And people ACT like they have souls, whether they know it or not! That's what they do.
You have yet to demonstrate this. At this point it remains an assertion. I'm willing to consider that it may be a correct assertion, but until you demonstrate it, I'll continue with what seems like the best explanation of human behavior and neuro-science to me - that we do not, in fact, act as if we had souls. At least not all of us, and not in the ways that you suggest.
In practical terms, they are the same way dead as they are alive,
I don't even know what that would mean. Do they walk around on legs? Can they feel pain? What is different, if they are practically the same? If I cut a soul, will it bleed?
But don't ask me precisely how this punishment is carried out. I don't know.
Nor have we yet to see any reason to believe that you know if it exists at all. Again, if you supply that reason, I'm very happy to look at it. If you feel you have already supplied that, please point out where and I'll see if it makes sense to me. If it doesn't, I'll tell you why, and hopefully you'll be able to either say, "oh, you're right, I missed something." or, "Oh, no, that criticism fails, because of XYZ". That's how discussion works. Thanks.
So, the question to ask yourself with my OP is: Have I demonstrated that my theoretical father who thinks he has no soul is really acting like he has a soul, or not?
You haven't. You asserted that he was, but you haven't demonstrated it.
When you think reality is just a stream of sensory impulses into your brain, and one stream is just as good as another?
Who here thinks this, by the way?
I am sorry I cannot reply to all posts, or explain in greater detail. There are two reasons for this.
---I flat don't have time. Sorry.
Okay, fair enough... see the bottom of this post for suggestions about this point. To put it briefly, learn from Piggy:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55469 (Killing Sagan's Dragon).
---I have discovered that when people resort to insults instead of calm discussion, it's because they are unable or unwilling to refute the argument. I have furthered discovered that people who resort to insults are people who's minds cannot be changed by any means whatsoever, and it is a pure waste of time to argue. Such people lack the capacity for intellectual honesty.
This doesn't hold water. I haven't made any deliberate attacks on you, yet you haven't responded to my posts. If you felt insulted by the things I said, I would suggest that it's because I pointed you that you were wrong, not because I insulted you.
Secondly, your initial post is an insult to many of the posters here. To think that you can make it without being insulted in return, and then to cry about how mean everyone on JREF is, is just arrogance. (That's not an insult, it's a simple statement of fact that I sincerely hope you will consider, and may in the future help you realize how to conduct a civil dialog).
In spite of this, your first thread was treated with relative civility. People tried to engage you in a meaningful discourse. You ignored them, and started up a new thread making exactly the same argument, but with an insulting OP. Some (myself included) continued to try to have a meaningful dialog, while others got fed up, and I can't blame them.
Finally, you ignored all the points made in that thread, and started another one. At this point it was very clear that you were not actually interested in a dialog, and were only interested in making your insulting assertions.
I can live with being insulted. You might be right, so I feel you have a right to make those assertions.
If you back them up.. Why start these threads if you aren't willing to talk about the points you raise?
Why start these threads if you aren't willing to consider any of the points others raise?
Like creationists. Their minds are made up, and they are going to cling to demonstrably false beliefs in the face of all logic and reason. Exactly like creationists, except with a different dogma. They will strain at any gnat, swallow any camel, willfully close their eyes and their minds to the obvious, to hold onto their beliefs.
And you say that we're insulting you. Please show evidence that we will not respond to reason, or are immersed in our dogma. I'd love to see it.
As I'm requesting evidence from you, I'll try to play fair and offer some of my own that I willingly change my opinion when I'm shown to be wrong. Here's one example from shortly after I joined the forum:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=972293&postcount=37
Here's a very recent example of me recanting something I said,
in your last thread:
My bad, I made an assumption that I shouldn't have and it turned out to be false. Mea culpa.
from this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1593449&postcount=136
Admittedly it wasn't in response to you, but if you feel that I have to accept that I'm wrong before you'll believe that I am willing to be shown that I'm wrong, then... you need to reassess your logic.
The above example was chosen because it was recent, and it was something that I expect you saw before writing this post.
Here's an example of how to have a reasonable discourse with someone you disagree with, from a thread started by someone arguing something very similar to you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1565253&postcount=61
In a different post, I made the observation:"If there are no souls, the only rational thing to be is a sociopath." Because without souls, it then becomes possible to escape the consequences of your actions.
The behavior being exhibited in this thread is proof of that proposition.
Hiding behind their false names, they can and do perform actions they'd never have the guts to do if everybody knew who they really were. Because they can get away with it, you see. Nothing is restricting their behavior, NOTHING.
Are you suggesting that someone who believed he had a soul would act differently? Are you suggesting that if the posters in this thread thought they had a soul they'd be afraid to insult you?
That's funny, since the OP makes the assertion that they
do believe that they have souls.
We disagree, but that's your position, remember?
I'm sure these people who had parents who taught them to be polite, who sternly shook their finger at them and told them "You ought to be good!" But somehow, that's not working.
The funny thing is, Jeff, that you're not following that advice either. Which suggests (according to your logic) that you don't believe you have a soul.
It is not polite to make assertions about what other people believe and then ignore their responses. Please try to understand that.
Soul experiments.
Laboratory detection of souls, in a reproducible, controlled manner.
That's what would settle this argument for good and all. If souls exist as real, physical entities, it should certainly be possible to detect them in a laboratory, like all the other real, physical entities.
We'd expect that, yes. And yet after all the medical tests that have been done on people, guess what? None of them has shown the existence of a soul.
Hm.. rather telling, isn't it?
Of course we can't prove that souls don't exist. If you want to understand why, see this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55469 (Killing Sagan's Dragon). That doesn't mean that they do, though.
In fact, by Piggy's logic (see the above thread), we
can know that souls
don't exist...
Demonstrate that souls cannot be found in the laboratory, and the world's religions will go away. It will be a slow process and take decades, but in the end they'll vanish. People are smart, in the end. They have to be. Evolution demands it.
Souls have not been found in the lab. It is impossible to demonstrate to anyone but an orange skeptic that they
cannot be found. And if you are an orange skeptic, you will accept that it's already been demonstrated!
(By the way Piggy, thanks for the new vocabulary, it's turning out to be rather useful!).
And by the way Jeff, if you want to see what happens when you approach a subject with the interest of reasoned debate in a civil manner, take a look at that thread I mentioned. Very few insults. Having a hard time keeping up with all the posters who disagree? Do what Piggy did, ask them to lay off while you respond. We'd listen, you know, if the request was genuine.
Saying, "I have no time to respond, so instead I'll just start another thread making the same assertions that you've just shown to be false" is neither civil nor very honest.
I'm not suggesting that you should put in as much effort or patience as Piggy did in that thread. I don't think I could. But I am suggesting that you learn from him how to conduct a reasoned debate. We won't necessarily agree with you, but I can promise that I at least will listen to what you have to say.
In fact, I'm still very willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. I just doubt that it'll happen. Please note that those statements are not contradictory.
