147 replies to this topic

[The Silver Thong]

Lumpino, on 12 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Well, but evocation is not blind faith. See you Iamblichus, or similar books. (see above).
Blind faith is believing without a proof............

Extremly dangerous as that can be used to manipulate. That is why religion still has it`s hand around so many necks.  Thanks again for proving my point.

[Lumpino]

The Silver Thong, on 12 July 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Extremly dangerous as that can be used to manipulate. That is why religion still has it`s hand around so many necks.  Thanks again for proving my point.

Extremly dangerous? Whit People who try experiments according old mystical and magical books nobody can manipulate.
You can only manipulate ignorant people.

[VC-10]

Imaginarynumber1, on 12 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

I can see everything else and have proof of it's existence. All but that soul, of course. No evidence there. Nope. Not a bit.
No matter how many times or how many ways you say it, it's just not there, because it is fictitious.

You can deny having one all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you do have one. A soul is within you, through every fibre, synapse, and cell. You seem to think that to acknowledge your soul is to believe in a deity with a white beard and flowing gown. Not so. The reality of a soul is not nor should it be a threat to your core beliefs.

[The Silver Thong]

Lumpino, on 12 July 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Well, but evocation is not blind faith. See you Iamblichus, or similar books. (see above).
Blind faith is believing without a proof............

so what you are saying is that praying for anothers death in favor of the god you believe in makes your god the real god if you may win. Ancient and does not applie one bit to modern society.  Like Karma wishing god to to avenge the wrongs you personaly feel. Garbage

[The Silver Thong]

Lumpino, on 12 July 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

Extremly dangerous? Whit People who try experiments according old mystical and magical books nobody can manipulate.
You can only manipulate ignorant people.

Not sure about the white people thing but ya. Ignorance plays a big part in religion and control.

[WilliamW]

Lumpino, on 12 July 2012 - 06:20 AM, said:

You can only manipulate ignorant people.

Otherwise it is a partnership.

Edited by WilliamW, 12 July 2012 - 06:45 AM.

[Karlis]

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 04:30 AM, said:

Have you actually died, not just a NDE?? Well, come back again and tell us all about it...and we'll compare notes. Sounds fair?

braveone2u, are you saying that you have actually and literally died -- and your body decomposed? If so, could you please elaborate as to how you are now alive?

[Imaginarynumber1]

VC-10, on 12 July 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

You can deny having one all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you do have one. A soul is within you, through every fibre, synapse, and cell. You seem to think that to acknowledge your soul is to believe in a deity with a white beard and flowing gown. Not so. The reality of a soul is not nor should it be a threat to your core beliefs.

While it's nice that you believe to know what I think, I can assure you that your 'soul' does nothing to what I may or may not believe.
You are the one making the claim. I simply ask you to prove it. You can't. You cannot provide one empirical piece of evidence for a soul, can you? No, of course you can't. And no offense, but better men than you have tried. So you may as well drop it because short of showing me a soul in some measurable capacity, you will never convince me that it is not anymore fictitious than the giant turtle that lives under my couch.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 12 July 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[Mr Walker]

Any entity which has a human level sapience/self awareness or higher, has a soul,  even an artificial  Intellogence. For example does it know good from evil (creative from destructive) Does it have a knowledge of cause and consequence Does it understand that it is the same as all others of its type/ species/? Can it empathise, love and hate, as intellectual constructs not just emotional ones? CAn it forgive?  Especially significant, is it capapble of feeling guilt?

Does it have the ability to make free willed choices knowing what the consequences of those choices will be? ANd so forth. If an entity has these qualities, then it has a soul. It can grow that soul or it can shrivel it, and even "destroy" it.

The soul begins, perhaps before birth but certainly at birth, as part of human intelligence/self awareness.It grows evolves and develops as we nurture educate and care for it. It dies when a human loses self awareness. But just maybe it can be restored or resurrected or transferred. So far that is a matter for faith, but in a decade or two it will be achievable through science. Our soul will become very very long lived,  capable of being stored, replicated, transferred and duplicated, so that it need never be really lost.

Every functioning human has a soul, and as far as we can measure scientifically, no other entity in the universe does. Eventually many machines and animals on earth will develop souls, and face the hard decisions faced by every human every day. I would guess there are alien beings all over the universe who have souls.
The proof of a soul is simple The word soul is just a word attachment to a certain property, like nail or dog, but also a property like love.  Nail and dog are physical properties; love and soul are abstract properties, but none the less they are real,  measurable, existent, and clearly evident. If you really want to argue that "souls" do not exist, then you have to argue, and prove, that "love" as we understand it in human terms does not exist. Lots of luck with that.

The human soul is as real, and in its way as physical, as human love. Actually they are co-evolved properties of human sapient self- awareness and thus of our nature.

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 July 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[markdohle]

The Silver Thong, on 12 July 2012 - 04:36 AM, said:

What a long ranting post to try to state your beliefe is right. Take a second to think they are all wrong and man made for agenda. If god was about the human race he would be able to show he was about the human race. He has failed in every possible way.

sorry ment for Bluefinger

He was not ranting at all, the one that started this thread was the one that I believe ranted.  His response (bluefingers) was well thought out and presented.  If you don't agree, that is good, I would not expect you to ;-), but that does not mean it was a rant.  His conclusion was also well worth looking into by everyone, that includes me.

peace
mark

[Rlyeh]

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

It's a fact because you are "awareness," or soul.

It's also a fact your awareness can be supressed or turned off. Does that mean you cease to exist?

[Bluefinger]

The Silver Thong, on 12 July 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

My dis like of religion spans more then your trust in it believe me. Get off your high horse for a second as you seem to think you are some speaker for a god I nor many, half the world does not believe in. so please.  I see you like to use god to attack people on a personal level, very typical yet not suprising.

  Where was my personal attack?  What I said was just an observation of what you said.  You characterized everything I said in my initial response as a 'rant.'  I thought there was a lot of good info in there.  So, no, saying that you are antagonistic toward religion, Christianity, in general, is not a personal attack.  It is an observation of the evident.

Quote

Your assumption god has failed me is evidience of your ignorance of a none believer just because one is told to believe with nothing to believe in.  Why do you think that is a good tacktic....

  My assumption?  You said it yourself that God failed.

But as to what you said about being told to believe with nothing to believe in, I wouldn't tell you to argue against your logic.

Quote

  Tell me where god has not failed and belief in a deity has succeded.

  It depends on what you mean by failed or succeed.  If you notice, you are establishing a frame work of thought when you make that accusation.  If by failed you that he didn't end corruption, mandate how the rich use their money, and end the rage of gangs, then perhaps God has failed.  And that is a good thing.  Because those people have chances to repent.  If he succeeded, I get a feeling you would call him a barbarian.

If by success you mean that God has inspired millions of missionaries to look after the Ugandans, Kenyans, Columbians, Cubans, Africans, and many more, then I would say that God has succeeded.  He has loved both the good and the evil, which is a far greater success than anyone on this forum can boast of.  I believe that God has succeeded.

Quote

Don`t assume I blaim a god for anything as I do not believe in a god and for better reason why would anyone. Your god is yours, organize it then it becomes mine. Religion is not a choice if you make it political and thats all religion is now, political. Hence my former coment to control.

When you inspire people to call out the corruption in their own society, which religion often does (especially Christianity), then it is always political. For those who have the better will seek to keep it from from those who seek it.  In the cases of antiquity, the revolutionaries did not want freedom from the bourgeois, they wanted the freedom of the bourgeois.

I think you mean to say that when religion infringes on your rights to live life how you see fit, then it becomes a problem.  Am I not correct?

What I see is not the result of atheism, but the result of upbringing, education, and experience.  It is exactly because you are a Westerner that you value independence and freedom far more than, say, the Japanese.  You were most likely brought up to value those things.  Seeing that, are you really certain that you know the truth about God and what is important, or is it just your upbringing, education, and experience?  And if the latter, is that okay?

And if okay, then aren't those you feel most apprehensive toward doing the exact same thing?

[Beckys_Mom]

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 01:04 AM, said:

It's a fact because you are "awareness," or soul.

It is called - Consciousness..it is from the brain that is still living, which is responsible for helping us feel awareness of many things... It cannot work if you are dead, if you believe it does after you die, then it is just a belief you hold while you are still alive.. it is not proof for all to observe ( meaning scientific proof ) .. All you have been demonstrating  here is a belief you hold, and it is a belief that many hold, but it can't be proven facts.. . You trying to call that proof of a soul  fails ..You cannot ever prove a soul exists.. all you have going for you is a mere belief..  

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

Just like death, it's always there. And death is part of all religions.

Death is part of life  for all.. not just religions..

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Like I said, I'm the right person to ask

I know you aren't... just like I know  no one else is.. No man can prove the soul exists.. it is  ( once again )  just part of some peoples choice of beliefs...People who believe in the afterlife and even heaven ect, will believe that the soul exists.. but it can't be proven for the living here and now to actually observe..   Everything you mention in ref to the soul is merely just you speaking about what you chose to hold beliefs in..  Facts do not have a place in supernatural beliefs ...if they did, they wouldn't be called supernatural ..  I believe the soul exists, but I am well aware that it is only my choice to hold that belief..I am smart enough to know it is not proven fact...

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 12 July 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[Bluefinger]

Arbenol68, on 12 July 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Of course there are consequences to how we live our lives.

  Not that I disagree with you, but I want to explore this matter regarding the atheist humanist:  What, while claiming that life has meaning, gives him the justification to say that there is no God?  Meaning is always established in an order of hierarchy.  I give this computer purpose, it does not purpose itself.  Its importance is assigned by me.  When you remove that factor the human equation, then there is truly (in reality) no consequence to how we live our lives.  As timothy said in one of his posts, we are not that significant in the grand scheme of things.  If one were to look at our galaxy as a whole, they would not even notice our planet, much less the strife and agony occurring between the people there, it would justify what timothy said.

So, how can the humanist justify his claims?  What grounds?  Logic?  Who's logic?  A dead man's or one that will die?  And from this ground, it appears insufficient for me to agree with.  Men that question the grounds by which Christians believe question it from a worldview that has often never been criticized.  It seems like a big contradiction to me.  I interpret the humanist as saying what is important to him, and I see it all as a vanity if he is right.  If there is no God, then by what right, other than the one we give ourselves, do we have to criticize the way others live?  In the end, we will all end up the same.

Quote

Only, the consequences are in this life. What has more value?

  The question I would pose then, "Is life submit to our authority that we give it meaning or does life submit to one higher that we should be given meaning?"  If the former, then isn't life only as important as each man gives it and not truly important in reality?  If the latter, then are we not guilty of usurping God in the lives of others?

Quote

Doing what is right because you fear the wrath of God when you're dead, or doing what is right simply because it's the right thing to do? What kind of moral high ground can someone take if they have to be threatened to behave?

I completely agree.  There is no love in fear and no humanity in slavery to it.  I don't think God ever intended for us to remain in fear.  Christian thought did not develop along one line of thought and the history of the Christianity you often see is not a simple story.  To know it may free you from weak interpretations of Christian theology.

[Beckys_Mom]

braveone2u, on 12 July 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

There's a difference between awareness versus "awareness." "Awareness" is that consciousness after the body is dead, not just in this material plane of existence.

No...that is called a belief and how you want to see it... As you cannot ever ( in the month of Sunday ) prove this... then it will remain a belief and not proven fact ...  You can believe it is fact for you, but that doesn't in any way prove to everyone else that it is an actual fact.. To make it an actual scientific fact.. it would need to be something the living can actually observe.

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 12 July 2012 - 02:22 PM.