias for those not of your "ilk", and further
that you have no ill wishes for them neither. Or would you call this
an "irony"? But now you claim you consider all "SOUL"s equal to your
own--even the "wicked" or "unrighteous", and that there is some
mysterious and existential purpose in your own "SOUL" made privy only
to you. This type of mysticism or "intuition", went out with the
"papal states". Or do you just pick-and-choose what you want to
believe in your hypocrisy.
>
Ezekiel 3:18-21 KJV
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him
not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to
save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his
blood will I require at thine hand.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor
from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast
delivered thy "SOUL".
Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and
commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die:
because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and
his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his
blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin
not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned;
also thou hast delivered thy "SOUL".
>
Ezekiel 4:13-14
And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their
defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.
Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my "SOUL" hath not been polluted:
for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which
dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable
flesh into my mouth.
>
Ezekiel 7:16-19
But they that escape of them shall escape, and shall be on the
mountains like doves of the valleys, all of them mourning, every one
for his iniquity.
All hands shall be feeble, and all knees shall be weak as water.
They shall also gird themselves with sackcloth, and horror shall cover
them; and shame shall be upon all faces, and baldness upon all their
heads.
They shall cast their silver in the streets, and their gold shall be
removed: their silver and their gold shall not be able to deliver them
in the day of the wrath of the LORD: they shall not satisfy their
"SOUL"s, neither fill their bowels: because it is the stumblingblock
of their iniquity.
>
Ezekiel 13:17-22
Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy
people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou
against them,
And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to
all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to
hunt "SOUL"s! Will ye hunt the "SOUL"s of my people, and will ye save
the "SOUL"s alive that come unto you?
And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for
pieces of bread, to slay the "SOUL"s that should not die, and to save
the "SOUL"s alive that should not live, by your lying to my people
that hear your lies?
Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows,
wherewith ye there hunt the "SOUL"s to make them fly, and I will tear
them from your arms, and will let the "SOUL"s go, even the "SOUL"s
that ye hunt to make them fly.
Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your
hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye
shall know that I am the LORD.
Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I
have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he
should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:
>
Ezekiel 14:12-20
The word of the LORD came again to me, saying,
Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing
grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break
the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will
cut off man and beast from it:
Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should
deliver but their own "SOUL"s by their righteousness, saith the Lord
GOD.
If I cause noisome beasts to pass through the land, and they spoil it,
so that it be desolate, that no man may pass through because of the
beasts:
Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they
shall deliver neither sons nor daughters; they only shall be
delivered, but the land shall be desolate.
Or if I bring a sword upon that land, and say, Sword, go through the
land; so that I cut off man and beast from it:
Though these three men were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they
shall deliver neither sons nor daughters, but they only shall be
delivered themselves.
Or if I send a pestilence into that land, and pour out my fury upon it
in blood, to cut off from it man and beast:
Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord
GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but
deliver their own "SOUL"s by their righteousness.
>
Ezekiel 18:1-9
The word of the LORD came unto me again, saying,
What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel,
saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth
are set on edge?
As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to
use this proverb in Israel.
Behold, all "SOUL"s are mine; as the "SOUL" of the father, so also the
"SOUL" of the son is mine: the "SOUL" that sinneth, it shall die.
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,
And hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes
to the idols of the house of Israel, neither hath defiled his
neighbour's wife, neither hath come near to a menstruous woman,
And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his
pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the
hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;
He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any
increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed
true judgment between man and man,
Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly;
he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.
>
Ezekiel 18:20-21
The "SOUL" that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed,
and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he
shall surely live, he shall not die.
>
Ezekiel 18:26-28
When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and
committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath
done shall he die.
Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he
hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall
save his "SOUL" alive.
Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions
that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.
>
Ezekiel 22:23-28
And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Son of man, say unto her, Thou art the land that is not cleansed, nor
rained upon in the day of indignation.
There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a
roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured "SOUL"s; they have
taken the treasure and precious things; they have made her many widows
in the midst thereof.
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things:
they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have
they shewed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid
their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.
Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey, to
shed blood, and to destroy "SOUL"s, to get dishonest gain.
And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing
vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD,
when the LORD hath not spoken.
>
Ezekiel 24:20-24
Then I answered them, The word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Speak unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I
will profane my sanctuary, the excellency of your strength, the desire
of your eyes, and that which your "SOUL" pitieth; and your sons and
your daughters whom ye have left shall fall by the sword.
And ye shall do as I have done: ye shall not cover your lips, nor eat
the bread of men.
And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your
feet: ye shall not mourn nor weep; but ye shall pine away for your
iniquities, and mourn one toward another.
Thus Ezekiel is unto you a sign: according to all that he hath done
shall ye do: and when this cometh, ye shall know that I am the Lord
GOD.
>
Ezekiel 33:4-5
Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not
warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon
his own head.
He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood
shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his
"SOUL".
>
Ezekiel 33:8-9
When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if
thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man
shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine
hand.
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if
he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou
hast delivered thy "SOUL".
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> well when you quit breathing I would say that is dead...and your heart
> stoped that is dead.
"Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
measured by EEG." (from Wikipedia)
It really doesn't matter what your definition is, you're not a doctor.
Your brother obviously still had brain activity.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>Except I didn't say that. The brain is part of a SYSTEM, and the CPU
is part of a SYSTEM. And by the way, the human brain is part of the
computer system as well. And just because a computer requires an
external operator does not mean that a human needs an external
operator. And there is no valid evidence that there is an external
operator of humans, so your analogy fails.
> A CPU does not, in fact, do
> anything, until a human being tells it what to do.
Which doesn't mean that humans don't do anything until something tells
them what to do. Your analogy fails.
> > > > > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > > > > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > > > > experience.
>
> > > > Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> > > > not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> > > > and all interior experience ceases.
>
> > > Begging the question, can you prove that?
>
> > "Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to
> > be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
>
> > Please demonstrate how I was "begging the question."
>
> You assume that the soul == the brain, and by corollary, interior
> experience == brain activity. That is what you need to prove, you
> can't assume it in order to prove it, as that is begging the question.
Go have your brain removed and see how much interior activity you
have.
And I don't assume the "soul" = "the brain," the soul is a religious
construct and I lack belief that the soul exists.I think you brain
imagines the soul.
> > Otherwise, when someone has their brain removed they are dead. We know
> > from millions of years of observation that dead people cease all forms
> > of communication, and show no indication of any interior experience.
> > There is no sign of any biological activity in the brains of dead
> > people as there is in the brains of living people. And then of course
> > many dead people are cremated and all dead people's brains eventually
> > rot.
>
> > "Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
> > measured by EEG." (Wikipedia article on the human brain)
>
> > I may not have been begging the question, but you certainly managed to
> > ask an idiotic one.
>
> > And if you mean to imply that "we don't know that we don't have
> > interior experiences" then you're about to commit an argument from
> > ignorance fallacy. We know what we observe, and we observe that dead
> > people don't have interior experiences.
>
> What does an interior experience of another person look like, exactly?
Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
> > > > That is not a coincidence.
>
> > > Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
>
> > Argument from ignorance fallacy, just as I predicted.
>
> > > > Since
> > > > we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> > > > matter can have "interior experience."
>
> > > How? Describe the mechanism.
>
> > Biochemical signals travel through our nerves sending signals to and
> > from our brain, which is a collection of neurons much analagous to a
> > computer circuitboard - on and off switches.
>
> My point exactly. Nothing in a series of switches is conscious.
Depends on what scale you examine them at. Obviously at a certain
level a collection of switches achieves consciousness. Or
unconsciousness, depending on the psychological state of the person.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>On Dec 27, 3:32 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> some good arguments. unfortunately there aint no cat in da tree your
> barking up. anything that isnt physical cannot be discussed with your
> opponent.
Ideas aren't physical, and we're discussing ideas, genius.
> if you cant lay it on a slab in a lab, dont bother even
> bringing it up because you will be climbing a mountain with no top.
If you claim something exists physically then you should be able to
lay it on a slab, metaphorically speaking. I am not convinced for one
second that spirit energy, soul, God, god, etc. would not be physical
if they existed. Since you can't provide valid evidence for their
existence, I can only conclude that they exist in your imaginations.
Which makes you delusional, at least.
> you wont even benefit from a good view on your never ending endeavor.
>
> for some reason, your analogy of the computer is not snagging on any
> brainwaves. everybody has a brain, not many can be rocket scientists.
> the steerer of the ship gets little consideration from most, and
> therefore they will not find 'soul', 'spirit', 'god', or
> 'whateveronewantstocallit'. it is this enthusiastic skepticism, or
> more often abject disbelief, that will inhibit some from finding 'it'.
> those who do not look, shall not find. the problem with your
> discussion is that you are dealing with someone who wants another to
> prove something to him, instead of one who is looking for the proof
> himself. therefore, prepare for the long haul.
Shifting the burden of proof onto me is not evidence that your version
of "god" exists. It is not my fault that you can't provide valid
evidence for your wild claims, and that your wild claims are
rationally explained as a figment of your imagination.
> i agree with your computer assessment. most peoples knees work the
> same way, and to make the knees function properly, the brain works
> similarly for all humans. yet no two mind thinks alike.
Sure they do, depending on the situation. Say a tiger is chasing you.
Many minds would think alike, and those people would run from the
tiger.
> one would
> think that this concept would get some traction, but if you are
> dealing with one who considers the brain and the mind to be the same,
> significant headway will not be gained. you have good tires, but they
> are spinning in a rut on this journey with your passenger.
So which definitions of those words are you equivocating about?
brain - –noun
1. Anatomy, Zoology. the part of the central nervous system enclosed
in the cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft,
convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control and
coordinate the mental and physical actions.
2. Zoology. (in many invertebrates) a part of the nervous system more
or less corresponding to the brain of vertebrates.
3. Sometimes, brains. (used with a plural verb) understanding;
intellectual power; intelligence.
4. the brain as the center of thought, understanding, etc.; mind;
intellect.
5. brains, Slang. a member of a group who is regarded as its
intellectual leader or planner: The junior partner is the brains of
the firm.
6. Informal. a very intelligent or brilliant person.
7. Informal. a. the controlling or guiding mechanism in a computer,
robot, pacemaker, etc.
b. the part of a computer system for coordination or guidance, as of a
missile.
mind –noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance,
or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges,
etc.: the processes of the human mind.
2. Psychology. the totality of conscious and unconscious mental
processes and activities.
3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of
feeling and willing; intelligence.
4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a
person.
5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the
greatest minds of the twentieth century.
6. intellectual power or ability.
7. reason, sanity, or sound mental condition: to lose one's mind.
8. a way of thinking and feeling; disposition; temper: a liberal
mind.
9. a state of awareness or remembrance: The poem puts me in mind of
experiences both new and forgotten.
10. opinion, view, or sentiments: to change one's mind.
11. inclination or desire: to be of a mind to listen.
12. purpose, intention, or will: Let me know your mind in this matter
before Tuesday.
13. psychic or spiritual being, as opposed to matter.
14. a conscious or intelligent agency or being: an awareness of a mind
ordering the universe.
15. remembrance or recollection; memory: Former days were called to
mind.
16. attention; thoughts: He can't keep his mind on his studies.
17. Chiefly South Midland and Southern U.S. notice; attention: When
he's like that, just pay him no mind.
18. Roman Catholic Church. a commemoration of a person's death, esp.
by a Requiem Mass. Compare month's mind, year's mind.
19. (initial capital letter) Also called Divine Mind. Christian
Science. God; the incorporeal source of life, substance, and
intelligence. Compare mortal mind.
I'll go for the scientific definitions. The mind is the "totality of
conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities" and the
brain is the organ in which "mental processes and activities" take
place. I don't think the mind and the brain are the same thing, but
without a brain then the mind ceases to exist.
Eric Griswold, R.C.
<eric@clevian.com>strategyu and why it works."
His point is that we can look at any system, and take several stances
with regard to it.
We can look at a clock, and take a physical stance: it is made of
metal, plastic, etc.
We can take a design stance: it is full of little gears, that are
designed to turn wheels, etc.
We can take an intentional stance: the clock "knows" it is 7am, so it
rings and wakes me up.
All these stances are true, they are just looking at different levels
of description. When a system is complex, it is simply a more
economical description to say "the dog *wishes* the squirrel would
come down from the tree," than to say "sensory neuron bundle c-5 is
firing in the dog's brain."
Same thing with souls. Brains do complex things, so it is far easier
to say "Sally (or Sally's soul) longs for her husband to come home,"
than it is to cite every little firing of the hippocamous and
stimulation of the limbic system.
The description that a person has a 'soul" is therefore no more true,
but perhaps a more convenient or economical description of what is
going on, so if you want to use the word "soul" to explain things, go
ahead. It is not a different thing from "brain," merely a different
level of description.
But, just to play devil's advocate and throw out a thought-experiment
here--
Suppose there were some form of universal consciousness, perhaps the
sum total of all the bits of information in the universe, entangled in
some quantum mechanical way.
Now suppose that the brain could act as a sort of receiver, like a
radio, that could tune into this information source. Perhaps sometimes
even tuning in inspied ideas, like General Relativity. A bigger,
better brain might well tune in more sophisticated ideas. If a brain
were damaged, the information flow would be damaged too-- like
breaking a radio-- and you would expect the behavioral output to show
deficits and be faulty. Remove a brain and of course you get nothing,
like totally destroying a radio.
To me one of the mysteries of consciousness is: where do entirely new
ideas come from? Ideas that jump entirely outside the computational
system and cannot be predicted by previous ideas? It is easy to say
that all ideas arise naturally from pre-existing ideas, but this
implies an infinite regress to a past source of infinite knowledge---
an uncomfortable position for an atheist.
Truly creative, de novo ideas like the theta-fuschian functions of
Poincare, or set theory, or the E4 reconciliation of string theory,
seem to arise fully formed into the minds of people who receive them.
One can cite the "unconscious" as the source, but then one has to ask:
well, how does IT do it?
The concept of "emergent order" is often cited, and yes, complexity
can arise spontaneously from disorder-- look at a snowflake. This is
denied by creationists who distort the laws of thermodynamics to claim
that complex life could never arise from chemicals.... to claim that
nothing, ever, becomes more complex by itself, which is false to
fact.
--eric g
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
> > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living being."
>
> > King James Bible:
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living soul."
>
> > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> living soul.
>
> I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> things as souls.
>
It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people? If not, how do you
know whether it is bodies or souls that are doing the asking?
> There is nothing at all that I know of, apart from a soul, that is
> capable of making such an irrational demand. I was going to write,
> that is like a dog asking us to prove there are dogs, but in point of
> fact dogs don't have such irrational thoughts. Only certain humans
> do.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> some people do not grasp the parable concept dj ... they will continue
> to quote the most extreme examples of dogma, and pester you to cough
> up some proof of 'god', because their disbelief is kept alive by the
> lack of physical proof.
How about those who do grasp the parable concept? Would all of them
believe in Hanuman (the so-called Hindu monkey god) or would they
demand proof before they believe a Hanuman devotee's claim that
Hanuman exists?
> the concept of 'god' as non-physical 'entity'
> seemingly cannot penetrate their 'reasonable' cranium. not to fear
> though, this restricted view will supply you with endless fodder for
> 'debate'. ;^-)
> On Dec 25, 9:17 am, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>Thanks for some thoughtful contributions, Eric!
I disagree that true complexity can spontaneously arise from disorder
per se. For example --- your example --- the snowflake. There is
order in the way water molecules line up in a crystal when they
freeze. That order is the source of the complexity of the snowflake.
To say that complex life could never arise from chemicals is to
misunderstand chemistry and biology, I think. The order built in to
matter gives rise to configurations that are able to self-perpetuate
dynamically, which is a fair basic description of biological life.
The emergent order is latent in the structure of atoms and the
ordinary principles by which they interact. Matter becomes more
complex, "by itself," but matter did not give rise to itself.
As to consciousness, however, we are talking about a completely
different thing. Yes, it is possible to view inanimate objects as
taking intentional stances and reach a fair understanding that way.
But surely, when we say, 'the clock "knows" it is 7am, so it rings and
wakes me up,' we *know* that we are employing a metaphor. We know
that there is no experiential awareness of being a clock. We who have
experiential awareness can possibly *know* anything, since knowledge
is quite simply a particular type of experiential awareness. To
analyze our statement that "the alarm clock knows," we would have to
admit that its "knowledge" is entirely in our imaginations.
A machine capable of passing the Turing Test might fool someone into
believing it had experiential awareness just like a being, but that is
an example of a person being fooled, and not, on the contrary, a
machine that actually has knowledge. Machines carry data. It takes a
mind, to interpret data as information. And it takes understanding,
to apprehend information as knowledge.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
> > > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > > living being."
>
> > > King James Bible:
>
> > > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > > living soul."
>
> > > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> > This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> > living soul.
>
> > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > things as souls.
>
> > Isn't that ironic??
>
> It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
Not the ones asking on this group! lol
>If not, how do you
> know whether it is bodies or souls that are doing the asking?
I assume that every living hominid today is a true descendant of
Adam. But I could be wrong about that. Possibly, there are some
highly evolved beasts walking around looking like humans. Maybe, that
is the whole point of Christianity --- to separate the humans from the
beasts. But, I doubt it.
If the unlikely alternate scenario turns out to be true, then there is
no experiencer in such beasts. They would be the equivalent of
philosophical zombies.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 26, 7:40 pm, dj Briscoe <sandsands.brisc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I Have a Question? If all you engery was taken totally away in the
> flesh...I mean if you worked untill you droped....Are someone mentally
> torurted you and physically torurted you untill you where laying there and
> could not move no more...and all that was left was a little breath and you
> knew your eyes was open you were aware of these things.....and what would
> you say would make you want to keep on living and hanging in there? When
> there was a slight hope ...and where did this hope come from? I had a
> brother that died when he was in surgery...and of coarse they save him and
> brought him back...(and let me say this about my brother he did not believe
> in what I am about to tell you) he said he was right above his body,face
> down, looking at himself laying there on the table...he said he saw the
> doctor and the color of tie he had on, he felt no pain and he saw them
> working on him.....he was not awake when he came into the ER and so
> therefore he did not know what doctor or unlikely to know what color of
> tie...and he even could hear them talking.....when he was revived and was
> able to talk, he told the doctors and nurse what was said ....they were
> supprised...my brother said then he knew that there was something after
> life....and he said he knew this for a fact...dj
>
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> The general message here, George, is that the wicked shall die in
> their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
How curious. That would seem to indicate that God's mercy depends on
one's works, since wicked deeds are works as are just deeds.
> You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
If good works bring God's grace, why the claim that it's faith that
brings God's grace?
> ...
>
> read more »
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
> > > > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > > > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > > > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > > > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > > > living being."
>
> > > > King James Bible:
>
> > > > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > > > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > > > living soul."
>
> > > > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > > > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> > > This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> > > living soul.
>
> > > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > > things as souls.
>
> > > Isn't that ironic??
>
> > It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
>
> Not the ones asking on this group! lol
How can this be known? If souls survive death, what prevents a dead
person's soul from (rhetorically) asking a living person this
question?
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
>
> You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
>
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>The soul is interior.
> > A CPU does not, in fact, do
> > anything, until a human being tells it what to do.
>
> Which doesn't mean that humans don't do anything until something tells
> them what to do. Your analogy fails.
>
A human is a soul.
> > > > > > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > > > > > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > > > > > experience.
>
> > > > > Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> > > > > not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> > > > > and all interior experience ceases.
>
> > > > Begging the question, can you prove that?
>
> > > "Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to
> > > be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
>
> > > Please demonstrate how I was "begging the question."
>
> > You assume that the soul == the brain, and by corollary, interior
> > experience == brain activity. That is what you need to prove, you
> > can't assume it in order to prove it, as that is begging the question.
>
> Go have your brain removed and see how much interior activity you
> have.
>
I would be dead, but that wouldn't mean my interior activity ceased,
since interior means in the soul, and the soul does not die when the
body dies.
But the point of this thread is not even so much. The point of this
thread is that there are *living* souls, irrationally demanding proof
of their own existence, not acknowledging that if they are asking,
they must exist.
> And I don't assume the "soul" = "the brain," the soul is a religious
> construct
No, the soul is a reality that we can know by philosophy. No religion
is necessary, to recognize the reality of the soul.
>and I lack belief that the soul exists.
Your soul lacks belief that your soul exists. That is just too weird.
>I think you brain
> imagines the soul.
>
A brain is like a CPU. My CPU can create art, but not by itself.
Art, imagination, thought --- all these are things human beings do,
not computers, and not soulless brains.
> > > Otherwise, when someone has their brain removed they are dead. We know
> > > from millions of years of observation that dead people cease all forms
> > > of communication, and show no indication of any interior experience.
> > > There is no sign of any biological activity in the brains of dead
> > > people as there is in the brains of living people. And then of course
> > > many dead people are cremated and all dead people's brains eventually
> > > rot.
>
> > > "Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
> > > measured by EEG." (Wikipedia article on the human brain)
>
> > > I may not have been begging the question, but you certainly managed to
> > > ask an idiotic one.
>
> > > And if you mean to imply that "we don't know that we don't have
> > > interior experiences" then you're about to commit an argument from
> > > ignorance fallacy. We know what we observe, and we observe that dead
> > > people don't have interior experiences.
>
> > What does an interior experience of another person look like, exactly?
>
> Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
>
Begging the question, of course.
> > > > > That is not a coincidence.
>
> > > > Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
>
> > > Argument from ignorance fallacy, just as I predicted.
>
> > > > > Since
> > > > > we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> > > > > matter can have "interior experience."
>
> > > > How? Describe the mechanism.
>
> > > Biochemical signals travel through our nerves sending signals to and
> > > from our brain, which is a collection of neurons much analagous to a
> > > computer circuitboard - on and off switches.
>
> > My point exactly. Nothing in a series of switches is conscious.
>
> Depends on what scale you examine them at. Obviously at a certain
> level a collection of switches achieves consciousness. Or
> unconsciousness, depending on the psychological state of the person.
Begging the question.
I guess you have no proof, and are embarrassed to admit it. But it is
obvious by now, don't you think?
I have advanced our interior experiences as evidence of our souls.
You wish to refute that. In order to do so, you will have to account
for our interior experiences without evoking anything we would call
spiritual, which leaves us with the physical. So, you have to account
for interior experience entirely on a physical basis.
Thus, that is your primary thesis: that experience has its basis
entirely in the physical. That is your logical goal; it is that which
you are seeking to prove.
That is why you cannot use "experience has its basis entirely in the
physical" as one of your premises, as that begs the question.
You also cannot use its equivalents, to wit,
"
Q. What does an interior experience of another person look like,
exactly?
A. Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
"
and,
"Obviously at a certain level a collection of switches achieves
consciousness."
The above two statements would be proved by corollary if you ever
proved your thesis. But since they are in fact corollaries of your
thesis, you cannot assume them as premises.
So --- do you have any arguments for the physical-alone basis of
consciousness that do *not* beg the question? If not, we're done
here.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 10:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
I dunno. Are you positing ghosts? Do the ghosts ask a living person
to type the question, or are we talking poltergeists here?
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>dream, can't I??
> ...
>
> read more »
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 10:41 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The general message here, George, is that the wicked shall die in
> > their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
>
> > You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
>
> No more of a problem than you Joe, and that is for sure.
>
Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
--- God is just??
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> --- God is just??
>
dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy. And I am even more sure
you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
yours some day.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> The point of this
> thread is that there are *living* souls,
Are there dead souls? If not, what is a living soul?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 27, 10:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 10:00 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > > > > things as souls.
>
> > > > > Isn't that ironic??
>
> > > > It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
>
> > > Not the ones asking on this group! lol
>
> > How can this be known? If souls survive death, what prevents a dead
> > person's soul from (rhetorically) asking a living person this
> > question?
>
> I dunno. Are you positing ghosts? Do the ghosts ask a living person
> to type the question, or are we talking poltergeists here?
I see a ghoul on this group demanding proof that there are such things
as ghouls and typing a question asking how ghouls type. Isn't that
ironic??
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 27, 10:41 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The general message here, George, is that the wicked shall die in
> > > their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
>
> > > You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
>
> > No more of a problem than you Joe, and that is for sure.
>
> Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> --- God is just??
Suppose that a God who lets the wicked die in their sins is just.
Then, would a God who is willing to forgive the wicked and is willing
to give them mercy be an unjust God?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>fast to other xtian dogmas?
On Dec 27, 10:00 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> Then, would a God who is willing to forgive the wicked and is willing
> to give them mercy be an unjust God?
>
Let's say that life is unfair.
Let's say that there are some people who seem more concerned about
themselves than anyone else, and who prosper because of this attitude.
Lot's of other people who are not so prosperous are jealous--possibly
everyone else.
Just for the sake of identity, let's call the first group wicked and
the second group righteous. I'm saving a step by not assigning a group
A and B label first.
We need a cause for the righteous group to support the persecution of
the wicked group, who would just as soon let anyone in the righteous
group starve.
If we assume that the wicked will die in sin, would that make the
righteous group feel any better if they fail to prevail against the
wicked group?
If we offer the wicked mercy in return for a cessation in hostility,
would that induce the wicked group to be more generous?
>
On Dec 27, 9:09 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > Suppose that a God who lets the wicked die in their sins is just.
> > Then, would a God who is willing to forgive the wicked and is willing
> > to give them mercy be an unjust God?
>
> Suppose that there is no God.
> Let's say that life is unfair.
> Let's say that there are some people who seem more concerned about
> themselves than anyone else, and who prosper because of this attitude.
> Lot's of other people who are not so prosperous are jealous--possibly
> everyone else.
> Just for the sake of identity, let's call the first group wicked and
> the second group righteous. I'm saving a step by not assigning a group
> A and B label first.
> We need a cause for the righteous group to support the persecution of
> the wicked group, who would just as soon let anyone in the righteous
> group starve.
> If we assume that the wicked will die in sin, would that make the
> righteous group feel any better if they fail to prevail against the
> wicked group?
> If we offer the wicked mercy in return for a cessation in hostility,
> would that induce the wicked group to be more generous?
Now that this stage is set, suppose you were to invent a theistic
religion to help cope with this situation. Given that no God exists
according to you, you'd presumably attempt to manipulate society into
treating the wicked and the righteous in the same ways that (your
conception of) a just God would treat them. To this end, what would
you (pretend that God is asking you to) teach?
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> religion to help cope with this situation. Given that no God exists
> according to you, you'd presumably attempt to manipulate society into
> treating the wicked and the righteous in the same ways that (your
> conception of) a just God would treat them. To this end, what would
>
It would not matter what they are taught. You could call the wicked
group righteous and vice versa, and it would not change a thing. You
could dream up any religion to support the premise, and the system
would still work.
>
On Dec 28, 5:11 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> you (pretend that God is asking you to) teach?- Hide quoted text -
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > Now that this stage is set, suppose you were to invent a theistic
> > religion to help cope with this situation. Given that no God exists
> > according to you, you'd presumably attempt to manipulate society into
> > treating the wicked and the righteous in the same ways that (your
> > conception of) a just God would treat them. To this end, what would
> > you (pretend that God is asking you to) teach?- Hide quoted text -
>
> It would not matter what they are taught.
Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
to try the wicked or whether you teach that God wants the wicked to be
forgiven and given freedom to continue being wicked? Would both of
these have the same effects?
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>differ from the word in the biological sense. Given the set of all
"Biological Life Forms", this verse introduces an extra-biological
distinction between the human members and non-human members. In light
of this, consider the following scenario:
Lacking the reference or authority of the Bible, by what measure could
a person evaluate life on this planet (life in the biological sense)
and come to the rational conclusion that such an extra-biological
distinction exists?
On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 9:03 am, Brother Aquinas <brotheraqui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/browse_frm/thr...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's from the Bible:
>
> > New American Standard Bible (©1995):
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living being."
>
> > King James Bible:
>
> > Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground,
> > and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> > living soul."
>
> > I actually call my wife, my mate, better yet, my soul mate. If you
> > don't believe in a living human being, then what do you believe?
>
> This would appear to define Adam's soul as Adam, i.e. "Adam *became* a
> living soul.
>
> I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> things as souls.
>
> Isn't that ironic??
>
> There is nothing at all that I know of, apart from a soul, that is
> capable of making such an irrational demand. I was going to write,
> that is like a dog asking us to prove there are dogs, but in point of
> fact dogs don't have such irrational thoughts. Only certain humans
> do.- Hide quoted text -
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>>
> Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
> to try the wicked or whether you teach that God wants the wicked to be
> forgiven and given freedom to continue being wicked? Would both of
> these have the same effects?
>
2. the wicked are generous, the righteous forgive.
>
> Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
>
It is not "God" that people fear, but death, so it would not matter.
>
> or whether you teach that God wants the wicked to be
> forgiven and given freedom to continue being wicked?
>
>
> Would both of these have the same effects?
>
>
On Dec 28, 6:23 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>That gives the soul a location in time in space - inside our bodies,
during our lifetime. Now where is it? Next to the gall bladder?
> > > A CPU does not, in fact, do
> > > anything, until a human being tells it what to do.
>
> > Which doesn't mean that humans don't do anything until something tells
> > them what to do. Your analogy fails.
>
> A human is a soul.
Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that "souls" exist.
Yuo are just renaming nouns.
> > > > > > > Without your soul, it would not be possible for you
> > > > > > > to experience anything, since matter does not have interior
> > > > > > > experience.
>
> > > > > > Argument by assertion fallacies are not evidence that our brains are
> > > > > > not sufficient for us to have "interior experience." Remove the brain
> > > > > > and all interior experience ceases.
>
> > > > > Begging the question, can you prove that?
>
> > > > "Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to
> > > > be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
>
> > > > Please demonstrate how I was "begging the question."
>
> > > You assume that the soul == the brain, and by corollary, interior
> > > experience == brain activity. That is what you need to prove, you
> > > can't assume it in order to prove it, as that is begging the question.
>
> > Go have your brain removed and see how much interior activity you
> > have.
>
> I would be dead, but that wouldn't mean my interior activity ceased,
> since interior means in the soul,
The clinical definition of death is when there is no more activity in
your brain as measured by an EEG. In other words, all interior
activity has ceased.
> and the soul does not die when the
> body dies.
You have no valid evidence for that, so it remains just your
delusion.
> But the point of this thread is not even so much. The point of this
> thread is that there are *living* souls, irrationally demanding proof
> of their own existence, not acknowledging that if they are asking,
> they must exist.
Yes, you said that. And of course you have no evidence that "souls"
exist, beyond renaming nouns.
It is rational to require evidence for extraordinary claims like
"souls exist," and you are poisoning the well by saying otherwise.
> > And I don't assume the "soul" = "the brain," the soul is a religious
> > construct
>
> No, the soul is a reality that we can know by philosophy.
By applying the philosophy of logical positivism there is no evidence
that a soul exists, none seems forthcoming, and judging by the way you
dodge the subject of evidence the soul seems to be a figment of your
imagination. Or in your particular case, the soul seems to be a
cornerstone of your schizophrenia. That you are mentally ill is not
irrelevant, since you are given to hallucinations.
> No religion
> is necessary, to recognize the reality of the soul.
>
> >and I lack belief that the soul exists.
>
> Your soul lacks belief that your soul exists. That is just too weird.
To translate that sentence back to English, the human lacks belief
that the soul exists, and that's not weird at all. What's weird is
your penchant to redefine language without even flinching. But it
isn't that weird, and can be rationally explained by your mental
illness.
> >I think your brain
> > imagines the soul.
>
> A brain is like a CPU. My CPU can create art, but not by itself.
> Art, imagination, thought --- all these are things human beings do,
> not computers, and not soulless brains.
There are elephants that like to paint, do elephants have souls?
Art is something that some humans do, computers are just another tool
for creating art, no different than a paintbrush. Since you have not
provided any evidence that the "soul" exists, then a "soul" is not
required for creating art. The only thing you need is an imagination,
and imagination is a byproduct of the brain. You also need limbs and
art supplies.
> > > > Otherwise, when someone has their brain removed they are dead. We know
> > > > from millions of years of observation that dead people cease all forms
> > > > of communication, and show no indication of any interior experience.
> > > > There is no sign of any biological activity in the brains of dead
> > > > people as there is in the brains of living people. And then of course
> > > > many dead people are cremated and all dead people's brains eventually
> > > > rot.
>
> > > > "Clinically, death is defined as an absence of brain activity as
> > > > measured by EEG." (Wikipedia article on the human brain)
>
> > > > I may not have been begging the question, but you certainly managed to
> > > > ask an idiotic one.
>
> > > > And if you mean to imply that "we don't know that we don't have
> > > > interior experiences" then you're about to commit an argument from
> > > > ignorance fallacy. We know what we observe, and we observe that dead
> > > > people don't have interior experiences.
>
> > > What does an interior experience of another person look like, exactly?
>
> > Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
>
> Begging the question, of course.
Well, it looks like blips on an EEG machince, if your really need the
dots connected.
> > > > > > That is not a coincidence.
>
> > > > > Nor is it a necessarily valid assertion.
>
> > > > Argument from ignorance fallacy, just as I predicted.
>
> > > > > > Since
> > > > > > we are made of matter, and the brain is located in our interior, then
> > > > > > matter can have "interior experience."
>
> > > > > How? Describe the mechanism.
>
> > > > Biochemical signals travel through our nerves sending signals to and
> > > > from our brain, which is a collection of neurons much analagous to a
> > > > computer circuitboard - on and off switches.
>
> > > My point exactly. Nothing in a series of switches is conscious.
>
> > Depends on what scale you examine them at. Obviously at a certain
> > level a collection of switches achieves consciousness. Or
> > unconsciousness, depending on the psychological state of the person.
>
> Begging the question.
>
> I guess you have no proof, and are embarrassed to admit it. But it is
> obvious by now, don't you think?
There's proof right there, and you can't recognize it because you are
too bent on assuming your conclusion that "soul" exists.
> I have advanced our interior experiences as evidence of our souls.
Renaming nouns is not evidence that souls exist.
> You wish to refute that.
It has been refuted. You are simply taking a noun of a physical
object, "human," and renaming it "soul." Interesting that humans are
physical, you define humans as souls, and then you try to say that
souls are not a physical object. Mental gymnastics are not evidence
that "soul" exists.
> In order to do so, you will have to account
> for our interior experiences without evoking anything we would call
> spiritual, which leaves us with the physical.
I did. The brain, as part of the system that comprises the human body,
accounts for our interior experiences. There - nothing spiritual about
that.
> So, you have to account
> for interior experience entirely on a physical basis.
I did.
> Thus, that is your primary thesis: that experience has its basis
> entirely in the physical. That is your logical goal; it is that which
> you are seeking to prove.
Ummm...you are shifting the goalposts. You are asserting that the soul
exists, and your goal is to prove that. I'm only pointing out that
your evidence that souls exist, that "humans are souls," is
insufficient and erroneous, that you are just renaming nouns.
> That is why you cannot use "experience has its basis entirely in the
> physical" as one of your premises, as that begs the question.
Strawman fallacies are not evidence that I ever said "experience has
its basis entirely in the physical." I don't even think that. We have
dreams, daydreams, hallucinations, flights of fancy, drug trips, etc.,
and while they can all be reduced to the physical (i.e. they are all
products of brain activity), these are all experiences nevertheless.
I'm not "begging the question"; you are lying about me.
> You also cannot use its equivalents, to wit,
> "
> Q. What does an interior experience of another person look like,
> exactly?
> A. Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
> "
At it's fundamental scale this is true. No brain activity, no interior
experience.
> and,
>
> "Obviously at a certain level a collection of switches achieves
> consciousness."
Since we are conscious and the brain is comprised of switches then
obviously at a certain scale the collection of switches achieves
consciousness. Consciousness is a brain activity. No brain activity,
no interior experience. Go ahead, remove your brain if you don't
believe me.
> The above two statements would be proved by corollary if you ever
> proved your thesis. But since they are in fact corollaries of your
> thesis, you cannot assume them as premises.
I didn't present a thesis, you did. You said "humans are souls." I am
refuting your argument, and you are just shifting the goalposts.
> So --- do you have any arguments for the physical-alone basis of
> consciousness that do *not* beg the question?
The problem isn't that I'm begging any questions, the problem is that
you are assuming your conclusion that the soul exists, and you are
therefore incapable of making accurate scientific observations, one of
them being "interior activity (which is just mental activity) takes
place in the brain, and so is obviously a byproduct of the brain."
> If not, we're done
> here.
Fine. You lose.
> > >Get your head out of your
> > > > scriptures and go study some biology.
>
> > > > > > You have no valid evidence for
> > > > > > "soul." You are wrong, as usual.
>
> > > > > > > It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> > > > > > > experience an illusion,
>
> > > > > > It would make sense to call someone's interior experience an illusion
> > > > > > if they imagine things that aren't real. Schizophrenics are prone to
> > > > > > doing this, and since you've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, you
> > > > > > are prone to doing this. Your claims about "soul" can be rationally
> > > > > > explained as your schizophrenic delusion, and your schizophrenic
> > > > > > wishful thinking, because you have no valid evidence that soul
> > > > > > exists.
>
> > > > > > > since an illusion would also be an interior
> > > > > > > experience.
>
> > > > > > An illusion is a special category of "interior experience" that has no
> > > > > > valid correspondence to the external world.
>
> > > > > Close. Since there is an interior world, your qualification of
>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > > It would not matter what they are taught.
>
> > Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
> > to try the wicked or whether you teach that God wants the wicked to be
> > forgiven and given freedom to continue being wicked? Would both of
> > these have the same effects?
>
> 1. the wicked will die, now the righteous feel better.
> 2. the wicked are generous, the righteous forgive.
>
> > Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
> > to try the wicked?
>
> It is not "God" that people fear, but death, so it would not matter.
Then, why do courts impose any penalties other than death? Why are
incarceration facilities called penitentiaries and correctional
institutions?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 27, 7:45 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The soul is interior.
> That gives the soul a location in time in space - inside our bodies,
> during our lifetime. Now where is it? Next to the gall bladder?
That's a natural location for a bilious soul:-)
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>>
> > > Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
>
> > It is not "God" that people fear, but death, so it would not matter.
>
> Then, why do courts impose any penalties other than death? Why are
> incarceration facilities called penitentiaries and correctional
> institutions?
>
purpose of "God", which can only be answered in a discussion about
sociology, which is completely unrelated to theology, unless you can
establish a clearer connection--I just don't see it right now. And in
fact your question points out the disconnect.
>
On Dec 28, 9:14 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > > > > It would not matter what they are taught.
>
> > > > Would it not matter whether you teach that God wants courts of justice
>
> > > It is not "God" that people fear, but death, so it would not matter.
>
> > Then, why do courts impose any penalties other than death? Why are
> > incarceration facilities called penitentiaries and correctional
> > institutions?
>
> This question brings in a whole host of other issues besides the
> purpose of "God", which can only be answered in a discussion about
> sociology, which is completely unrelated to theology, unless you can
> establish a clearer connection--I just don't see it right now. And in
> fact your question points out the disconnect.
It becomes theology as soon as you find and take the easiest way to
convince a given theistic society of the merits of your sociological
solutions - the easiest way being a convincing claim that you got
these solutions from God.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> convince a given theistic society of the merits of your sociological
> solutions - the easiest way being a convincing claim that you got
> these solutions from God.
>
>
On Dec 28, 9:55 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > It becomes theology as soon as you find and take the easiest way to
> > convince a given theistic society of the merits of your sociological
> > solutions - the easiest way being a convincing claim that you got
> > these solutions from God.
>
> Not when there is a constitutional Justice system.
Suppose you were in Palestine 2100 years back or in some similar
society that exists today. What constitutional Justice system would
you find?
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>> There's proof right there, and you can't ...
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>>
> Suppose you were in Palestine 2100 years back or in some similar
> society that exists today. What constitutional Justice system would
> you find?
>
society, doesn't it?
>
On Dec 28, 10:32 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 11:19 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> > --- God is just??
>
> No, I'm sure that I don't have any more of a problem than you do in
> dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy.
Neither of us are dead yet, and we are not on the same page about God,
so your statement above seems nonsensical.
>And I am even more sure
> you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
> I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
> yours some day.
>
If God were not real, you might be right. As it is, however, I did
not give myself faith, and I am not the one keeping me in faith, so
your idea that it is more likely I would change my mind is also
nonsense.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 12:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
No, in fact, that is God.
Ezekiel 18:27 And when the wicked turns himself away from his
wickedness, which he has wrought, and does judgment, and justice: he
shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considers and turns away
himself from all his iniquities which he has wrought, he shall surely
live, and not die. 29 And the children of Israel say: The way of the
Lord is not right. Are not my ways right, O house of Israel, and are
not rather your ways perverse? 30 Therefore will I judge every man
according to his ways, O house of Israel, says the Lord God. Be
converted, and do penance for all your iniquities: and iniquity shall
not be your ruin. 31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, by
which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart, and a
new spirit: and why will you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I desire
not the death of him that dies, says the Lord God, return and live.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 27, 11:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:45 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The point of this
> > thread is that there are *living* souls,
>
> Are there dead souls? If not, what is a living soul?
>
There are souls who have died. Also, there are souls in mortal sin or
in hell, which is spiritual death, so yes, there are dead souls.
A living soul means, if we are talking about bodily life, a soul still
connected to its body. If we are talking about spiritual life, it
means a soul in the state of sanctifying grace.
dj Briscoe
<sandsands.briscoe4@gmail.com>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Neil Kelsey
<neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>> where does your imagination reside?
In my brain, like everyone else's.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 28, 10:35 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > where does your imagination reside?
>
> In my brain, like everyone else's.
Some seem to think some people's imagination resides in their
posterior.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>On Dec 28, 2:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 10:52 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 10:41 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > The general message here, George, is that the wicked shall die in
> > > > > their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
>
> > > > > You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
>
> > > > No more of a problem than you Joe, and that is for sure.
>
> > > Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> > > --- God is just??
>
> > Suppose that a God who lets the wicked die in their sins is just.
> > Then, would a God who is willing to forgive the wicked and is willing
> > to give them mercy be an unjust God?
>
> No, in fact, that is God.
>
> Ezekiel 18:27 And when the wicked turns himself away from his
> wickedness, which he has wrought, and does judgment, and justice: he
> shall save his soul alive.
Then, it is possible to be saved without the help of Jesus' blood. So,
was it someone other than God who decided that Jesus' blood was
necessary?
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 9:47 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems, to me, that the variations of the word "life" used here
> differ from the word in the biological sense. Given the set of all
> "Biological Life Forms", this verse introduces an extra-biological
> distinction between the human members and non-human members. In light
> of this, consider the following scenario:
>
> Lacking the reference or authority of the Bible, by what measure could
> a person evaluate life on this planet (life in the biological sense)
> and come to the rational conclusion that such an extra-biological
> distinction exists?
>
Is the person in question a human being on this planet? If so, then
that person has interior experience, which points to a soul. If not,
then an additional question is, can the person doing the observing
communicate with members of the human race? Barring machines capable
of passing the Turing Test, one might rationally assume that beings
able to communicate have souls. Of course, it would also be possible
in theory for them to be cleverly programmed soulless automatons. But
those, would have to have been programmed by someone, so again this
points to souls, maybe not now, but at some point in the past.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>I assume by 'adam theory' you mean the thesis that all human beings
are descended from Adam. That is what I believe, and I stated as
much. I speculated as to the existence of *non-human* hominids ---
not human beings with different ancestry than Adam.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 12:02 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 27, 10:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 10:00 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > > > > > things as souls.
>
> > > > > > Isn't that ironic??
>
> > > > > It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
>
> > > > Not the ones asking on this group! lol
>
> > > How can this be known? If souls survive death, what prevents a dead
> > > person's soul from (rhetorically) asking a living person this
> > > question?
>
> > I dunno. Are you positing ghosts? Do the ghosts ask a living person
> > to type the question, or are we talking poltergeists here?
>
> I see a ghoul on this group
Where???
>demanding proof that there are such things
> as ghouls and typing a question asking how ghouls type. Isn't that
> ironic??
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28, 3:56 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2:12 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 10:52 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 10:41 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > The general message here, George, is that the wicked shall die in
> > > > > > their sins, while the just shall receive God's Mercy.
>
> > > > > > You have some kind of a problem with that, but it is *your* problem.
>
> > > > > No more of a problem than you Joe, and that is for sure.
>
> > > > Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> > > > --- God is just??
>
> > > Suppose that a God who lets the wicked die in their sins is just.
> > > Then, would a God who is willing to forgive the wicked and is willing
> > > to give them mercy be an unjust God?
>
> > No, in fact, that is God.
>
> > Ezekiel 18:27 And when the wicked turns himself away from his
> > wickedness, which he has wrought, and does judgment, and justice: he
> > shall save his soul alive.
>
> Then, it is possible to be saved without the help of Jesus' blood.
No, it isn't. All those in the Old Testament who were saved, were
saved by Jesus's Blood.
>So,
> was it someone other than God who decided that Jesus' blood was
> necessary?
Nope. You are simply confusing the times. Those who were saved by
Jesus's Blood in the Old Testament were saved in anticipation of the
coming Messiah.
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> > dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy.
>
> Neither of us are dead yet, and we are not on the same page about God,
> so your statement above seems nonsensical.
>
> >And I am even more sure
> > you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
> > I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
> > yours some day.
>
> If God were not real, you might be right. As it is, however, I did
> not give myself faith, and I am not the one keeping me in faith, so
> your idea that it is more likely I would change my mind is also
> nonsense.
>
we have to do this because everything I have said makes perfect sense.
Yet, you seem to have some "convenient" mis-understanding--maybe you
would like to be "conveniently" ignored! Because no-one can have a
productive discussion with you. Do you understand the word
"productive"?
>
> > > Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> > > --- God is just??
>
form?
>
> > No, I'm sure that I don't have any more of a problem than you do in
> > dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy.
>
> Neither of us are dead yet, and we are not on the same page about God,
> so your statement above seems nonsensical.
>
are? You can't see my reality, and I certainly can't see your fantasy.
>
> > And I am even more sure
> > you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
> > I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
> > yours some day.
>
> If God were not real, you might be right. As it is, however, I did
> not give myself faith, and I am not the one keeping me in faith, so
> your idea that it is more likely I would change my mind is also
> nonsense.
>
nonsense?
>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Dec 28, 12:02 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 27, 10:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 27, 10:00 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > > > > > > things as souls.
>
> > > > > > > Isn't that ironic??
>
> > > > > > It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
>
> > > > > Not the ones asking on this group! lol
>
> > > > How can this be known? If souls survive death, what prevents a dead
> > > > person's soul from (rhetorically) asking a living person this
> > > > question?
>
> > > I dunno. Are you positing ghosts? Do the ghosts ask a living person
> > > to type the question, or are we talking poltergeists here?
>
> > I see a ghoul on this group
>
> Where???
The one asking "Where???"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> > > Not when there is a constitutional Justice system.
>
> > Suppose you were in Palestine 2100 years back or in some similar
> > society that exists today. What constitutional Justice system would
> > you find?
>
> Your latest question really points out the dangers of Theistic
> society, doesn't it?
Or the advantages? Just imagine if you could sell the Bill of Rights
to all of China just by convincing the Chinese that Confucius paid you
a visit and gave them to you!
grisha
<gralmgralm@gmail.com>connotation.
Regarding new ideas. If ideas is not predetermined by previous
information and cannot be a regression of previous ideas, it must be
(may be) result of stochastic processes in the brain that generate a
new bits of information and our brain filter nonsense out. People
with too permissive filter are considered to be crazy, with too
strict filter - probably stupid, and with filter with just perfect
balance of permission and restriction - genius. Just wild guess.
On Dec 27, 11:19 am, "Eric Griswold, R.C." <e...@clevian.com> wrote:
> I like Daniel Dennet's monograph: "True believers: the intentional
> strategyu and why it works."
>
> His point is that we can look at any system, and take several stances
> with regard to it.
> We can look at a clock, and take a physical stance: it is made of
> metal, plastic, etc.
> We can take a design stance: it is full of little gears, that are
> designed to turn wheels, etc.
> We can take an intentional stance: the clock "knows" it is 7am, so it
> rings and wakes me up.
>
> All these stances are true, they are just looking at different levels
> of description. When a system is complex, it is simply a more
> economical description to say "the dog *wishes* the squirrel would
> come down from the tree," than to say "sensory neuron bundle c-5 is
> firing in the dog's brain."
>
> Same thing with souls. Brains do complex things, so it is far easier
> to say "Sally (or Sally's soul) longs for her husband to come home,"
> than it is to cite every little firing of the hippocamous and
> stimulation of the limbic system.
>
> The description that a person has a 'soul" is therefore no more true,
> but perhaps a more convenient or economical description of what is
> going on, so if you want to use the word "soul" to explain things, go
> ahead. It is not a different thing from "brain," merely a different
> level of description.
>
> But, just to play devil's advocate and throw out a thought-experiment
> here--
>
> Suppose there were some form of universal consciousness, perhaps the
> sum total of all the bits of information in the universe, entangled in
> some quantum mechanical way.
>
> Now suppose that the brain could act as a sort of receiver, like a
> radio, that could tune into this information source. Perhaps sometimes
> even tuning in inspied ideas, like General Relativity. A bigger,
> better brain might well tune in more sophisticated ideas. If a brain
> were damaged, the information flow would be damaged too-- like
> breaking a radio-- and you would expect the behavioral output to show
> deficits and be faulty. Remove a brain and of course you get nothing,
> like totally destroying a radio.
>
> To me one of the mysteries of consciousness is: where do entirely new
> ideas come from? Ideas that jump entirely outside the computational
> system and cannot be predicted by previous ideas? It is easy to say
> that all ideas arise naturally from pre-existing ideas, but this
> implies an infinite regress to a past source of infinite knowledge---
> an uncomfortable position for an atheist.
>
> Truly creative, de novo ideas like the theta-fuschian functions of
> Poincare, or set theory, or the E4 reconciliation of string theory,
> seem to arise fully formed into the minds of people who receive them.
> One can cite the "unconscious" as the source, but then one has to ask:
> well, how does IT do it?
>
> The concept of "emergent order" is often cited, and yes, complexity
> can arise spontaneously from disorder-- look at a snowflake. This is
> denied by creationists who distort the laws of thermodynamics to claim
> that complex life could never arise from chemicals.... to claim that
> nothing, ever, becomes more complex by itself, which is false to
> fact.
>
> --eric g
George Chalkin
<georgechalkin@gmail.com>> > > society that exists today. What constitutional Justice system would
> > > you find?
>
> > Your latest question really points out the dangers of Theistic
> > society, doesn't it?
>
> Or the advantages? Just imagine if you could sell the Bill of Rights
> to all of China just by convincing the Chinese that Confucius paid you
> a visit and gave them to you!
>
>
On Dec 28, 6:38 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28 2009, 9:35 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 5:13 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:02 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 27, 10:49 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 27, 10:16 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 27, 10:00 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 27, 9:21 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Dec 24, 1:46 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I see many souls on this group demanding proof that there are such
> > > > > > > > things as souls.
>
> > > > > > > > Isn't that ironic??
>
> > > > > > > It depends. Are some of them souls of dead people?
>
> > > > > > Not the ones asking on this group! lol
>
> > > > > How can this be known? If souls survive death, what prevents a dead
> > > > > person's soul from (rhetorically) asking a living person this
> > > > > question?
>
> > > > I dunno. Are you positing ghosts? Do the ghosts ask a living person
> > > > to type the question, or are we talking poltergeists here?
>
> > > I see a ghoul on this group
>
> > Where???
>
> The one asking "Where???"
>
I have a body. I'm not a ghoul.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>> > > > > computer circuitboard - on and off switches.
>
> > > > My point exactly. Nothing in a series of switches is conscious.
>
> > > Depends on what scale you examine them at. Obviously at a certain
> > > level a collection of switches achieves consciousness. Or
> > > unconsciousness, depending on the psychological state of the person.
>
> > Begging the question.
>
> > I guess you have no proof, and are embarrassed to admit it. But it is
> > obvious by now, don't you think?
>
> There's proof right there, and you can't recognize it because you are
> too bent on assuming your conclusion that "soul" exists.
>
> > I have advanced our interior experiences as evidence of our souls.
>
> Renaming nouns is not evidence that souls exist.
>
> > You wish to refute that.
>
> It has been refuted. You are simply taking a noun of a physical
> object, "human," and renaming it "soul." Interesting that humans are
> physical, you define humans as souls, and then you try to say that
> souls are not a physical object. Mental gymnastics are not evidence
> that "soul" exists.
>
> > In order to do so, you will have to account
> > for our interior experiences without evoking anything we would call
> > spiritual, which leaves us with the physical.
>
> I did. The brain, as part of the system that comprises the human body,
> accounts for our interior experiences. There - nothing spiritual about
> that.
>
Only in a "black box" kind of a way. Not an explanation, just a
placeholder in lieu of an explanation.
> > So, you have to account
> > for interior experience entirely on a physical basis.
>
> I did.
>
> > Thus, that is your primary thesis: that experience has its basis
> > entirely in the physical. That is your logical goal; it is that which
> > you are seeking to prove.
>
> Ummm...you are shifting the goalposts. You are asserting that the soul
> exists, and your goal is to prove that. I'm only pointing out that
> your evidence that souls exist, that "humans are souls," is
> insufficient and erroneous, that you are just renaming nouns.
>
> > That is why you cannot use "experience has its basis entirely in the
> > physical" as one of your premises, as that begs the question.
>
> Strawman fallacies are not evidence that I ever said "experience has
> its basis entirely in the physical." I don't even think that. We have
> dreams, daydreams, hallucinations, flights of fancy, drug trips, etc.,
> and while they can all be reduced to the physical (i.e. they are all
> products of brain activity), these are all experiences nevertheless.
> I'm not "begging the question"; you are lying about me.
>
> > You also cannot use its equivalents, to wit,
> > "
> > Q. What does an interior experience of another person look like,
> > exactly?
> > A. Brain activity which can be measured with an EEG.
> > "
>
> At it's fundamental scale this is true. No brain activity, no interior
> experience.
>
> > and,
>
> > "Obviously at a certain level a collection of switches achieves
> > consciousness."
>
> Since we are conscious and the brain is comprised of switches then
> obviously at a certain scale the collection of switches achieves
> consciousness. Consciousness is a brain activity. No brain activity,
> no interior experience. Go ahead, remove your brain if you don't
> believe me.
>
> > The above two statements would be proved by corollary if you ever
> > proved your thesis. But since they are in fact corollaries of your
> > thesis, you cannot assume them as premises.
>
> I didn't present a thesis, you did. You said "humans are souls." I am
> refuting your argument, and you are just shifting the goalposts.
>
> > So --- do you have any arguments for the physical-alone basis of
> > consciousness that do *not* beg the question?
>
> The problem isn't that I'm begging any questions, the problem is that
> you are assuming your conclusion that the soul exists, and you are
> therefore incapable of making accurate scientific observations, one of
> them being "interior activity (which is just mental activity) takes
> place in the brain, and so is obviously a byproduct of the brain."
>
> > If not, we're done
> > here.
>
> Fine. You lose.> > >Get your head out of your
> > > > > scriptures and go study some biology.
>
> > > > > > > You have no valid evidence for
> > > > > > > "soul." You are wrong, as usual.
>
> > > > > > > > It does not even make any sense to call your interior
> > > > > > > > experience an illusion,
>
> > > > > > > It would make sense to call someone's interior experience an illusion
> > > > > > > if they imagine things that aren't real. Schizophrenics are prone to
> > > > > > > doing this, and since you've been diagnosed as a schizophrenic, you
> > > > > > > are prone to doing this. Your claims about "soul" can be rationally
> > > > > > > explained as your schizophrenic delusion, and your schizophrenic
> > > > > > > wishful thinking, because you have no valid evidence that soul
> > > > > > > exists.
>
> > > > > > > > since an illusion would also be an interior
> > > > > > > > experience.
>
> > > > > > > An illusion is a special category of "interior experience" that has no
> > > > > > > valid correspondence to the external world.
>
> > > > > > Close. Since there is an interior world, your qualification of
>
> > ...
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Dec 28 2009, 5:20 pm, George Chalkin <georgechal...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > No, I'm sure that I don't have any more of a problem than you do in
> > > dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy.
>
> > Neither of us are dead yet, and we are not on the same page about God,
> > so your statement above seems nonsensical.
>
> > >And I am even more sure
> > > you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
> > > I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
> > > yours some day.
>
> > If God were not real, you might be right. As it is, however, I did
> > not give myself faith, and I am not the one keeping me in faith, so
> > your idea that it is more likely I would change my mind is also
> > nonsense.
>
> Let me take this from further back in the thread. And I can't believe
> we have to do this because everything I have said makes perfect sense.
> Yet, you seem to have some "convenient" mis-understanding--maybe you
> would like to be "conveniently" ignored! Because no-one can have a
> productive discussion with you. Do you understand the word
> "productive"?
>
Producing something. To your mind, no doubt, a productive discussion
would involve me "seeing the light" and becoming an atheist. But that
ain't gonna happen, since I did not give myself faith and I do not
keep myself in faith.
> > > > Well, I don't have a problem with it at all. So are we in agreement
> > > > --- God is just??
>
> Where did you get this? How am I in agreement in any way, shape, or
> form?
>
Hm, strange that you said we were going further back, but, the context
of this is missing. Restore it, if you want an answer.
> > > No, I'm sure that I don't have any more of a problem than you do in
> > > dying in sin, or in receiving [Gods's] mercy.
>
> > Neither of us are dead yet, and we are not on the same page about God,
> > so your statement above seems nonsensical.
>
> So why bother with the discussion, except to point out how absurd you
> are? You can't see my reality, and I certainly can't see your fantasy.
>
I see reality. I don't know that you do. That is, realistically,
about all I can say about that.
> > > And I am even more sure
> > > you are not in agreement, that God is not real. So why would you think
> > > I might change my mind? I think it more likely that you might change
> > > yours some day.
>
> > If God were not real, you might be right. As it is, however, I did
> > not give myself faith, and I am not the one keeping me in faith, so
> > your idea that it is more likely I would change my mind is also
> > nonsense.
>
> I used to think the same way you do, so why would I think it was
> nonsense?
>
Because of "used to." No one "used to"have authentic faith.
Authentic faith, remains. That is the test of its authenticity.