Oh, and I will never PROVE that there’s no soul. Because I’m not superstitious, I don’t have to. I already know that there isn’t one. Pretty cool, huh? You know ProX, every once in a while, a taste of reality can be quite refreshing… you should try it some time.
[/quote]
I should get off my high horse, but you have degraded the concepts of morality, the forces of good and evil, and our place in the universe to superstitious beliefs like green clovers, purple moons, and yellow horse shoes? Oh my. If you can honestly look in the mirror from day to day and make yourself believe that you live in a world more real than anyone who believes in God, then you have no true concept of religion. The difference is, while I have said many times that it is fine for you to hold that view, you feel the need to make yourself higher than everyone else by degrading what is believed. It doesn’t seem I am the one on the horse. If you KNOW that there isn’t one, then prove it to me. I KNOW that grass is green and I KNOW that chlorophyll plays a role in that. I KNOW that our blood cells utilize oxygen and carry it to the tissues of the human body. You explaining away the concept of the human soul should be just as easy. Get to it. I await your non-high horse’s view of reality.
There are no souls, so the idea of selling nothing for any amount, be it 1 cent or 1 million is appealing… BUT, I would be signing a paper that could be used against me as proof that I believe in souls. Furthermore, if I sign the paper, then other people that know that souls are a fairy tale would consider me immoral, because I’m scamming the guy that gave me the money.
So in conclusion, I wouldn’t sign the paper because I’m not a scammer, and I don’t want people to accuse me of being a believer in fairy tales.
[quote]ramses wrote:
There are no souls, so the idea of selling nothing for any amount, be it 1 cent or 1 million is appealing… BUT, I would be signing a paper that could be used against me as proof that I believe in souls. Furthermore, if I sign the paper, then other people that know that souls are a fairy tale would consider me immoral, because I’m scamming the guy that gave me the money.
So in conclusion, I wouldn’t sign the paper because I’m not a scammer, and I don’t want people to accuse me of being a believer in fairy tales.[/quote]
Okay! A good reason NOT to sign it. Cool, I like this. But remember that you’re not actually scamming the guy if he approached you with this. Well… No, I can see how it would be like taking advantage of a person, too. Hmmm… good point.
let’s incorporate a very flawed judicial system into a very perfect philosophy.
that’s what you were thinking, right?[/quote]
No, according to a few atheists and friends, we are our own God. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that anyone found guilty by God (ourselves in this case) is truly guilty and anyone found innocent is truly innocent. If the burden is on the one who makes a claim (the prosecutor) to prove the case, then anytime that the case is not proven to God (ourselves) that means the person is innocent. However, you even admit that we (God) are flawed yet you have the firm belief that you (God) are right. How confusing.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I should get off my high horse, but you have degraded the concepts of morality, the forces of good and evil, and our place in the universe to superstitious beliefs like green clovers, purple moons, and yellow horse shoes? Oh my. If you can honestly look in the mirror from day to day and make yourself believe that you live in a world more real than anyone who believes in God, then you have no true concept of religion. The difference is, while I have said many times that it is fine for you to hold that view, you feel the need to make yourself higher than everyone else by degrading what is believed. It doesn’t seem I am the one on the horse. If you KNOW that there isn’t one, then prove it to me. I KNOW that grass is green and I KNOW that chlorophyll plays a role in that. I KNOW that our blood cells utilize oxygen and carry it to the tissues of the human body. You explaining away the concept of the human soul should be just as easy. Get to it. I await your non-high horse’s view of reality.[/quote]
I honestly look myself in the mirror and say whatever the hell I want. You see, ProX… I’m free in a way that you will probably never understand. I have said this in other threads, and I will repeat myself yet again: this does not make me better, only different from people like you. What’s so tricky about this?
I’m not special. You’re not special. We are cogs that turn in the wheel of nature, breathe the air that we do, eat the food that we do, until chance comes along and we become food for another lifeform. Now knowing this, and knowing that nothing really matters in the long run, how hard is it to live your life to the fullest, love as many people as best you can, do everything to help each other along and get by as best you can in this life? Why not reap the rewards of friendship and love while you can? I get to pick what I care about… not some guy in a church or some book.
I have no illusions about what happens in the next life. There ain’t one. So that means that what I do now in this life doesn’t mean shit for myself. But what I do now affects others in my life, and it for them that I am the way that I am. It is the people that go on afterwards that matter, ProX. Our children (I have two), our families and friends… I care about them, not myself.
See? No soul necessary. No “Forces of Good and Evil”. No highblown concept of morality and the divine. No imaginary supernatural inner spirituality which guides me. Why should I pretend when I don’t have to? This life makes sense to me. You’re born, you live, you die. Pretty damn straightforward, if you ask me. Lighten up, pooky.
[quote]ramses wrote:
There are no souls, so the idea of selling nothing for any amount, be it 1 cent or 1 million is appealing… BUT, I would be signing a paper that could be used against me as proof that I believe in souls. Furthermore, if I sign the paper, then other people that know that souls are a fairy tale would consider me immoral, because I’m scamming the guy that gave me the money.
So in conclusion, I wouldn’t sign the paper because I’m not a scammer, and I don’t want people to accuse me of being a believer in fairy tales.[/quote]
Pray tell, how would people who believe that souls are a fairytale have a standard of morality from which to exact judgement? Does the concept of a “scammer” have any merit in this type of world? Could one’s life be more important than another’s? Should the sadddlebags of guilt have any weight there? And immorality?
Take a lesson from Dostoevsky: “If there is no God, all things are possible.”
For those who have ventured on to this thread who know better:
II Thessalonians 2:23 - “For foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”
let’s incorporate a very flawed judicial system into a very perfect philosophy.
that’s what you were thinking, right?
No, according to a few atheists and friends, we are our own God. Therefore, the conclusion can be drawn that anyone found guilty by God (ourselves in this case) is truly guilty and anyone found innocent is truly innocent. If the burden is on the one who makes a claim (the prosecutor) to prove the case, then anytime that the case is not proven to God (ourselves) that means the person is innocent. However, you even admit that we (God) are flawed yet you have the firm belief that you (God) are right. How confusing.[/quote]
hehe
i LOVE where you went with this. because you just took a very objective belief and used it for subjective rationalization.
i was attempting to express the flaws of objectivity, but since you went ahead and called “ourselves” god i get to say that the soul is subjective and anyone else’s subjective ideas about my soul or objective ideas about all souls is rather irrelevant.
wufwugy: much as I hate agreeing with Prof X in religious arguments (no offence, Prof!), I have to say that he’s right here. Automatically denying the existence of a soul is irrational. Also, your “argument” showing that souls do not exist is utter rubbish. We cannot conclude that souls definitely do not exist just because no one has proved that they do. We cannot even conclude that souls don’t exist if it happens to be impossible to prove that they do exist. Your “logic” is seriously flawed.
[quote]Grey Area wrote:
wufwugy: much as I hate agreeing with Prof X in religious arguments (no offence, Prof!), I have to say that he’s right here. Automatically denying the existence of a soul is irrational. Also, your “argument” showing that souls do not exist is utter rubbish. We cannot conclude that souls definitely do not exist just because no one has proved that they do. We cannot even conclude that souls don’t exist if it happens to be impossible to prove that they do exist. Your “logic” is seriously flawed. [/quote]
It’s flawed only in that he makes the leap to concluding that souls don’t exist from lack of evidence that they do. In science, the burden of proof is on the party that’s posing the idea or theory. And I don’t mean “burden of proof” in a legal sense. Confusing the two was an error made in a previous post. Our legal system has absolutely NO relevance in scientific discourse.
The fact of the matter is that one person’s inability to “prove” that something DOESN’T exist does not constitute evidence that it DOES. That’s actually just common sense. Can anyone reading this thread prove that I don’t have an invisible friend named Stuart who spots me on heavy squats? No? So I guess he exists then.
The problem you religious boys are making is trying to find a rational argument to support the existence of souls. You’re forgetting about the thing that separates theology from science: FAITH. If proof did exist that we all had souls and that God did create the universe, then you wouldn’t be applying faith at all, and hence wouldn’t be practicing religion at all. You’d all be blasphemers like the rest of us atheists, relying on reason and proof in our belief systems.
Not meant to be an insult; just the reality of the matter. You can believe as you wish, but don’t act condescending toward those of us who demand scientific rigor simply because we’re not willing to make the leap to believing that for which there is no proof by definition.
