My experience at RaptureReady

[Andonyx]

Good Lord, Russ, It's midnight!

Do you live to chase around intellectual miscreants and debate their ill-conceived views?

Well, I guess somebody's got to.

 

[RussDill]

Sure they are.

You want to explain to me how either science or religion is monolithic. It seem to me they are both very distributed and diverse.

Nonetheless the effect is the same.

Science gains the interest of the masses because people are interested in it, not because it pushes its beliefs and ethics (like religion).

Tell it to Joseph Stalin, or any other totalitarian dictator.

Joseph stalin did not rule with religion. He ruled with brute force. With religion, you don't need brute force, you can create atrocities simply by speaking.

Yes, but isn't this what science is all about, drawing conclusions? If so, doesn't it in effect "promote" the general "lack of" emotion? You know, as if it were somehow preferrential? This is what I mean by science taking itself too seriously.

So, you think science should include emotion when reaching its conclusions instead of reason? What extra fact or knowledge could be learned by replacing reason with emotion. If reason decides one thing, and emotion decides another, than the desicion based with emotion instead of reason would clearly be wrong.

 

[RussDill]

So, would you have me prove that I can talk to spirits?

That would be a wonderfull first step. Prove you can talk to spirits, and you'll have my attention. Incidentally, if you can prove to James Randi that you can talk to spirits, you'll be a million dollars richer.

 

[RussDill]

Good Lord, Russ, It's midnight!

Do you live to chase around intellectual miscreants and debate their ill-conceived views?

Well, I guess somebody's got to.

naw, just been sick

 

[Ipecac]

You're referring to the Patriarchal version of religion we have today, as opposed to the Matriarchal version we had thousands of years ago, which put women in the center of existence and embraced life.

But what about the mystery of the soul? Do you think science should neglect this?

No, we have that which is external, versus that which is internal.

Or, perhaps those who can't reconcile themselves to the fact that God might exist.

As pointed out above, this utopia you seem to believe in never existed.

Prove there is a soul. You can't. Religion posits the soul, indeed depends on its existence. Science has yet to demonstrate it even exists. Based on the history and success rate of religion and science, my money's on science.

Atheists reconcile themselves to the fact that god might exist. But since there's no evidence for such a conclusion, it's irrational to proceed as if he does exist. What's clear is that most religious folk cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that god might NOT exist.

 

[Iacchus]

That would be a wonderfull first step. Prove you can talk to spirits, and you'll have my attention. Incidentally, if you can prove to James Randi that you can talk to spirits, you'll be a million dollars richer.

Well, I'm speaking to you aren't I?

 

[Suezoled]

Well, I'm speaking to you aren't I?

?????

I'm not understanding this reply

 

[Iacchus]

As pointed out above, this utopia you seem to believe in never existed.

I refuse to answer this on the grounds that I "may" not know what I'm talking about.

Prove there is a soul. You can't. Religion posits the soul, indeed depends on its existence. Science has yet to demonstrate it even exists. Based on the history and success rate of religion and science, my money's on science.

Is it up to science to conclude that you have a soul? Or, is it up to you? If it's there, then there should be a way to determine this, because it's yours.

Atheists reconcile themselves to the fact that god might exist. But since there's no evidence for such a conclusion, it's irrational to proceed as if he does exist. What's clear is that most religious folk cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that god might NOT exist.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[Iacchus]

?????

I'm not understanding this reply

What was that song by Sting? ... "We are Spirits in the Material World?"

 

[Suezoled]

What what was that song by Sting? ... "We are Spirits in the Material World?"

So you run on the assumption that souls/spirits exist in the first place? And since you think you have a soul, answering Ipecac is the same as the soul answering him? Yeah. Sure. Apply for that million then, if you like.

 

[Iacchus]

So you run on the assumption that souls/spirits exist in the first place? And since you think you have a soul, answering Ipecac is the same as the soul answering him? Yeah. Sure. Apply for that million then, if you like.

Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply?

 

[Yahweh]

Well I see Russ has already taken the floor and cleaned up house...

A nice way to start the New Year, aint it...

 

[Yahweh]

Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply?

Kwazy analysis:

No souls. No spirits. No auras. No chakras. No phantoms. No ghosts. No duality.

Souls are not real, they are not necessary for existence. And if you trust your experience so much, you can only agree that this is true.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Like I said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ...

Why don't you ask Sting about it? He might even give you a reply?

I don't think a phrase like "proof of the pudding is in the eating" is quite sufficeint to prove the existance of a soul. Please elaborate on why you think a soul exists because if you are saying that the fact that we are here is proof of a soul then you are doing nothing more than making a circular argument.

But I would hate to set up and knockdown a strawman so please elaborate...

 

[Iacchus]

Well I see Russ has already taken the floor and cleaned up house...

A nice way to start the New Year, aint it...

He may be better versed in the use of words, but that only proves he's better versed in the use of words.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't think a phrase like "proof of the pudding is in the eating" is quite sufficeint to prove the existance of a soul. Please elaborate on why you think a soul exists because if you are saying that the fact that we are here is proof of a soul then you are doing nothing more than making a circular argument.

Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable. And if you could understand that, there would be nothing else I need to tell you.

 

[Yahweh]

He may be better versed in the use of words, but that only proves he's better versed in the use of words.

I cant help it if those words he put together make arguments that trump over yours

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Just as with everything else, if it wasn't "self-evident" it would be unknowable. And if you could understand that, there would be nothing else I need to tell you.

The word "soul" has certain connotations, at the very least it refers to some non-material part of your being. The existence of such a thing is certainly not self-evident. the mere fact that I exists does not necessarily imply such a thing.

 

[Ipecac]

Is it up to science to conclude that you have a soul? Or, is it up to you? If it's there, then there should be a way to determine this, because it's yours.

You are correct. If the soul is there, there should be a way to determine this. But there isn't. There never has been. That tends to suggest that it doesn't exist.

The rest of your reply about it being up to me doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll just let it go.

 

[Iacchus]

The word "soul" has certain connotations, at the very least it refers to some non-material part of your being. The existence of such a thing is certainly not self-evident. the mere fact that I exists does not necessarily imply such a thing.

Then how would you define your "conscious identity?"

You are correct. If the soul is there, there should be a way to determine this. But there isn't. There never has been. That tends to suggest that it doesn't exist.

The rest of your reply about it being up to me doesn't make a lot of sense so I'll just let it go.

Are we speaking for everyone here or what? Thus far we have 2 votes against and 1 vote for. But what about the rest of humanity? Are you saying that what applies to you applies to everyone else? I'm sure there are lots of people in the world that would beg to differ.