Arguments for the soul's existence...

the meaning of life from a negative perspective is the repeatedly pushing a rock up a hill only to allow it rollover your toes and having to do it all over again.....sheesh! [Samsara] [the punishment Sisyphus got for betrayal of his God Zeus]

in a more positive note:
The meaning of life is the act of living. A meaning in action...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Says he's on... Weird.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Persephone, my love, what say thou? Should we act or stay our wrath for one more day?"

note: I happen to know a real live Persephone living nearby

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you ok tnerb?

 

Dave will be ok ...not to worry...just transient possession

 

Of course. TY.

 

I would recommend that you change your handle to something more reflective of the true you. It may help in the future.
Or you may decide to risk it and keep this sisyphus handle a while longer just to make sure .
up to you.....of course

 

You're right, I have considered that a long time ago actually.
Maybe tnerb.

 

So One_Raven and other readers ...you want some evidence of a soul. Both sisyphus and davewhite have demonstrated transient possession unless they would care to offer a different explanation for their behaviour in recent posts.
Review prior posts by Dave and assess recent ones and you will see what I mean.


Break God's kneck ....indeed!

 

The problem is that you aren't listening as you repeat you beliefs over and over. Everyone knows you are an atheist, so what's the point of telling us?

The physical existence of Jesus is not and has not been part of this thread. Apparaantly atheists are intellectually challenged to examine the character of Jesus as a fictional personna created by the authors of the bible, without saying "he's fiction". They keep saying it over and over. I can imagine one of them going to a Shakespere play and saying "but Hamlet is fiction" every five minutes. I'd call the theater management, and the audience would think they're kind of kookie too..

bump. ignore.

 

No, this thread isn't about Atheists and [Religious People], but the existence of the soul.

It's commical to watch theists ignore atheists because of a .. what's the word is it sadistic/maschoistic.. whatever.... form of psychosis. It's like defending all sorts of bobane and rediculious beliefs to the point of pure crazyness. Jesus has not much a part in this. Only the non existance or existance of a soul matters. The bible is your holy grail, take that to the courts. (what kind of courts I wonder?)

Bump.

 

*************
M*W: Oh, but I do listen. I listen very carefully.

*************
M*W: You don't get it. When I read about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn floating on the raft down the river, I can imagine myself being right there with them, experiencing everything they experience, but still know they are fictional characters in a book. That's what I call good writing. Good writing makes you a part of the story regardless if the characters are fictional or not.

Why does it upset you so much about what atheists don't believe? That somehow proves you wrong, doesn't it?

 

Yes I did, to an extent, but I didn't go off on a tangent, stating things like the colt was returned at the end of use. jesus had been there previously to arrange it etc etc...What I stated was directly to do with the scripture ie ("33: And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? (note:why are you taking my colt/stealing my colt)
34: And they said, The Lord hath need of him. (note:so it seem they stood there dumbfounded, or were beaten down, or anything else but most certainly not through jesus arranging it earlier, unless he sent a message by pony express.)")

Well done! you can actually learn some morality from your parents, peers, the media. However we are born with an innate ethics of reciprocity, as we are social animals.

I never said that I said. I would not base my life on one source, a "BOOK", as what is deemed moral to you may not be deemed moral to the next man, I'll stick with the ethics of reciprocity. (What it tells me is right in my heart.)

But of course, as long as you can tell the difference. ( some people actually think that soap stars are the characters they portray.)

That is your perogative.

But it seems that over 70% of abortions are by christian woman, (Thats 29,400,000 a year, or 80,000 a day murdered by christians)
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil 115/Stats_on_abortion.htm
and 18% of those are born again evanglists. http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
64% are unmarried mothers.

Well technical yes, as you are to the other 2850 gods. (Not including the hindus)

Say what.

 

This was an experiment. Please let me explain.

This thread is about the soul and whether it indeed exists. Many of us believe personal character [*1] is a defining attribute of the soul [*2]. Character requires a conscience [*3] and this differentiates the human species from other species.

[*1] noun: the inherent complex of attributes that determine a persons moral and ethical actions and reactions

[*2] 5 a: the moral and emotional nature of human beings

[*3] noun: motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions

As you can see from the definitions these concepts are entertwined.

Hence I ran an experiment to see if any atheist could objectively evaluate what CHARACTER is. I gave Jesus and Hamlet as examples, and proposed the gospel accounts were fictional writings by the authors and that Jesus is a fictional character. I think everyone here agrees that Hamlet is a fictional account.

No atheist has been able to get past "Jesus is just fiction" though that point was conceded to the atheists from the very beginning. The gospel authors intended Jesus as a morally good hero, yet the atheist readers get ideas such as he's really a thief. However I conceded he was just fiction and the gospel authors did not intend Jesus to be a thief, so how could atheists come to such a conclusion. This is all fiction isn't it? (according to them). Hence, an atheist can not differentiate character in a fictional writing where the motives are made known by the authors.

If an atheist can not rationally evaluate fictional CHARACTER (that somebody made up), how can they rationally evaluate real character or the concept of a SOUL? It's a show-stopper for them. In addition the soul has no material existence that we know of. There are too many obsticles.

Hence it is hopeless to discuss the concept of a soul with an atheist. Think about it. :shrug:

 

*************
M*W: You don't have a clue. Atheists are able to discuss any subject you choose, regardless of their personal beliefs. It's not necessary to believe in that which is being discussed. Believing in something is not a prerequisite to discussing it.

There have been several threads discussing the soul to which atheists have replied. Some atheists don't believe a soul exists. It depends on the definition of "soul." I personally think what others call the "soul" is biophysical energy in the human body. Even animals have it! I don't think it has anything to do with religion. We're not born with religion, but we are born with biophysical energy that leaves our body or dies with it.

You have the opinion that atheists couldn't possibly know about or discuss the soul. You're wrong.

 

When you open your statements with denials, there can be no dialogue.

To illustrate the concept of a soul (which contains motives) I offered fictional characters (where the motives of the character were made known by the authors beforehand).

In the real world we don't have perfect knowledge of a person's motives, but in a fictional account we can have perfect knowledge of the fictional character because the authors provide it. Incidently, people over-rate their own character in the real world. So character is imperfect knowledge in the real world even when you look at your own character. When people are placed in a very trying situation, they often behave differently from the character they think they have.

If you can't work with perfect knowledge to describe character, there is no hope of resolving imperfect knowledge. Hence there is no point in continuing.

 

tnerb, you will notice no doubt how posters are choosing to ignore the interesting exchange between you and davewhite and I on the previous page...
any thoughts?

 

Not really

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I expected them to ignore it, and get on with the Will Nye the Science Guy's postings. Rambling and hoping to achieve some form of debate.

 

indeed. I've come to a similar conclusion. It seems the elevator here can't get off the first floor.

good luck...

 

Could be said I guess that they refuse to acknowledge it. It's kind of typical I think. So I ask everyone else why you ignore it?