you just haven’t found the need to propose such supernatural imaginings. — I like sushi
According to theists, I am an atheist, true. But Im not.
So you believe in a “deity”? Do you believe in an “afterlife”? — I like sushi
Mww
660
↪ernestm
I would agree. Granting the conception of soul doesn’t require an opinion concerning the possibility of its existence. That would be a separate, additional, cognition. — Mww
— Mww
I like sushi
777
↪Frank Apisa
I answered the OP’s question precisely.
If you want something else what is it? They said they weren’t “agnostic” because that is an opinion and that they have no opinion about the concept “god” or an “afterlife” - as for “soul” the crack in the door is saying “I cannot know” to which I would say “Cannot know what?”
If they simply don’t care for this then we’re in the field of atheism - as in not being interested in these kinds if questions.
If you have something you wish share about the term “soul” go ahead. I doubt the OP would be upset. — I like sushi
I like sushi
779
↪Frank Apisa
You disregard the “Whatever it is?” — I like sushi
I just dont have an opinion on it. Is there a name for this kind of position? — ernestm
I do not know...is more than an opinion. — Frank Apisa
I like sushi
780
↪Frank Apisa
I least I made an effort to define what I was talking about. To be an atheist is not to believe in, and/or consider the thought of, a deity and/or an afterlife as particularly noteworthy.
Deity means some omnipotent conscious being overarching all reality - ergo an incomprehensible concept (of no use other than negatively). An “afterlife” would be against what we commonly call “life” and would not be, as some frame it, “a life after life” (which is nothing more than wordplay). As for some continuation of consciousness once I’m dead? Seems like the most redundant question there is given that I’ll find out sooner or later (or not at all). I’m certainly not going to live my life according to some unfounded belief in some form of ‘ascension’ because it seems to me a way of saying ‘this isn’t good enough for me and/or I’m better than this life’ which I find delusional, deranged or possibly simply egotistical leading one to live their lives as a vacuous event.
As for “soul” ... I have nothing to say unless someone cares to define it beyond “y’know, a ‘soul’, like when you die your mind continues!” In which case, see above for “afterlife”.
Basically if you cannot define what you’re calling “possible” or “impossible” then what the hell does that mean? Nothing at all. This is because it is like me saying Holding up purple duck in the yerrerish of dubble, easterly of wicksin is POSSIBLE! It doesn’t mean anything.
This is always the problem. That is not to say some people haven’t thought through what they mean by the terms “soul” and “god” it just appears they take it for granted, quite often, that everyone should understand what they mean without any serious, in depth explication.
So, what do you mean when you say “soul” bring possible? Do you know? — I like sushi
Mww
662
I do not know...is more than an opinion. — Frank Apisa
While this is certainly correct, the OP asked about nothing more than the absence of opinion. — Mww
I like sushi
781
↪Frank Apisa
Maybe I’m missing SOMETHING or maybe you are.
I’m not into evasive wordplay. The bottomline is you don’t care to outline what you’re talking about, but insist it is “something”. Like I’ve already stated wwhsnsusuus is also POSSIBLE according to how you use language. I don’t use language in that way.
I get that you appear to treading water. Why? If you make a claim that something is possible fair enough. My question is whether or not “soul” is something anymore than ygghjyff is something? If both are “something” then both are “possible” according to your line of reasoning.
Where have I gone wrong?
It looks very much like you’re trying to entice me down an epistemic rabbit hole. Not interested. — I like sushi
Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...
...then it IS possible.
I like sushi
782
↪Frank Apisa
Picking an argument? What are you asking me to refute? You don’t appear to have strung a single coherent thought together.
I asked repeatedly what the term “soul” means to you and you evaded, and will continue to do so no doubt?
Anyway, can you explain this:
Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...
...then it IS possible.
Which basically says the possibility of the impossible is possible? I’m not quite sure what you term as “reasonable” given you don’t seem inclined to hold to, or express, any particular view on anything. — I like sushi
I can think of a great many things that are impossible. An example would be that it is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the sane time. Generally speaking it is illogical to live by the view that because something is possible we should adhere to it; especially if you say everything is possible, which would mean you’d somehow try to adhere to contradictory claims - which is ironically an impossibility.
See what I mean? I certainly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I am not being argumentative, I’m simply intrigued by the staunch evasion and what it is you think I’m missing? It is possible my view of what you’re saying is wrong - which is no big deal - or that what you’re saying makes no sense, which should concern you more than me I’d say.
What were you hoping from the thread? What is your point, or the point you were hoping for? Can you express it so we can start afresh here or elsewhere?
Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.
My bad. I thought you did.
Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...
...then it IS possible.
I like sushi
783
↪Frank Apisa
The OP was more than the title. Explicitly the mention of being labelled an “agnostic” and not having an opinion is not to be concerned about said item. In the mind of the the person posing the question of “agnostic?” they are mistaken.
I made the point, made by a number of other people over time, that an atheist doesn’t believe in a “deity” and/or “afterlife”. You don’t have to have an opinion NOT to belief in something other people know of. Clearly if I had no concept of a “cat” I wouldn’t believe in a cat. The scale of believability comes with comprehension.
“People,” myself at least, started talking response to the OP not merely the title. If you think to say “I don’t have an opinion about war,” our opinion is stated in that utterance. That is your opinion about ‘war’ is that you don’t care to address it NOT that you don’t understand what war is.
If the person says “I have no opinion about the existence of the soul” they are either questioning the point of addressing what ‘existence’ means or ‘soul’ - or perhaps ‘belief’?
Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.
My bad. I thought you did.
Apparently not because I was being generous in my reading of this:
Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...
...then it IS possible.
I’ll try again. Maybe you mean the “idea of the soul” is impossible? You’ll have to give an example of what is or isn’t a “reasonable definition” ... I am not saying ‘ideas’ are impossible, but I would argue that it is more than possible to believe you have a ‘reasonable definition’ when you don’t. We’ve all been there at some point in our lives where we realise a certain understanding of some given concept we’ve been carry around was actually rather facile.
Bear with me. Doing my best here! If the vitriol helps keep spitting it out too (genuinely no problem there) — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.