Arrogance can be wounded...

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are deflecting. I did not in any way in that post even refer to a god. I said it is a possibility humans do not have a soul. That's ALL I said. You can see from your reaction that strikes a deep nerve in the religious population. The concept of soul is way deeper than the concept of god. That is to say the concept of soul is buried in our psyches way deeper than the concept of god.

The Holy Bible says that when God made the first man, He breathed
his spirit into him and he became a living soul. You are just arrogant
enough to say you know that is not true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says that when God made the first man, He breathed
his spirit into him and he became a living soul. You are just arrogant
enough to say you know that is not true.

Really touched a nerve there, eh. Where in that thread did I ever assert there was no soul? I merely suggested looking at the possibility. You are so hidebound in your religious brainwashing as to project things I didn't even say here. You are hallucinating words that are not even on the paper.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Really touched a nerve there, eh. Where in that thread did I ever assert there was no soul? I merely suggested looking at the possibility. You are so hidebound in your religious brainwashing as to project things I didn't even say here. You are hallucinating words that are not even on the paper.

This is from your post: "We have no soul, much as our psyche demands one."

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is from your post: "We have no soul, much as our psyche demands one."

You really love taking things out of context. Try reading the whole passage:

"It may very well be simple: We have no soul'

I am just broaching a subject. I did not assert we have no soul, only we should examine the concept.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You really love taking things out of context. Try reading the whole passage:

"It may very well be simple: We have no soul'

I am just broaching a subject. I did not assert we have no soul, only we should examine the concept.

The Holy Bible says the fact that you are living makes you a living soul.
I don't recall it saying that you have a soul. That is just something that
is made up by some people to try to explain the relationship between
the body, soul, and spirit. The body is not a person without the spirit
of life that makes it a living soul.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible says the fact that you are living makes you a living soul.
I don't recall it saying that you have a soul. That is just something that
is made up by some people to try to explain the relationship between
the body, soul, and spirit. The body is not a person without the spirit
of life that makes it a living soul.

Yes but why should I or anyone else care what it says in some book?

What makes the bible right?

You quote the bible as your source of knowledge, of what is right or wrong.
So the question that needs answering is why is the bible a good source of information?

Without a good answer to this question the bible can't be considered any more valid than
say harry potter.

To claim the bible as your bedrock you have to demonstrate it is sound.

And to do that you can't refer to anything it says in the bible because that would be a circular argument.
You need an external justification as for why the bible is valid.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but why should I or anyone else care what it says in some book?

What makes the bible right?

You quote the bible as your source of knowledge, of what is right or wrong.
So the question that needs answering is why is the bible a good source of information?

Without a good answer to this question the bible can't be considered any more valid tha uld be a circular argument.
You need an external justification as for why the bible is valid.

History has proved it right. Archeology has proved it right.
Science has proved it right. The shroud of Turin has proved it right.
Noah's arch has proved it right. Fullfilled prophecies, like the Jews
being back in Israel as a nation, proves it right. Christianity proves
it right. I could go on but you get the idea and you have already
said nothing is proof enough for you, so there is no point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes but why should I or anyone else care what it says in some book?

What makes the bible right?

You quote the bible as your source of knowledge, of what is right or wrong.
So the question that needs answering is why is the bible a good source of information?

Without a good answer to this question the bible can't be considered any more valid tha ...[text shortened]... uld be a circular argument.
You need an external justification as for why the bible is valid.

GF, let's assume you and I would likely refer to The Oxford Dictionary for the meaning or derivation of an English word.

In matters pertaining to absolute truth, which if any point of reference might you consider valid and authoritative? -gb

.

Originally posted by RJHinds
History has proved it right. Archeology has proved it right.
Science has proved it right. The shroud of Turin has proved it right.
Noah's arch has proved it right. Fullfilled prophecies, like the Jews
being back in Israel as a nation, proves it right. Christianity proves
it right. I could go on but you get the idea and you have already
said nothing is proof enough for you, so there is no point.

I really don't know what your getting at by saying history proves it right so ill skip that till you clarify.

Ditto for Archaeology.

Science in fact disagrees with the bible so science proves it wrong.

The shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, and even if it wasn't, wouldn't prove anything,
The fact that we have a sheet of cloth that was wrapped around someone when they died
is wholly unremarkable.

I presume you meant Noah's Ark, which is one of the absurdities of the bible, and I have no idea
what you mean by it proving the bible right, please elaborate.

And the fact that everyone knew the prophecies (and that the Jewish people desperately wanted to
go back to their prophesied homeland) influenced the decision to make a new country for the Jewish
people in Israel. And so again proves nothing.
I could prophesies that tomorrow I am going to have a chicken sandwich, the fact that I then have a
chicken sandwich tomorrow is highly unremarkable because I knew I prophesied I would have one,
and chose to make it so.
In the same way that people knew about the prophecies about the Jewish people and Israel, and chose
to make them come true.

Christianity does not prove the bible right.
The fact that lots of people believe what it says in the bible doesn't make the bible true.
Nor does it make it more likely the bible is true.

So far you haven't presented anything that comes even remotely close to proof for the bible being true.

I am sorry but there are objective standards of proof and justification that you are not meeting.

Unless you present something that does meet those criteria, you don't have proof.

I am not moving the goal posts. They are stationary, you are just nowhere near them.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
GF, let's assume you and I would likely refer to The Oxford Dictionary for the meaning or derivation of an English word.

In matters pertaining to absolute truth, which if any point of reference might you consider valid and authoritative? -gb

.

The universe. Reality itself.

You test ideas/assertions/propositions against reality through experiment and reason.

If they match up you gain some faith and trust that they are right, but you keep testing to make sure,
and if evidence contradicts them you change or abandon them.
The longer they go without being successfully challenged, and the more tests they pass the more reliable
they can be considered to be.

There is no person, book or authority that is above this.

However as it is not practicable for people to test everything themselves, we have a system of peer reviewed journals
that disseminate findings, that then get filtered down through various other publications for a more general audience
once the idea gets beyond a certain threshold of reliability.

In the case of the OED, the language we use is made by us, and as a society we define and shape it.
There are certain groups that are recognised as us as a society as providing reliable records of those decisions.

Words have existence and meaning only because we make them so, we define them, as a group.
We come to collective agreements about what words mean so we can communicate with each other effectively.
and disseminate those decisions via dictionary's (the process is not formal but that's how it works in effect)

The OED is a great reference for English words, but it is not infallible or above being tested or reviewed and altered,
And it is not what I would use if I wanted the scientific meaning of a word (although the OED is usually quite good in
including scientific meanings)


EDIT: I should also say that I don't believe you can have such a thing as 'Absolute' truth when it comes to the Universe or
Reality we live in.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
GF, let's assume you and I would likely refer to The Oxford Dictionary for the meaning or derivation of an English word.

In matters pertaining to absolute truth, which if any point of reference might you consider valid and authoritative? -gb

.

In matters pertaining to absolute truth, which if any point of reference might you consider valid and authoritative? -gb

The same point of reference as used for matters pertaining to frjwgjkhbdjkghjk (i.e. the two words "absolute truth" lack any agreed referent)

Originally posted by googlefudge
I really don't know what your getting at by saying history proves it right so ill skip that till you clarify.

Ditto for Archaeology.

Science in fact disagrees with the bible so science proves it wrong.

The shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, and even if it wasn't, wouldn't prove anything,
The fact that we have a sheet of cloth that was wrapp ...[text shortened]... .

I am not moving the goal posts. They are stationary, you are just nowhere near them.

Like I thought. There is no point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The universe. Reality itself.

You test ideas/assertions/propositions against reality through experiment and reason.

If they match up you gain some faith and trust that they are right, but you keep testing to make sure,
and if evidence contradicts them you change or abandon them.
The longer they go without being successfully challenged, and the m ...[text shortened]... ave such a thing as 'Absolute' truth when it comes to the Universe or
Reality we live in.

I know about those so-called peer reviewed journals. They gst
stuff printed in them that is not peer reviewed at all of is only
peer reviewed by one person, who is probably a buddy. They
are useless in many cases.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know about those so-called peer reviewed journals. They gst
stuff printed in them that is not peer reviewed at all of is only
peer reviewed by one person, who is probably a buddy. They
are useless in many cases.

The whole point of the journals is not just the peer review process. As time goes on, some papers beget other peer reviewed responses, either a challenge to the original paper or independent corroboration, and may lead to more fundamental discoveries so a major part of the judgement of the truth of a given paper is how many papers are written using that first paper as a reference. There are even studies of the number of references showing who is the most influential scientist in a given field.

You have a very shallow view of the peer review process.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The whole point of the journals is not just the peer review process. As time goes on, some papers beget other peer reviewed responses, either a challenge to the original paper or independent corroboration, and may lead to more fundamental discoveries so a major part of the judgement of the truth of a given paper is how many papers are written using that fir ...[text shortened]... luential scientist in a given field.

You have a very shallow view of the peer review process.

Hallelu Yah