The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by cascade9 Somehow I thought you'd be taller? LOL There no scientific evidence against a 'soul' either AFAIK.

Wow am I tired of this argument. Let me say it again: There are an infinite number of things that can be postulated and cannot be disproven. We have no more reason to accept an immaterial soul that we have reason to accept leprechauns or Zeus or evil galactic rabbits plotting to take over the Earth. You cannot "prove" any of those things don't exist. That is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. You can spout any old nonsense all day every day for all of time. We are under no obligation to entertain such nonsense without evidence.

As far as it goes, we have good scientific reason to believe that mind is material, an emergent property of the brain. Given the positive evidence for that, it becomes correspondingly less likely that there is an immaterial eternal substance animating us.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Somehow I thought you'd be taller? LOL

That's only in my earthly manifestation, in my divine form I am infinite.

Originally Posted by reed9 or evil galactic rabbits plotting to take over the Earth.

Well, they're welcome to eat all our lettuce, as far as I'm concerned. Can't stand the stuff!

Originally Posted by reed9 You'd have to define what the heck a soul is before you could refute it.

Right!
So the question to SLooB should be define soul and then prove that it doesn't exist!

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Right! So the question to SLooB should be define soul and then prove that it doesn't exist!

Nope, you have it backwards. Whoever is claiming the existence of something called a soul needs to define what it is they are talking about and offer up their evidence.

It's as though I asserted that grue exists. It wouldn't be incumbent on you to figure out what the hell a grue is and then disprove it.

Originally Posted by reed9 figure out what the hell a grue is

Japanese adhesive?

and it goes on and on...

proving that a soul exists or not...,
how could someone try to prove the existence of something that cannot be meassured in any way?

Well, being a firm atheist, I say, believe what you want, as long as it makes your life better.
Being of course always respectful with the others around you.


...and no, I think that the soul does not exist. :-)

Originally Posted by reed9 It's as though I asserted that grue exists. It wouldn't be incumbent on you to figure out what the hell a grue is and then disprove it.

If and only if, I don't go on CLAIMING that it is a FACT that
grue does NOT exist.

Any one daring to state any CLAIMS is supposed to provide the proofs,
or simply say that I BELIEVE that grove doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul If and only if, I don't go on CLAIMING that it is a FACT that grue does NOT exist. Any one daring to state any CLAIMS is supposed to provide the proofs, or simply say that I BELIEVE that grove doesn't exist.

So in your opinion, you can only say "I believe Optimus Prime from the Transformers does not really exist", you could not say "it is a fact that Optimus Prime does not really exist"?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul I don't go on CLAIMING that it is a FACT that grue does NOT exist.

That's good because you'd be wrong if you did. I have seen a grue in Essex last year.
My friend, Little Mike, can confirm it.

Originally Posted by reed9 So in your opinion, you can only say "I believe Optimus Prime from the Transformers does not really exist", you could not say "it is a fact that Optimus Prime does not really exist"?

What would you say:

1. I believe Anisha is a girl.
2. It is a fact that Anisha is a girl.

?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul What would you say: 1. I believe Anisha is a girl. 2. It is a fact that Anisha is a girl. ?

I'd say that it's a well-known fact that Anisha is a pretty lady

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul What would you say: 1. I believe Anisha is a girl. 2. It is a fact that Anisha is a girl. ?

Well, at the moment I would say neither since I have no beliefs about your gender. If I met you and you were a girl, then I would say it is a fact that Anisha is a girl. If you tell me that you are a girl, then I would say I believe that you are a girl.

But I don't follow the analogy since it is readily apparent that there are girls that exist and I can know with great certainty that you either a girl, a boy, or a hermaphrodite. The same cannot be said of souls, Optimus Prime, or my grue.

EDIT: I looked at your profile and now I believe you are a girl. Please explain where you are going with that line of thought.

Originally Posted by reed9 But I don't follow the analogy since it is readily apparent that there are girls that exist and I can know with great certainty that you either a girl, a boy, or a hermaphrodite. The same cannot be said of souls, Optimus Prime, or my grue.

Yeah, so something which you have never seen, can NOT exist
in your opinion?

You are sounding like those people who used to say in previous
days that Earth is flat.

I realize this post will probably have the opposite of its intended effect, but…

I seriously wish someone would just close this thread. It's so out of place here: a thread about religion, something which has virtually nothing to do with Linux, which has been raging for over 3000 posts.

I realize that I've contributed somewhat to it, but I only did so because I was reacting to comments I found emotionally unsettling and/or provocative (then again, I suppose that's the rationale behind many other posts/posters here as well ). I'm serious when I say that every time I see this thread get bumped up to the top of /General, I get nervous butterflies. Call it pathetic, call it overreactive, I don't care; it's a real feeling, and I'm sure others can understand what I mean by it. This thread (for some of us, anyway) serves nothing more than to create tension and arguments amongst LQ members. I don't care if it's been "polite"; it's a volatile subject and is inherently divisive.

The impression I'm getting is that the "hard atheists" here are asserting something along the lines of "throw away all your unfounded beliefs (no matter how mild or vague), and to hell with how it makes you feel. If you can't deal with it emotionally, you're just a pathetic, weak slob who can't face reality.". I think that's what started the whole "logic vs. emotion" thing, actually; it started with a perceived assertion that "emotions are for the weak, and logic will prevail over all else!". In other words, it's starting to look like a case of scientific imperialism (basically the view that science, and science alone, should be the primary driving force of society and culture, above everything else).

Again, I realize this probably won't have much effect in actually stopping this thread (or others like it; if this one is closed, someone else is likely to start another one ). In fact, I don't doubt that my last paragraph will just set off yet another flamewar-esque battle (), but I hope my message is at least being heard by some people who regularly visit and/or post to this thread…

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul Yeah, so something which you have never seen, can NOT exist in your opinion? You are sounding like those people who used to say in previous days that Earth is flat.

Not at all. Clearly there can be, and in all probability are, things which are true but that we have no knowledge of. But "knowledge of" is the issue. How can we have knowledge of something immaterial? How can we be justified in believing any claims about such a thing?

I don't want to get hung on on the definition of "fact", but in most of those definitions, it is a reasonably usage of the word to say that the non-existence of leprechauns, elves, grues, and souls are facts. But of course, nothing is ever 100% certain. All knowledge is provisional.

In the case of souls, we have reasonable explanations for the belief in souls, we can trace the history of the idea through time, we know that psychological people are prone to see patterns and connections that aren't really there and to assign agency to things that have none. And we have good evidence to believe there is no separate mind or consciousness that exists independently of the body. Which gives us reason to believe that "souls", ie, an immaterial, animating life force, are a leftover from a prescientific world view.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, unless that evidence ought to be there. The classic example is that of someone claiming the left their keys at your house. If you search high and low and do not find the keys, that is evidence of absence. People have been searching for the soul for centuries, and the best we've gotten is nonsense like the "21 grams" theory. So no, I cannot say in some absolute sense "there is no soul", but the weight of evidence and lack thereof is strongly against it.