24 replies to this topic

[betsy]

WIP:
The truth is that there are no such things as souls and spirits in the first place;

betsy:
So, you've already found the evidence and proof. You've reached that conclusion.

Absolutely not! But, I consider the prospect of lifelong searching to be a challenge rather than a source of anxiety.

How can you answer "absolutely not," when you clearly claimed that it is the "truth!"

You said: "The truth is that there are no such things as souls and spirits in the first place"

How can we even take what you say into consideration when you contradict yourself?

Edited by betsy, 27 April 2011 - 06:45 PM.

[betsy]

I don't know how much you've paid attention to what I've actually written, but I am not an antitheist. We do not have objective or empirical evidence for why our universe exists and how we have come alive at this point in time,

Actually, I am baffled by this. You want empirical evidence to explain our existence.

And yet you say there are no spirits and souls - accepting that as fact without any empirical evidences to support that belief.

but we're here, and we have to decide how to make sense of the human condition in whatever ways make sense to us.

To some of us, our religion makes perfect sense to us. We find contentment....solace...rest....inner peace.

The religion I criticize is the aspects of religion that are making society worse instead of a better place.

But you don't make that clear in your numerous posts.

Actually, most of your posts reeked of anger, hatred, condemnation, contempt for all religion....and most especially the Christian religion. Please understand that I'm not in a quarrel with you. This is not personal.

But I am arguing with you....I am defending my faith. And since some of you are hellbent on wanting to prove that my belief is based on nothing....of course I'll be more doubly hellbent in proving you wrong....that in fact, it is your belief that is actually based on nothing.

I am enjoying the time I have left, and my anxieties are not about mortality, but the secular apocalypse that we are leaving future generations through our collective lack of action.

We all want the same thing for the future generation....except we don't agree on who's right and who's wrong. Perhaps you should worry about your own children....and let us worry about ours.

The difference I see in the coming decades from those who see a 2nd Coming, is that I can see evidence of Great Tribulation, but I don't see any evidence of a divine escape clause being tossed to Planet Earth.

In your books, we Christians are delusional because we believe in something that has no empirical evidence. Well WIP, you've admitted that you're no different than us since you accepted your truth that's not backed by empirical evidence. You fit in same category of being delusional.

I believe we are the source of our own salvation, and the survival of the human race will depend on what we do or fail to do.

Believe what you want. No one is stopping you. Not even my God.
That's what free-will is all about.

Edited by betsy, 27 April 2011 - 07:14 PM.

[cybercoma]

The truth is there's absolutely no tangible evidence for the existence of spirits or souls anyway, but if you can show otherwise, have at it.

[WIP]

That is a totally incorrect characterization.

I was brought up in the baptized in Anglican Church but spent most of my time in the United Church until a few years after I was married there. I had the opportunity to not only experience a number of other Churches -Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Unitarian etc, but was openly invited to learn about native beliefs from a number of close friends.

I use native stores and understandings because they seem to be the most broadly based and believe it or not espouse more Christian doctrines than most organized religion I have attended. They put it very simply. One can believe what is in their heart and a person's relationship with God - The Creator - is personal and need not be defended.

When the first Jesuits engaged the Hurons and other tribes, they took advantage of these similarities, to spread Catholic doctrine in the New World. It wasn't until afterward that they tried to stamp out the Wyandot and other native religions.

All of this encouraged me to learn more about Christianity, not only from ministers and priests (although I count many among my personal friends) but from other more Christian acting people, who understand a lot more than most. I understand the need for organized religion and the kind packaged answers Betsy always comes up with, but true Christianity isn't like that and the works of true Christians is not the kind of thing that is on display.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I don't see the problem comes from Betsy belonging to a packaged, organized religion, but the fact that she has no tolerance for all of the thousands of other versions of Christianity, or non-Christian religions. The survey that inspired this thread....and the one that has Betsy twisted in knots...informs us that a lot of people, especially younger people, are resisting the notion that only the followers of one particular religious tradition have God on their side.

In fact if they did pronounce their "acts" most people would run away scared claiming it to be witchcraft or the work of Satan. In reality, those "works" are truly good, and are full of miracles that once mastered are available to anyone with a good mind. No need to explain further.

Now this is total fantasy!

[WIP]

How can you answer "absolutely not," when you clearly claimed that it is the "truth!"

You said: "The truth is that there are no such things as souls and spirits in the first place"

How can we even take what you say into consideration when you contradict yourself?

Put it this way: if souls and spirits are supernatural...or something other than a natural phenomena, then you, or anyone else who believes in them, has the burden of proof to prove their existence, since everything we see, touch and know about, fits into the world of natural phenomena.

When it comes to souls, we have lots of evidence to demonstrate how mental states correlate with brain function, and how specific brain activity precedes awareness of simple decision-making tasks. There is no room for an immaterial soul to perform some mental function, nor has there ever been an explanation for how something that is immaterial would interface with the brain or the body, or any other natural force in our world. So, maybe it's my definition of truth that souls don't exist. But, I have the preponderance of evidence on my side. The other side just has tradition, longing and wishful thinking.

[WIP]

Believe what you want. No one is stopping you. Not even my God.
That's what free-will is all about.

And, we don't have unconstrained free will either, because we are physical beings that are part of a physical causal chain of events in this universe. Our mental states are determined by physical events that go on inside our brain. It's something that most people seem to understand perfectly when dealing with people with mental illness or dementia, but fail to recognize that everyone who is "normal" is likewise constrained by the interactions of 100 billion or so neurons.

[betsy]

Put it this way: if souls and spirits are supernatural...or something other than a natural phenomena, then you, or anyone else who believes in them, has the burden of proof to prove their existence, since everything we see, touch and know about, fits into the world of natural phenomena.

When it comes to souls, we have lots of evidence to demonstrate how mental states correlate with brain function, and how specific brain activity precedes awareness of simple decision-making tasks. There is no room for an immaterial soul to perform some mental function, nor has there ever been an explanation for how something that is immaterial would interface with the brain or the body, or any other natural force in our world. So, maybe it's my definition of truth that souls don't exist. But, I have the preponderance of evidence on my side. The other side just has tradition, longing and wishful thinking.

Vestigial organs - like tonsils, appendix etc.., - were considered non-functional. Now science understood their purpose, and are concluded to be functional.

Not understanding something does not mean it's not true.

Claiming it for a fact is misleading (to say the least). What you stated was your personal opinion - irresponsibly imho.

Edited by betsy, 29 April 2011 - 06:52 PM.

[betsy]

And, we don't have unconstrained free will either, because we are physical beings that are part of a physical causal chain of events in this universe. Our mental states are determined by physical events that go on inside our brain. It's something that most people seem to understand perfectly when dealing with people with mental illness or dementia, but fail to recognize that everyone who is "normal" is likewise constrained by the interactions of 100 billion or so neurons.

If I remember it right, it was you who touted Dawkins' meme. Well we all know what Ruse said about Dawkins' meme, "I don't buy his meme bulls**t!"

[WIP]

Vestigial organs - like tonsils, appendix etc.., - were considered non-functional. Now science understood their purpose, and are concluded to be functional.

Not understanding something does not mean it's not true.

Claiming it for a fact is misleading (to say the least). What you stated was your personal opinion - irresponsibly imho.

Yikes! You're comparing vestigial organs to souls? My point about souls is that...besides the lack of proof for their existence....there is no role for them to perform. Mental functions correlate with physical brain activity...which certainly is too complex to be fully understood any time soon, but there are no black boxes -- mental functions -- that are not correlated with subsystems of the human brain.

Now, when it comes to vestigial organs -- these don't even qualify as proofs against evolution! I refer you to the bane of creationists -- Talk Origins, which has a page that does an exhaustive deconstruction of how they are misused by creationists. Answers in Genesis claims that scientists define them as "useless" organs, which the Talkorigins article demonstrates as a falsehood, since even Chuck Darwin himself didn't claim that vestigial organs were without purpose! Your example of the appendix is an example of an organ which has limited, if anything of value for us, since its importance is tied with our pre-ape herbivore ancestors which consumed a lot more vegetation.

Edited by WIP, 30 April 2011 - 11:24 AM.

[WIP]

If I remember it right, it was you who touted Dawkins' meme. Well we all know what Ruse said about Dawkins' meme, "I don't buy his meme bulls**t!"

No, I have been a critic of Memetics since first discovering his essay "Viruses Of The Mind" written about 15 years ago, in a collection of Dawkins essays I bought a few years back - "The Devil's Chaplain." Maybe you put everyone you consider anti-Jesus in the same pot....and Richard Dawkins is supposed to be who we take orders from!