Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.
— John Harris

Right.. people have opinions about different things. It doesn't require consent. All you pointed out was that we differ on the opinion which was already a given. So these seem like pointless words... Lots of points.

No, I pointed out far much more than that; I'm sorry you're having reading problems. So, the only pointless words were all yours.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.
— John Harris

you've made your last argument many times, Harris. One no one has combatted.

It's how I Interpreted what he was saying-- and why I replied good point.

No, I've had to make it a second time because of your hollow, erroneous "oh, my" post. If you didn't want a response, you should have avoided posting the erroneous statements you made there. And I had every reason to point out it wasn't a good point, since even what you thought he interpreted was a considerably faulty point.

Oh my. Relax John Harris. It could be a good point to me for many reasons, even if simply to think about it and debunk it. You've still made your point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really. ]

Oh my. Relax, Locks. You said "good point," which means "good point," and I pointed out it wasn't. Using your faulty logic, one could say "good point" when someone says "puppies are meant to be drowned," then just claim they had their own "private" reason. And "oh my" is such pretentious theatrics, which hardly helped your erroneous point.

Apart from that, I don't think Janus was asserting that the soul actually exists without being found. Only that some natural things could actually be incapable of finding with the resources available or some lack of technology or many reasons really.

Whatever he meant is irrelevant--we never know what anybody means--what he said in the context of the discussion did make the defense of the soul being able to be found. if he wasn't doing so, he would have just been trolling. And if it couldn't be found without the immense scientific resources available, then nobody could assert it's natural existence anyway. It would be like saying unicorns, angels, and the Djinn exist, and nobody can say they don't because they just haven't been found.

There used to be a time when more (secular)folk had a clue what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And since you haven't shown you have such a clue, you're griping about yourself.

This claim is founded on an unsupported assumption; that everything that is "natural" is capable of being "found".
— Janus

Good point, though I don't think it's an unsupported assumption, however supported assumptions don't make them absolute. Undoubtedly some natural things haven't been found or defined yet, but could be capable of being.

Actually, it's not a good point since my assertion was founded on the notion one couldn't assert something existed until it was found, not that everything that is natural is capable of being found.
And secondly, his statement itself is erroneous since, as you noted, even if I had made that assumption, it would have been a significantly valid one even if not absolutely proven. And finally, if people could assert something existed without it being found, one could assert God, the Easter bunny, angels, or even the soul could exist. That's why something being actually found is vital.

Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating.
— John Harris

I don't know of any form of demonstration other than a logical demonstration, though we often use physical objects as props. This is what is commonly referred to as justification.

Then you've never seen an actual physical demonstration of reality, as in you've never seen a car drive or plane fly. Those are physical demonstrations showing the calculations and machinery used could make something fly. You've clearly never seen someone have illness either. As the symptoms of those illnesses are used to diagnose those illnesses. Those are physical, scientific demonstrations far above logical demonstrations that can be used to theorize, but not show, God or a soul exists.

What Plato did was demonstrate why we needed to assume the existence of the soul. It seems quite clear that you are not familiar with these demonstrations, so you are offhandedly dismissing them as theorizing.

No he didn't. The theorized what he thought the soul was. Nobody saw the soul or detected it in any way through his theory. And as someone who graduated from a Jesuit Honors program in college, I assure you I am far more familiar with Plato's demonstrations than you. What is your education anyway?

I didn't say that you couldn't know the existence of the Mississippi River. I asked, if you encountered a river, how would you know that it is the Mississippi River without referring to theory. You replied that you'd refer to science (theory), or else appeal to authority.

I answered that question. And I asked you, if you encountered your parents, how would you know they were your parents without referring to theory. You still haven't been able to answer that, showing the fallacy of your original question.

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities.
— John Harris

Again, you demonstrate your selfish bias. For you perhaps, scientific verification is necessary, but this is not necessary for many people, and that is demonstrated by religion. So we clearly have consensual agreement on the existence of entities without scientific verification. The fact that you exclude yourself from that consensual agreement in no way negates it. It just excludes you from it.

Again you show you're an angry, hostile person who cant' make an argument without making personal attacks. And my position is the rational one; the only selfish bias is yours. And disagreement on method isn't consensual agreement. What we do have in this world is the educated (are you?) understanding that we do not accept something exists until it has been scientifically demonstrated. You're free to believe in angels and the Easter Bunny, and your parents are your parents, but you can't impose that on the consensual agreement you exclude yourself from.

You may have noticed that Thanatos imagines himself to be the Defender-Of-Science.

You may have noticed that Michael Ossipoof is making lame personal attacks, which makes him a troll.

...wanting to apply science outside of its legitimate range of applicability--the workings of this physical world and the interactions of its parts.

...trying to make science into a metaphysics, or even a religion.

I never did either of these things, and Ossipoff the troll didn't show I did.

Thanatos is much too far-gone to talk to, but I just wanted to make this comment.

And here Ossipoff is both hilariously projecting and showing he is, again, the sad troll making erroneous personal attacks.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it.

And this isn't an assertion; it is a crafted argument. However, feel free to counter and show how the experience of one person can speak for an entire group.

Finally. You make up for diligence in what you lack in incisiveness.

See:

↪Noble Dust
This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on. I already made the distinction later on in that post.

↪Noble Dust
What I mean is that you're making assertions instead of crafting an argument.

↪Noble Dust
As you've offered no actual points for me to address here.

↪Noble Dust
This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on.

↪Noble Dust
You continue to generalize

The main difference is my statements are true.

What I mean is that you're making assertions instead of crafting an argument. — Noble Dust

No, that's been you, and you did it again in your quote above.

↪Noble Dust

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here.


↪Noble Dust
>:O


↪Noble Dust

I have experienced Christianity this way, so it must be that way for everyone.

I

I dunno, I guess we're done debating this topic? As you've offered no actual points for me to address here.

Actually, I have--in my last post, and in the post before where you ignored the part below. But since you've offered no actual points, we're definitely done.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it.

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong,
— John Harris

Yes, you can disagree, but you'd be wrong, and no childish--are you over 18?--emolji changes that.

You continue to generalize. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience?

I continue to generalize because you continued to generalized in the bold quote below. The only difference is my generalizations are accurate. Are your generalizations based on pew research data or something, or are they based on your personal experience? Because personal experience certainly wouldn't suffice.

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here.

John Harris Yes I see what you mean, but it certainly is true that these leaders either knowingly or unknowingly try to invoke this kind of feelings of shame.

No, mostly they don't, and if they do go negative it's usually on "guilt,' not "shame"...very different things. The reality is most Christians, including American ones, don't want to be told how awful they are all, or even a lot of the time. The biggest sellers of Christianity are "you're special," "you're going to a good place," and "you have a God who loves you." They may mix in some guilt here or there, but not enough to hurt attendance.

Nah.

Noble Dust Based on my own experience with American Protestantism and their leaders like John Piper, John MacArthur, etc. I must say that I agree with you here too

Again personal experience is never enough to speak for the realities of the group. Using that logic, a woman who was raped by a police officer could say all police officers rape women.

I disagree, but again, we're making wide sweeping statements here

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong, and when you disagree you are making wide sweeping statements here, so I guess we'll keep making them.

My personal experience within Christian protestantism revealed a hidden shame that was lying underneath the outward exuberance. And that shame is latent in the way the American church at large interprets scripture, I think.

Anyone should know that personal anecdotal experience is not sufficient evidence to speak for a group. And no, it does not--except the fundamentalists--hide a hidden shame or interpret scripture to find it, and most Christians don't go looking for it.

I would say we should both avoid making such a gestalt. But if we were to comment on that gestalt/zeitgeist of the faith, then I would say most, particularly most American, Christians do see themselves in a exalted, not a degraded, state because of their Christian faith.

A notable exception would be traditional--not so much contemporary--Irish Catholicism that does focus on the negative, fallen state and the torments of sin.

So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state.
— John Harris

This is theologically true, but not really the case in the general zeitgeist of the faith, which is what I was commenting on. I already made the distinction later on in that post.

Sure it is, and grouping members of all the various Christian groups in one gestalt is a mistake and a poor indicator. Many Christians, particularly American Christians, have a very exuberant Christianity seeing it as something that both lifts them spiritually and even (incorrectly) offers them greater chance for material success.

This is not Catholic belief
— John Harris

I was talking about the general Protestant view.

But you said Christian, and Catholics are Christians, and even most Protestants believe in the dynamics of the Trinity; they're not Arian heretics.

Christianity has missed the importance of the person, of personality. The idea of eternal conscious torment is dehumanizing; it begins with man in a state of total depravity.

Christianity is all about the person since Christ revealed the divinity inherent in all people. And not all Christians, or even all Catholic scholars, believe in eternal torment. So, Christianity begins with man in a near-exalted state.

But the way Christianity unfolded in history assigned a normative toxic shame to sin, and, therefore, to all of life; all aspects. The typical Christian ethos is one embroiled in shame and subsequent virtue-signaling. Shame creates an entire culture of pathological play-acting. But none of this has to do with the crux of the actual Gospel.

Sin can be terribly expressed or dealt with by obtuse clergy, but all Abrahamic religions have a notion of distance from God and our suffering from it. Even Secular Humanists like myself have a notion of sin in which we hold certain states--murderous, deceitful, racist, homophobic, violent, terrible parents--as states of sing--that people need recovery from and sometimes punishment for.

Christus Victor places Christ as the victorious hero conquering sin and death; it's a cosmic battle that's already been won. If Christianity had adopted this view of the Gospel as it's basis, then the culture of shame that embroils it wouldn't exist.

This is not Christ's conquest to many Christians. To many, it is showing us that true divinity in men isn[ power, wealth, or violence, but rather kindness, compassion, and empathy.

The notion that man's need for God is not reciprocated for need on God's end is nonsensical. Man has zero value if God does not assign value to him, and God cannot assign value to man without having a need. Any value assigned without need would be purely theoretical; value means need.

This is not Catholic belief at all as the Trinity demands God's need for man since part of himself, Christ, is human and that part, as well as humans, give God the opportunity to love within and without Himself.

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities.
— John Harris
Since when? It is required for conversation with you. You cannot impose your own, freely chosen restrictions on thought on others. Thankfully, I've left the school system which is basically all that it tries to do.

Since we became an enlightened, scientific society. Otherwise people with your standard could point to a rock and say "look, there's a soul," or point to the Sun and say "look at those souls make that circle shine." Those aren't my restrictions; they're the standards of an enlightened, scientifically-oriented society like ours....thank god.

I don't believe in the supernatural Laws of Nature that is guiding me and forcing me to do things in life. I also don't impose my dogma on others. I am a person who is exploring the inner experience of life. Unfortunately, your Laws of Nature doesn't permit you to do so. So sorry

Of course you're imposing your dogma on others, and other people do that. You're here exclaiming "the soul is life, the soul is life." That's your imposed dogma.

↪John Harris Science measures. The world doesn't march to what science may or may not be able to measure. We already know that science cannot simultaneously define position and momentum and it certainly can't measure qualia. Science it's always changing and it has its obvious limitations.

Except scientific verification is still required for consensual agreement on existence of entities. Again, using your weak standards, people can assert God, angels, and Santa Claus exist...and Christ walks among us. I had no idea you were so inclined.

I am pursuing the nature and meaning in my life. Other than calling it an illusion, science has zero to say on the matter so I'll look elsewhere for ideas such as in philosophy and the arts.

You can pursue whatever you want in your life, and I support that. And, as I said, you can personally believe angels and the soul exist. However, your personal predilections are not enough if you want to assert the existence of those entities to others.

I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't.
— John Harris

Sure it has been demonstrated. Didn't I refer to Plato's demonstrations earlier in the thread. As I said, the fact that you haven't paid any attention to these demonstrations does not mean that the demonstrations have not been made. It's a very self-centered world in which you live in.

Sure it hasn't been demonstrated. What you referred to was theorizing, not demonstrating. Using your faulty logic, many people have demonstrated God, so you better head to Church..or a synagogue.

Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents.
— John Harris

Why would you say this? We haven't even discussed what is meant by the word "know". It appears like you are using it in a way completely different from how I would use it, and projecting this onto me. You seem very confused and getting more and more so Should I try not to use any more big words, like "soul", so that you can stay abreast of the conversation?.

I said it because you said I couldn't know the existence of the Mississipi river, which is as physically real as your parents, and as "names" as a river as your parents are named your "parents". So, If I can't know the Mississipi River is the Mississipi River, you can't know your parents are your parents, and you don't know they are for a fact. So, I projected nothing, and the only confused one is you, as I clearly used your own faulty logic against you.

Don't recall having said anything to you, John Harris. What I was commenting on was this:

Scientists have done a pretty good job explaining matter and energy and explaining how that's all the universe is made of, with dark and anti- matter being material forms.
— Thanatos Sand

Which is pretty darned close to saying 'all that can be known, can be known by means of science'; if not positivism, then certainly scientism, although they're pretty close.

The dictionary definition of positivism:

a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.

Which is pretty well exactly what Thanatos Sand, and numerous others, argue on this forum.

And the fact that you can conclude that I have a poor knowledge of Comte and of positivism on the basis of a single sentence says something, doesn't it?

What you miss about that definition, and Comtes, of positivism, is it doesn't just reject non-scientific methods for determining the scientific existence of something, which is what I was doing. It also rejects the use of Humanities for everything, which my stance wasn't doing. As a literature teacher/scholar myself, I certainly don't apply scientific methods to studying the works of Faulkner, James, and Melville, nor do I, or did my position, reject all philosophical activity.

You clearly don't know either, since you can't explain in any way how my relying on scientific standards is positivism or scientism, and their not, particularly since I don't reject the humanities at all in my argument.
— John Harris

Don't recall having said anything to you, John Harris. What I was commenting on was this:

I am Thanatos Sand. I forgot my password and I thought I had made that clear to everyone. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear to you.

John Harris Will now you are beginning to get it. That thing you call life, some people call the soul, others may call it Prana, Qi, or Elan Vital.Now, if you want to give your expert scientific explanation of life, be my guest. — Rich

No, the thing I call "life" is life. What people like you call the soul or prana or Qi or Christ's spirit or the boogeyman are different things entirely.

John Harris The evidence is life. Have you experienced life? I suppose you are now going to tell everyone what is life?

Life is evidence of life, not the soul. Your reasoning is as bizarre as your worldview. And I've experienced life, but you surely haven't . You've reduced it to a supernatural concept.

CasKev Science is unable to detect or measure any qualia - the inner experience of life. Should we deny that we can distinguish qualia and our whole inner, subjective experience of life? I guess some might, banishing all that is interesting about life into the corn fields of illusion.

No, it's not and you need to show the science and scientific effort that even tried to do that. Denying qualia is no different than denying God or angels, so keep an eye out for those halos.

↪John Harris No, you denied life. Life is the soul. You asked evidence, you got it. What the heck do b you think life is? Some illusion?

No, you denied life by calling it the soul and you gave no evidence. You don't even know what that word means. That's not surprising, you don't know what "life" means, either.

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any.
— John Harris

Just because it hasn't been demonstrated to you doesn't mean that it hasn't been demonstrated. Do I need to mention that word, "prejudice" again?

I didn't say "demonstrated to me;" I correctly said it hasn't been demonstrated, period, and it hasn't. So, I'm going to have to mention the words "prejudice," "straw-man" and "terrible reader."

And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents?
— John Harris

I trust my parents, I've known them all my life. I admit that it could be a big hoax, but I don't think so. How do you know that there is no such thing as the soul? Did your parents tell you that?

Sorry, according to your flawed logic, you don't know your parents are your parents. Do you believe everything everyone tells you. I suggest you get that DNA test.

John Harris You are a hoot. Life is supernatural. OK.

No, you're the hoot. I correctly said the soul is supernatural....poor kid.

John Harris

As I define "soul" it makes sense, it is what causes life, the vital principal....but I can't force feed that notion to you, either it makes sense to you or not.

No, it doesn't make any sense, since there's no evidence it exists or causes life. I clearly can't force feed that reality to you.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life.
— John Harris

Some religious people say God gave us life and other religious people say that the Big Bang/Laws of Nature have us life. My own preference is not too appeal to supernatural forces. Life is what we all experience and what we are. No need to bring in other mysterious forces. Life is Life. You wanted existence of a soul, well there it is. It is we are and drives us - the impetus to create, learn, and evolve. If you prefer some supernatural forces and you have lots of company.

Sorry, you appealed to supernatural forces since you appeal to the soul which has never been shown or revealed in nature. So, you're right there with the Christians and the Satanist; I'm sure they'll love you.

And , lol, life is life is not life is the soul, and neither you nor anybody has shown it is. So, if you prefer your supernatural force, the soul, that's fine. I'll stay with the natural world.

Just giving the bully some of his own medicine...

Nope, since I showed you started the bullying, I was giving the bully (you) a giant dose of his own medicine.

The real question is on what principle do you say the soul was discovered and named. Using your logic, God, the angels, and the demons were discovered because someone conceptualized and named them, like Aristotle conceptualized and named "soul. You must be quite the believer in God and the angels then.
— John Harris

If it is demonstrated what type of existence these things have, how they exist, and how they are encountered, such that I can actually encounter them, then I am not accepting their existence simply because someone conceptualized and named them. I accept their existence because there is evidence that they are real, just like there is evidence that the number two is real.

None of that has been demonstrated. And, sorry, but there is no evidence that any of those things, including the soul, are real and you havent' provided any.

I changed no subject, and you have no more idea you encounter a soul every time you meet a living thing than you know Santa Claus or God exists. And if you believe someone could have encountered a soul with no scientific evidence of it, you must believe the people who claimed to meet Santa Clause or God are being truthful too.
— John Harris

So how do you know that the river you encounter is the Mississippi River?

I've never encountered it and never have to because others physically have. How do you know your parents are your parents or the White House is in Washington D.c.?

No, not likewise, as when one encounters the Mississippi River they encounter a body of water science and other people can second as being true.
— John Harris

Because some scientist says "that is the Mississippi river", you know it's true? That's a known fallacy called "appeal to authority". It's not an acceptable argument. How do you really know that it's the Mississippi River? You don't believe everything other people tell you do you?

Of course it's an acceptable argument, and it's not an appeal to authority. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Millions have been at the Mississippi river. They arent' authorities. Get your fallacies straight before you make yourself silly again. And I ask again, how do you know your parents are your parents? You don't believe everything others tell you do you? I sure don't.

John Harris it would just be nice to see you disagree with someone without being insulting or condescending. (Y) — CasKev

Sorry, as shown below, the only one who has been insulting has been you.

Keep showing off your lack of personality and soul! >:O

Nobody has encountered a soul or given any evidence of it.
— John Harris

Of course we all have. It is the life force within us all. What Bergson called the Elan vital. Without it, there is only a cadaver.

Of course we all haven't. It is not the life force inside us all, and nobody has shown it to be. Many say God gives us life too, that's no less ridiculous than saying a soul gives us life.

The only question is whether the soul persists. Evidence of this is in the traits and skills we are all born with but are different because of different soulful history (memory).

No, the only question is when people who believe in a soul are going to be able to even show its existence, much less prove it. Until then, those people are religious like those who say God made everything and Christ will save us. And no, our traits and skills are evidence of genetics, not a soul. Your poor science teachers.

I argue that animated means ensouled. The ancient Greeks used the word alive to mean ensouled, and inanimate is dead...so while you say
the a material soul has never been discovered or recorded.
I see life, and hence the manifestation of souls all around.

And you argue incorrectly since all living things are animated and it is not the soul that causes it. So, your term fails. If you want to call life "souls" that's fine; it doesnt' make it so. Using your logic, you can call life "God's work" and that would make it so. It doesn't.

There is no way around the supposition that life evolved from matter therefore life must be a potential property of matter. That is more than an assertion, it is the only possible way, unless you think Martians, or a Sky God came down and did it.

I never denied any of this about matter, and none of it shows that souls exist. Sorry.

Oh, I've shown more than enough of that. I've had to deal with tag-teams of you soft-minds...:)

Seems like the cantankerous soul of Thanatos Sand has been reincarnated in this John Harris guy... :D

Keep showing off that lack of a college degree, Caskev; it's truly endearing...:)