The Soul

[bilby]

Atheists are not atheistic 'in the name of science.'

You've been corrected on this and the correction stands, whether you understand it enough to update your bias or not.

Well, I disagree. IMO science is the misused crutch of the militant atheist. Just look around you old buddy.

Science is a methodology for acquiring knowledge. It is the only one that seems to work effectively; all the others are prone to far higher levels of error.

Interestingly, 'Just look around you old buddy' is one part of the methodology of science; We call that part 'observation'.

You may not use science formally, but you certainly use it informally, without even being aware of it. If you used it more, you would not have been so easily misled into your current state of belief in utter tripe.

 

[DLH]

so if I say the soul is a lexical tool to promote a greater truth, you'd agree?

Okay.

what is the greater truth you are trying to argue?

The Bible is misunderstood.

 

[none]

Okay.

what is the greater truth you are trying to argue?

The Bible is misunderstood.

so you are promoting that there is a context where the Bible is indeed understood, great... what is it, what is the context where the Bible is understood?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheists are not atheistic 'in the name of science.'

You've been corrected on this and the correction stands, whether you understand it enough to update your bias or not.

Well, I disagree. IMO science is the misused crutch of the militant atheist. Just look around you old buddy.

I have.
I have corrected many atheists who claim that science disproves god.
And i have seen many other sciencey atheists correct such atheists, and correct theists who think that all atheists think science disproves god.

I've also seen when a sciencey person says 'Evolutionary theory shows that we don't need to appeal to the actions of any gods to explain where mankind came from.' And a theist READS it as 'science disproves god,' and reacts inaccordingly.

So, you could drop your appeals to what you think and what you think would be obvious if i were to 'look around,' and maybe pony up some sort of surveys to support your claims? Or anything, really.

 

[Sajara]

As a mechanical engineer...I not only follow the scientific method in my daily work life, but I also have used it to solve many real world, complex problems. Science works bitches.

 

[Keith&Co.]

As a mechanical engineer...I not only follow the scientific method in my daily work life, but I also have used it to solve many real world, complex problems. Science works bitches.

I actually work in the military industrial complex....and use science to troubleshoot industrial military applications.

 

[DLH]

Well, I disagree. IMO science is the misused crutch of the militant atheist. Just look around you old buddy.

I have.
I have corrected many atheists who claim that science disproves god.
And i have seen many other sciencey atheists correct such atheists, and correct theists who think that all atheists think science disproves god.

I've also seen when a sciencey person says 'Evolutionary theory shows that we don't need to appeal to the actions of any gods to explain where mankind came from.' And a theist READS it as 'science disproves god,' and reacts inaccordingly.

So, you could drop your appeals to what you think and what you think would be obvious if i were to 'look around,' and maybe pony up some sort of surveys to support your claims? Or anything, really.

You just did it for me. And good for you.

 

[DLH]

so you are promoting that there is a context where the Bible is indeed understood, great... what is it, what is the context where the Bible is understood?

I guess that we need to respect each other's position as being a valid alternative one to our own, through self education to promote tolerance for each other's position.

 

[none]

so you are promoting that there is a context where the Bible is indeed understood, great... what is it, what is the context where the Bible is understood?

I guess that we need to respect each other's position as being a valid alternative one to our own, through self education to promote tolerance for each other's position.

what makes yours valid, that you say it has to have metaphors to be true, what makes that valid?
what makes it a necessity for the Bible to have metaphors?

 

[DLH]

what makes yours valid, that you say it has to have metaphors to be true, what makes that valid?
what makes it a necessity for the Bible to have metaphors?

What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

 

[none]

what makes yours valid, that you say it has to have metaphors to be true, what makes that valid?
what makes it a necessity for the Bible to have metaphors?

What are you talking about? Where did I say that?

Does the Bible need metaphors to be true? i.e. talking snake that is not a talking snake, morning that is not morning, and evening that is not evening all in Genesis....

 

[DLH]

I think this thread has long ago served it's purpose and is meandering about the general area. I'm going to finish my participation in it unless anyone would remind me that there are any posts or points I failed to address, in which case I will try and do that. Lets move on?

 

[none]

I think this thread has long ago served it's purpose and is meandering about the general area. I'm going to finish my participation in it unless anyone would remind me that there are any posts or points I failed to address, in which case I will try and do that. Lets move on?

you had potential, just about used all of it up with this^ post...

 

[DLH]

Does the Bible need metaphors to be true? i.e. talking snake that is not a talking snake, morning that is not morning, and evening that is not evening all in Genesis....

First of all, you said that I said something that I didn't say. I never said that "it has to have metaphors to be true," that makes no sense. I never said that.

It may be a case of English being your second language, and I'm trying to be patient in that case, but to ask me if the Bible would "need metaphors to be true" like earlier when you asked me a similar question, it seems ambiguous.

The Bible doesn't need metaphors but it does employ them for obvious reasons. Its very useful. Jesus explained this.

Matthew 13:10-15 So the disciples came and said to him: "Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?" In reply he said: "To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it.  And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see.  For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

 

[Juma]

I have corrected many atheists who claim that science disproves god..

Maybe you have but that doesnt make you right though.
Science shows that the abrahamitic god as depicted in the bible is impossible. But you maybe meant something else?

 

[none]

Does the Bible need metaphors to be true? i.e. talking snake that is not a talking snake, morning that is not morning, and evening that is not evening all in Genesis....

First of all, you said that I said something that I didn't say. I never said that "it has to have metaphors to be true," that makes no sense. I never said that.

It may be a case of English being your second language, and I'm trying to be patient in that case, but to ask me if the Bible would "need metaphors to be true" like earlier when you asked me a similar question, it seems ambiguous.

The Bible doesn't need metaphors but it does employ them for obvious reasons. Its very useful. Jesus explained this.

Matthew 13:10-15 So the disciples came and said to him: "Why do you speak to them by the use of illustrations?" In reply he said: "To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. For whoever has, more will be given him, and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it.  And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see.  For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

nice,
If you are going to plagiarize a book you might as well add some interesting lore to it, right?
Do you believe in talking snakes and that morning and evening in the Genesis account are metaphors? and for what reason do you believe they are metaphors? and do you believe everything you read?
BTW Jesus' existence is debatable

 

[Keith&Co.]

Science shows that the abrahamitic god as depicted in the bible is impossible. But you maybe meant something else?

Science can address individual claims, sure. And logic can evaluate contradicting claims, descriptions, definitions, quotations and public appearance schedules.

But the concept of god himself (or herself)(or themselves)(or Yargluffalooo) being supernatural, puts such things beyond the ability of science to measure or identify or disprove. Science being a tool to measure nature, it's just the wrong tool to measure divinity. Like using an ohmmeter to test the wind speed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As has been said many times before: "Invisible is the same color as nonexistent." The religionist can safely say anything he/she fancies about deities, angels, paracletes, souls, because none of these things manifest like a lab slide or a photograph.
So that's what they do -- they pull categoricals out of their asses and canonize them to make them 'permanent.'
More interesting to me:
1- Does the Bible actually teach explicitly about the features and capabilities of the soul? What are the key texts?
2- How do believers who have relatives who died from or with Alzheimers reconcile what they saw with the existence of a soul? I've seen it up close. There is a complete, total, utter disintegration of the self. Memory, custom, language, activity, personality vanish. But I'm supposed to believe on the testimony of the faithful that the ravaged human I'm looking at still has a responsive soul inside, with his/her "essence" somehow there, that the deity can commune with, in the Disney -- excuse me, Christian Heaven World (TM)?

 

[DLH]

As has been said many times before: "Invisible is the same color as nonexistent." The religionist can safely say anything he/she fancies about deities, angels, paracletes, souls, because none of these things manifest like a lab slide or a photograph.
So that's what they do -- they pull categoricals out of their asses and canonize them to make them 'permanent.'
More interesting to me:
1- Does the Bible actually teach explicitly about the features and capabilities of the soul? What are the key texts?
2- How do believers who have relatives who died from or with Alzheimers reconcile what they saw with the existence of a soul? I've seen it up close. There is a complete, total, utter disintegration of the self. Memory, custom, language, activity, personality vanish. But I'm supposed to believe on the testimony of the faithful that the ravaged human I'm looking at still has a responsive soul inside, with his/her "essence" somehow there, that the deity can commune with, in the Disney -- excuse me, Christian Heaven World (TM)?

Again, you are talking about the Christian concept of the immortal soul which comes from the Greek philosophy of Socrates and Plato. That isn't the Bible's concept of the soul.

 

[braces_for_impact]

so you are promoting that there is a context where the Bible is indeed understood, great... what is it, what is the context where the Bible is understood?

I guess that we need to respect each other's position as being a valid alternative one to our own, through self education to promote tolerance for each other's position.

That depends. The belief in a soul has caused a lot of trouble in the past, and continues to do so today. A belief that is unsupported such as this, and causes this much mayhem in our society should be discarded. You can't demonstrate this non-material form. You can't demonstrate so much as a possible mechanism for how the soul/mind interface works. You can't observe it in any way, and any hypothesis proposed by a duelist can also be hypothesized and explained by natural mechanisms in the real world. The soul is like God. It's definition has changed over time, it has many different definitions depending on who you ask, it's capable or being so vague as to defy description and curiously, also so vague as to defy criticism. The soul like God, gets smaller and smaller as time goes on and we learn more about how the real world and the brain works. You are a meatbag. Get used to it.