cuchulain

An attempt to get over a label that isn't accurate...with another label that doesn't seem too accurate either. OH well.

My memory plays practical jokes, I think...but I am not certain, as I can't remember.

Stoic Atheist serves me well enough. Bright? That's a new one for me, now I have to look that one up. You made me do work!!!

you always may disagree, it does not bother me. you are respectful about it and seem to engage in polite discussion. i changed nothing about my convictions after kids, so maybe that's unique to the individual.

I can certainly agree with that sentiment.

indeed, a certain amount of anonymity is built into the interactions we have on the internet. this allows for greater ease of deception in terms of credentials, or at the least more distrust of credentials on a claim only basis.

What bothered me was he kept insisting we had all made the assumption he was a creationist. Am I the only one who sees on his profile that he appreciates "God's creation"? Doesn't that make him a...creationist? Out of his own mouth?

I don't know the differences between all the forms of logic. I was thinking yesterday about an analogy to use for this, so here goes: The human interprets the light that is reflected off the surface of my car and says, "white". I have been told, and understand through various teachers, and very well may be wrong...that the actual car isn't what is white, but rather it's the light that is reflected from the car and our minds interpretation of that light. I kind of think the same thing with logic. Logic doesn't exist in and of itself, but rather is filtered through the human faculties until we come up with what we each believe to be logical. I have little doubt that diego from the other thread believed in his logic(I know, that probably is irksome to have someone refer to it as his logic, but that's my interpretation). But I certainly didn't start this thread with any intention of baiting or aggravating others. I thought the topic was worth discussing in and of itself.

There is often a misunderstanding, sometimes deliberate I think, that other people cannot understand something without being a part of it. What is human empathy for if not to try to understand the position of others? I don't have to be a father to understand how a father might respond to his child being threatened. I don't have to be homosexual to understand how a homosexual person might feel being persecuted by others. I don't have to be...well, you get the picture I am sure. The bottom line for me is my own conscience. I would try my best not to harm another individual, period, because I would feel bad about myself for not having been capable of finding a better alternative. I don't say I will never harm another person, but I will strive my best not to fail at that.

I don't know if every human is entitles to respect, or dignity...but I consider myself worth enough that I should always give respect and dignity to others. I think if I failed to give another person respect, I would feel badly about myself.

It recently came up in another topic in the monotheism section that logic is independent of person. It also came up with the person in particular that they had a degree and therefore knew. I have been considering this position a great deal over the last few days. I stated during that particular debate something along the lines of my logic vs theirs, and they insisted that logic is independent of person, and therefore the same regardless of who is using it. I don't know that I agree or disagree. I can understand that logic is a process. It is defined as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. Principles are defined as a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning: and also; a fundamental source or basis of something. So I wonder, where do principles come from? Are they extraneous of man, or dependent on man to form? From the definition, it certainly sounds as if principles depend upon man to define them. And logic with a strict set of principles seems to me to require a human mind to form. So I do not believe logic to be independent of man. I fully acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, and am very welcome to input proving such. So far as claiming a degree grants a certain amount of authority over a subject...I say hockey. There are lots of assumptions about the world and the people within it. There are lots of people in lots of different flavors. I have known people who couldn't figure things out easily at all, and had to be handheld the entire way through any process repeatedly to get it. Some of those people had degrees. One subject, my wife, has a degree in mass communications, specializing in recording technologies, and can't hook up the dvd player! I have known people who could reason with the best of them, determining on so few facts as to seem almost amazing to me, who had no formal education whatsoever. I had a great grandfather who could beat the register with calculations, including tax, and never graduated middle school. A piece of paper as authority seems very weak to me.

Fool for questioning? Now how sounds the fool...

i found it amusing when he told me he had a degree and knew more than i. assumptions, which diego accused johnathan of making.

It sounds like you like to play word games. I wish you well on your path.

I do not disagree with your right to believe in that all powerful, all knowing, and all loving entity...I only assert my right to tell you I don't believe in that being. Why don't I believe? Because I have not been presented with what I consider appropriate evidence to believe. I believe that those three qualities combined are self defeating, but that is just my logic at work. If you dislike my logic, well...it isn't yours, now is it?

The punishment for awful behavior is the same as the reward for good behavior. We all die. I think a lot of people believe death is a negative thing, that it's a horror inflicted on us, that...well, you get the idea, I suppose. A lot of people think coffee is horrible too. I personally think liver is horrible.

First impressions are often reactionary. Stoics say, let things sink in. Give it time. I think about the people I meet randomly and as passing acquaintance with. I think about how I interacted with them, and how they interacted with me, if there was interaction. If there wasn't, why there wasn't. I consider the impact all around, or at least as far around as I can see. I consider how the situation could have been worse(negative visualization is an important factor in stoicism). Overall, I do not let these impacts actually affect the way that I behave towards people, whether good or bad. My behavior is one of the rare things in life I have control over, which is also why I am a pacifist. I try not to voluntarily surrender my control over my behavior, though sometimes I fail. I try to treat everyone I meet as a brother, or sister. In Illinois, this drew a particularly strange reaction most of the time. People would look at me like I was crazy for talking with them as good, human people, even though I didn't know them. Now that I live in Georgia, I have noticed the reaction is not outstanding. In fact, a lot of people around here strike up the same tone with me when I do not with them. It's kind of a nicety I suppose.

Maybe it is a statement about the duality of existence? Such as, there can be no light without the darkness to contrast. There can be no pain without pleasure, and so on. Although, from a being who can do anything, it kind of doesn't sit as well with me and many others who think that being could have made different rules.

Hey, I thought of that first!

I can completely respect someone who admits they just believe it but have no proof, so long as they are like you and don't push their belief on others as fact. I wish more could do that. Or that more could simply admit they don't know, like Johnathan. I guess that's the point I am at. I don't know. Not knowing, I see no reason to act as though a soul exists.

Now...really? The first response above says that I originally made the claim in order to defeat it myself, as in straw man(false, by the way. Look at my original question and tell me where I did that). Then the very next response from you is this...which states that I asked for proof of a claim. Isn't that a little contradictory to what you wrote directly above it? You are correct. I asked for proof of the claim that a soul exists. Someone asked in this topic for the claim to be defined, so I defined it as I understood it. Let me see. First for you, is making sure I understand what is meant by a soul. So I was asked for definition of soul, told it wasn't definable, etc...then I went to the dictionary definition as a general neutral definition. SO that step is covered, yes? Second for you, determine how observable phenomenon would be effected if THE claim were true(not my claim). Well, if the claim that a soul, as defined by the dictionary, is true...it would alter my world view significantly because I would be facing evidence that intangible energies exist in a state that I did not previously believe possible. Check. Got that step down. Unless you mean how a soul would affect the world in which we live? Then we need to figure out from the definition how a soul would affect the world, and how that effect would be observable. At this time, I cannot conceive of a manner in which that would be the case. Does that mean the claim is null? Third for you, determine if observable phenomenon are effected in that way. I don't grasp that one, mererdog. Somewhere you missed a step, I believe. You forgot the proof part? I cannot determine if observable phenomenon are effected without evidence. Maybe you mean that if a soul exists it would have some impact on the physical world that we should be able to observe? The definition of soul is that it is immaterial. I do not grasp how a soul would have a material, observable impact on the world we live in. Again, does that make the claim null? Fourth, draw conclusions about the veracity of the claim. Well, from my observances(or lack of observances) on how a soul affects the world, I conclude it does not exist. That is my belief, not a statement of fact.

If WE were going to claim that...or you? I don't claim that a soul doesn't exist. I claim that I don't believe in a soul. Big difference.

I don't believe most of them. I suppose I am the opposite of your spectrum There was a member on this forum that insisted they talked to demons, angels, jesus, god...all the time. I wrote down a bible verse and set it down on my end table and asked him to ask them what verse I had written. It got ugly from there, on their part. That's my usual reaction, when I try to gauge some claim with verifiable evidence. I don't doubt that many of these people actually believe what they say, but they cannot under any circumstance reproduce their claim or verify it in any measurable manner, which makes the claim useless.

So a brief recap of the conversation to date: I ask if anyone thinks a soul exists, and what evidence or reference do they have. Someone says it does, someone else thinks it might, but no tangible proof. Someone else entirely has a problem with there being no working definition of soul. I give a definition of soul. Several people seem offended that I didn't include everyone's definition, and some suggest that it is not definable. It is specified that for the sake of this particular debate, soul can be defined as in the dictionary. Someone argues that the dictionary definition isn't good enough for whatever reason. I point out that a debate needs to have two sides agree on a definition. At this point, I am starting to think it's a ludicrous proposition to debate the existence of a soul, if we are going to get sidetracked about what definition to use and whether it's definable, and point that out. Then I get told that definitions are important when asking for proof, and never mind that I have provided a definition. This feels very circular, you know?

Did you really just ask for evidence that something doesn't exist?