Searching for GOD...

[ekim]

If there was something in what you say then; a) there would be at least a recognition among those doing neuroscience that a 'soul-brain' interface was a hypothesis worth investigating, and b) religious organisations such as your own would be supporting neuroscience in the investigation of the possibility of souls interacting with brains.

Part of the problem revolves around the vagueness associated with the word 'soul'.  That word is used to translate the New Testament Greek word 'psyche' which is nowadays studied in psych-ology and it's brain interface in psych-iatry.  There are two Old Testament Hebrew words translated as 'soul'.  One is 'nephesh', which represents instincts, appetites and drives that are shared with the rest of the animal kingdom, and the other is 'neshama' which represents an inspirational thinking mind associated with humans.

[Enki]

Just to pick out two of the paragraphs from your highly distorted and confused attempt in post 37864.

Surely it is time that all the freedom denyers on this thread come to terms with the fact that their continued, consciously driven efforts to think up reasons to justify this non belief in their own freedom actually confirms the reality of it.

I am no denier of freedom, Alan. I am certainly a denier of your entirely illogical approach and interpretation of 'freedom', and I completely reject the idea that simply by the act of writing down my thoughts, this somehow justifies the confused mess of your idea of 'freedom'. To repeat myself, yet again, there is not the slightest evidence for your 'soul' idea and no justification for said idea. There is a huge mass of evidence that my thoughts, whatever they may be, are a result of the workings of my brain.

Not forgetting enki and Outrider who often engage in thoughtful exchanges yet fail to acknowledge their freedom in choosing to make these exchanges.

freedom - the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

choice - an act of choosing between two or more possibilities

As I have said before, my freedom to choose is entirely in keeping with these dictionary definitions and, because of the weight of evidence, I would suggest this freedom to choose essentially comes from the workings of my brain, no 'soul' required.

Hence your statement that I fail to acknowledge my freedom to choose my thoughts and the words that I write is totally wrong, and misrepresents me.
I am at a loss to understand why you have said this? Are you deliberately lying or are you simply too ignorant or thoughtless to read my words?

Please don't misrepresent me again. It shows considerable lack of respect and, if you continue to do so, I will have to come to the conclusion, loathe that I am, that this is deliberate lying on your part.

[Stranger]

Surely it is time that all the freedom denyers on this thread come to terms with the fact that their continued, consciously driven efforts to think up reasons to justify this non belief in their own freedom actually confirms the reality of it.

Just to add: it is, as far as I can see, impossible to reconcile this absurd statement with you being both honest and, as you have claimed, be reading and understanding the arguments against you.

It really is about time you either admitted to dishonesty (at least to the extent of just ignoring what has been said and simply preaching) or spent the time and effort to actually understand the counterarguments.

Seriously Alan, do you think all the people who are arguing with you are stupid enough to deny something that is obvious from everybody's posts? Everybody knows that we can think up reasons and post arguments - that bare fact doesn't support either side in this.

[SteveH]

You believe all that to be true, and you are entitled to do so, but you have never provided any evidence to substantiate your belief, your take on it isn't evidence.

You have never, to my knowledge, produced any evidence or rational arguments for any of your opinions.

[Roses]

You have never, to my knowledge, produced any evidence or rational arguments for any of your opinions.

Give it a rest Steve you are so very boring, most of your posts certainly don't do you any favours whatsoever. If you don't like my posts you are not obliged to respond to them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

You have never, to my knowledge, produced any evidence or rational arguments for any of your opinions.

But plenty of others have, which AB routinely ignores.

[SteveH]

Give it a rest Steve you are so very boring, most of your posts certainly don't do you any favours whatsoever. If you don't like my posts you are not obliged to respond to them.

"Evasion noted", as NS would say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

"Evasion noted", as NS would say.

Couple of fallacies there. First, unless Floo is making claims of her own the burden of proof does not require that she makes cogent arguments too. If her statement that AB does not provide good reason or evidence of his own is true (and it is) that’s all that’s necessary for the point to stand. I’d have thought your ire would be better directed at AB for ignoring the arguments that falsify him and for never providing cogent counter-arguments of his own rather than at the person who points that out.

Second, you’ve tried a fallacy called the “tu quoque” (“you too”). Whether or not Floo is guilty of the same failings as AB has no relevance to the fact of AB’s failings.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Couple of fallacies there. First, unless Floo is making claims of her own the burden of proof does not require that she makes cogent arguments too. If her statement that AB does not provide good reason or evidence of his own is true (and it is) that’s all that’s necessary for the point to stand. I’d have thought your ire would be better directed at AB for ignoring the arguments that falsify him and for never providing cogent counter-arguments of his own rather than at the person who points that out.

Second, you’ve tried a fallacy called the “tu quoque” (“you too”). Whether or not Floo is guilty of the same failings as AB has no relevance to the fact of AB’s failings.

I was not addressing AB's arguments at all; I was simply pointing out the irony of LS accusing AB of not providing evidence, when she never, ever, pretty well without exception, provides any evidence or arguments to support any of her one-line opinions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I was not addressing AB's arguments at all; I was simply pointing out the irony of LS accusing AB of not providing evidence, when she never, ever, pretty well without exception, provides any evidence or arguments to support any of her one-line opinions.

But again, it has no relevance. The statement "AB has never managed to produce a cogent arguments or evidence for his claims of fact" remains true regardless of whether the person saying it is guilty of the same thing.

Pick a statement on which we'd probably agree - "murder is wrong" for example. Does that statement somehow become not true if a murderer says it?

[Roses]

SteveH,

But again, it has no relevance. The statement "AB has never managed to produce a cogent arguments or evidence for his claims of fact" remains true regardless of whether the person saying it is guilty of the same thing.

Pick a statement on which we'd probably agree - "murder is wrong" for example. Does that statement somehow become not true if a murderer says it?

One of the ten commandments is, 'Thou shalt not kill', yet if the Bible is to be believed god was a killer.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

But again, it has no relevance. The statement "AB has never managed to produce a cogent arguments or evidence for his claims of fact" remains true regardless of whether the person saying it is guilty of the same thing.

AB does at least attempt to provide arguments and evidence. LR never does. I repeat: I wasn't trying to defend AB, just pointing out the irony of LR's post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

AB does at least attempt to provide arguments and evidence. LR never does. I repeat: I wasn't rying to defend AB, just pointing out the irony of LR's post.

Again, you can accuse someone of irony (or hypocrisy) as much as you like, but the point remains that that says nothing whatever about the behaviour of AB. And no, AB doesn't try to provide arguments and evidence - he may have done that once, but since then every time his attempts at both are falsified he just ignores the falsifications and repeats his original mistakes over and over again. He's the theological version of a flat earther in that respect.

[Roses]

A certain poster accuses me of not providing any evidence to support my non belief. But how can one provide evidence to support a negative? No one has come up with any evidence, which can be verified that any god, including the one featured in the Bible, exists. As I have stated before, surely it is reasonable if god is out there somewhere and wishes humans to believe in it, god should put in an appearance so that there is no shadow of doubt its existence is real and not just a matter of faith.

[SteveH]

A certain poster accuses me of not providing any evidence to support my non belief. But how can one provide evidence to support a negative? No one has come up with any evidence, which can be verified that any god, including the one featured in the Bible, exists. As I have stated before, surely it is reasonable if god is out there somewhere and wishes humans to believe in it, god should put in an appearance so that there is no shadow of doubt its existence is real and not just a matter of faith.

Hundreds or thousands of weighty volumes have been published attacking belief and defending non-belief with closely-reasoned arguments and evidence, so why can't you come up with a few? Actually, to do you justice, you do mention the apparent cruelty of God as described in the |O, but that's about it.

[SusanDoris]

Hundreds or thousands of weighty volumes have been published attacking belief and defending non-belief with closely-reasoned arguments and evidence, so why can't you come up with a few?

i.e. those with evidence of the non-existence of God etc.
Oh, really? Pleas list, say, ten of them.

!

[Roses]

i.e. those with evidence of the non-existence of God etc.
Oh, really? Pleas list, say, ten of them.

!

Good post Susan, we await his reply.

[SteveH]

Bad design in living creatures, if you assume they're designed.
Suffering, especially its extreme intensity in many cases, and its random distribution.
Inconsistency and gross immorality in the Bible.
Many religions, all believing different things.
Appalling behaviour of many believers.
Lack of answers to prayer.
Naturalistic explanations for human behaviour better than religious ones.
Occam's razor.
Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Morris Cerullo, Jim Bakker, and other repulsive snake-oil merchants.
Natural disasters.

I don't necessarily accept all these arguments, and some are only asrguments against certain types of belief, but they are arguments thatt are used.

[SteveH]

Good post Susan, we await his reply.

Done, after a mere 21 seconds.

[SteveH]

Hasn't it gone quiet, all of a sudden?

[Roses]

Bad design in living creatures, if you assume they're designed.
Suffering, especially its extreme intensity in many cases, and its random distribution.
Inconsistency and gross immorality in the Bible.
Many religions, all believing different things.
Appalling behaviour of many believers.
Lack of answers to prayer.
Naturalistic explanations for human behaviour better than religious ones.
Occam's razor.
Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Morris Cerullo, Jim Bakker, and other repulsive snake-oil merchants.
Natural disasters.

I don't necessarily accept all these arguments, and some are only asrguments against certain types of belief, but they are arguments thatt are used.

Your were asked by Susan to list ten of the articles, presumably with the authors names, which you haven't done.

[SteveH]

Your were asked by Susan to list ten of the articles, presumably with the authors names, which you haven't done.

Why I am not a Christian - Bertrand Russell
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker - ditto
God is Not Great - Christopher Hitchens
In God We Doubt - John Humphries
The End of Faith - Sam Harris
Breaking the Spell - Daniel Dennett
Atheism: a Very Short Introduction - Julian Baggini
Atheism: the Case Against God - George Smith
The Natural History of Religion - David Hume

[Robbie]

Good reading list steve but this thread mainly consists of people saying the same things over and over. Words are rearranged but sentiments remain the same. It doesn't seem worth being too invested in it and particularly not so invested in one or two posters (who will be repeating themselves). I read quite a few pages a while back, intended to read it all but got fed up after a while because, with a couple of exceptions, there was nothing new under the sun.

Your list would be good in the Faith Sharing area.

[Roses]

My non belief is engendered by my personal experiences, not the writings and experiences of others. I have also read the Bible from cover to cover many times in my life and continue to do so. The more I read that book the less credible it seems to be. As I have said many times, it is remotely possible the Biblical god exists and is all that that the Bible claims for it, which would be terrible and horrific if that were to be the case.

[Robbie]

I remember you saying that  .