quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
It only takes a few extremist Muslims to give the religion a bad name... generalizations are not exactly uncommon, and I'm sure if you examine yourself, you'll find some.

But I'm not the one who is trying to use one as a valid point of argument, now am I?

Your defenses keep getting worse and worse. Now you're actually trying to claim "well, everyone else is doing it" as a basis for your argument. For someone who prides himself so highly on logic and good argumentation, I simply fail to see any evidence of either here.

Give me the proof I asked for, and I'll give you your generalization.

It only takes a few extremist Muslims to give the religion a bad name... generalizations are not exactly uncommon, and I'm sure if you examine yourself, you'll find some.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
The generalization holds, because the non-denominational faith, what ever that might be, is not centralized, so rather than having one greedy person at the top you have thousands of greedy people all over the place.
***
Oh I know, thats just two instances by one church. But hey the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Actually, no, the generalization doesn't hold. For this generalization to hold, you would have to systematically examine the practices of every single Non-Denominational Christian in the world in order to definitely prove that they are indeed greedy. Tossing out two examples and saying something equivalent to "well, hell, I'd reckon that goes for everyone else, too" just doesn't cut it.

You give me some definitive proof that all Non-Denoms (or even just their leaders) are greedy, and I'll let you pass with that frivolous generality. But until then, it is a baseless assertion--and a reprehensibly narrow-minded one at that.

See why generalizations are such a poor form of thought?

Aww poor thing has given up and lost already...

If you find the whole idea so mind boggling, then
why don't you just try it out for yourself and see. FYI, it won't cost you a damn thing. But I know you won't, so I just want to take the time out to thank you for adding to the narrow-mindedness that is so prevalent in this world.

The generalization holds, because the non-denominational faith, what ever that might be, is not centralized, so rather than having one greedy person at the top you have thousands of greedy people all over the place. There is no control, oh and I have seen the great works non-denoms do... like alienating other religions, see GOBIND SADAN USA, or by this wonderful lawsuit that destroyed a wonderful village in Upstate NY. http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/KiesingerDecision.pdf

Oh I know, thats just two instances by one church. But hey the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

But I can't believe that you can make a living off of telling people that some imaginary god loves them. It boggles my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
Last time i checked lungs move air

And last time I checked, that didn't address my previous point.

As I cross-posted with you on the Joel Osteen thing, my previous post still holds, and I would invite a response thereto. Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn, Richard Roberts and their ilk are all charlatans, but that still doesn't prove a thing about the larger Non-Denominational movement or the Church in general. It only proves there are greedy people in the world. And that is certainly not news to me.

So unless you're secretly hiding some evidence that the Non-Denominational movement or the Church is completely corrupt, please disavow this generalization.

oh great, I gotta do a double post.. sorry

OK, Hydrok...first off, there is no THE non-denominational christian church. I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with whatever it is you are talking about. Who rents out Houston's Astrodome? Joel Osteen? ick, I can't stand the man, as do many other Christians. He is a televangelist. He prolly rents it b/c he has crowds that are in the thousands, tens of thousands actually. And what you are talking about are these mega-churches. Kind of a new thing I guess, but if you are going to have such a big production and reach so many people, then I'm guessing the bills are pretty high. I looked up a few things about the crackpot and I suggest you look at this: http://www.forgottenword.org/osteen.html before you go making any assumptions about Christianity as a whole.
And EQB has an extremely good point about this, I suggest you read it and consider it.

And Clpo,
If the Buddhists have something against that statement, which I'm sure they do, then thats great. I was just making a point that just b/c we don't know if we had a life before this one doesn't mean we won't have one after this one. I mean, we might have, but since we have no memory of it anyway, then what good does it do us?

And what I meant about corruption is that the idea behind the church and what it stands for is not corrupt. Its people who get their slimy, greedy hands on it and try to use it for their own personal gain. It happens with all ideas. Look at communism, good idea, bad people.

quote:

On the other hand, belief in something unknown (or unknowable) is based on faith that such a thing exists. Skeptics, such as Hydrok and myself, require a bit more than mere faith to believe in something.

The thing you guys are overlooking is, that the belief that a soul does not exist takes just as much faith as believing it does exist.

quote:

Also, Holliewood, your Plato argument is very nice for proving that the soul is indestructible and therefore immortal, but it does nothing to prove the existence of a soul in the first place. Thus, it's useless as a proof of life after death.

That was actually used for proving your soul is immortal therefore there is life after death. I wasn't using that to prove there was a soul.

quote:

If a soul is to be the "essence" of a person, it would be assumed that it would be unchanging throughout the life of said person.

Who says it can't grow and change with time?

quote:

Therefore, it can't be what makes a person act the way they do because such behavior is defined by experiences.

And that right there is a whole other argument. I used to believe this, but many would suggest that behavior can be hereditary as well.

And you are getting my drift of soul wrong. I meant to explain the soul as life. Basically, everything tied together. I think I actually just explained in the one right below me.

quote:

And I won't even get into the proof game. The agnostic in me says that such things as souls and God can neither be proven nor disproven, so I won't bother to try either.

So what stance do you take?

quote:

Last time i checked lungs move air

And what first moved your lungs?

Last time i checked lungs move air

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
I'm sorry so explain to me how the Non-denominational church can afford to rent out the Houston Astrodome every sunday for worship?

You're quite missing the point. I'm taking issue with the fact that you are somehow conflating the actions of one church with the beliefs and practices of the whole Christian Non-denominational body. I would be quite willing to bet that the church you mention also gives a considerable amount of its revenue to charity, so pointing to the fact that it rents (rents, mind you, which would be cheaper than building) a building large enough to house its congregation proves nothing. If said church were taking the congregation's money, blowing it on fast cars and loose women and not giving any to charity, then yeah, I'd have a problem with it. But you've illustrated nothing we haven't already admitted and conceded! Abuse occurs. However, to claim it's the whole church or a whole movement that's corrupt is logically incoherent and quite incomprehensible.

For God sakes, do you even read anything?

Your soul is your very life. You're telling me you don't feel life? Life is breath. The word for 'soul', or 'life', and 'breath' is the same in many ancient languages. Soul is not air, but the power to move it. I've already explained as to how your brain is not the deciding factor of consciousness. Sure, brain waves may occur when someone is feeling hate, but that might just be the effect of something else.

quote:

And yes lets again toss around more insults etc.

I was only giving you what you were asking for. I only throw insults back.

quote:

So why the hell would you use an argument that you cant prove?

And you can't disprove it. So my question is, why would it be illogical to believe in it? You asked me "what on earth makes people believe in life after death?". Me and EQB have given several arguments that support why this belief could be true. You have only combatted with the ever-so-popular "if I can't see it, its not there" and you rely solely on science. Unfortunately, if you lived in the 1500s and you relied on science, you'd be missing out on a lot. Science is limited, and I only see it as another way of looking at things. Not the end all be all.

quote:

We most likely didn't have a life before this one.

And what do you base this on? I'm sure Buddhists and Hindus might have something against that statement.

quote:

churches aren't corrupt, people are.

And what are churches but their congregations? I don't necessarily agree with Hydrok on that point, but I just thought I'd point that out.

quote:

Well I think its silly to not believe something just because you haven't seen it.

What better to base beliefs on? Beliefs, mind you, are not necessarily concrete (with possible exceptions in extremist religions) and can change with new information. For instance, I don't really believe in ghosts, but if I saw one and knew, without a doubt, that it was a ghost, I'd believe. Well, it might take a bit more than that considering how skeptical I am, but you get my drift.

On the other hand, belief in something unknown (or unknowable) is based on faith that such a thing exists. Skeptics, such as Hydrok and myself, require a bit more than mere faith to believe in something.

Also, Holliewood, your Plato argument is very nice for proving that the soul is indestructible and therefore immortal, but it does nothing to prove the existence of a soul in the first place. Thus, it's useless as a proof of life after death.

Now, I can't tell you what a soul is, but I can tell you what it isn't. If a soul is to be the "essence" of a person, it would be assumed that it would be unchanging throughout the life of said person. Therefore, it can't be what makes a person act the way they do because such behavior is defined by experiences. For instance, an infant acts mostly on instinct. If it's tired, it will sleep. If it's hungry, it will cry until it is fed. And so on. Later on, as the child develops and experiences the world, it will learn that sleep is not necessarily the right thing to do when tired, as many of us know from being punished while sleeping in class. Crying when hungry also becomes unacceptable. How do children learn these things? From experience. Actions (or their motives) do not define a soul.

Neither do emotions (which love and hate are). Emotions stem from the brain, which has been shown scientifically to be true. By applying electrical currents to neurons in certain areas of the human brain, one can simulate emotion. Tapping one neuron may make a person intensely happy. Another may cause them to feel immense sadness. Emotions are tied into the brain, making them another invalid candidate for forming a soul.

People change over time. Drastically, in some cases. A person may go from being the most caring individual in the whole world to being the a miserable and hateful person after witnessing a particularly nasty hate crime. Does their soul change as their very personality changes? If a soul is what makes us us, what happens if we lose ourselves?

quote:

I refer you to the various cases of people who have had near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, etc.

Not all NDEs are representative of some spiritual experience. Ketamine, for instance, can simulate an "out of body" experience with the subject seeing bright lights and feeling as if they were floating above their body. Of course, this doesn't mean that at least some NDEs are indeed authentic spiritual experiences, but I highly doubt most are, making it a rather poor bit of proof towards an afterlife.

quote:

Look up a little bit about people who go brain dead. You will be interested in what you find. Your brain obviously does not control consciousness.

According to my research on the matter, it seems that someone who is brain dead lacks all electrical activity in the brain. And since experiments show that a functioning thalamus is necessary for consciousness, it would seem that the brain does indeed regulate consciousness. Of course, I'm no expert in neurophysiology, so I can't say for sure.

And I won't even get into the proof game. The agnostic in me says that such things as souls and God can neither be proven nor disproven, so I won't bother to try either.

Oh wait thats because Joel Osteen is a multi millionare... who makes his fortune off of ignorance and weak minds. Tickets to see Joel Osteen can run up to 100+ dollars.

I'm sorry so explain to me how the Non-denominational church can afford to rent out the Houston Astrodome every sunday for worship?

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
So why the hell would you use an argument that you cant prove?

Which is, of course, nothing like your argument that we do not have a soul?

Proof (insofar as you seem to conceive it) lies on neither side, only belief.

I would still like to see an actual retort to Hollie's philosophical argument. Oh, and some sort of defense of your "multi-million dollar churches" statement in regard to what I've said would show a little respect for your own opinion, as well.

I can show you what brain waves look like when you experiance hate, or most other emotions for that matter... I cant say i've ever even felt the presense of whatever this "soul" thing is.

And yes lets again toss around more insults etc... The Burden of Proof game is where you tell me that everyone has a soul, and I say "prove it" because you cant prove it, and you know you cant prove it. So why the hell would you use an argument that you cant prove?

quote:

Oh hell no, I will not play the burden of proof game with you or anyone else. Sorry, but I don't need to prove that I don't have a soul. If I cant see it and you can't point to it and show me, then it's not there. So the burden of proof on the soul issue lies with you.

That just shows that you have nothing to back up your side. How about you show me hate, so that I can look at it and poke at it, and then decide if it exists based on that. I don't know what kind of "game" here you are referring to, but I'm not playing any games, I'm just being logical unlike you.

quote:

When we die, our brain activity flatlines with everything else. I think thats as good assessment as any.

Assessment of what exactly? The thing is, you are basing your beliefs on assessments and guesses. That takes just as much faith as believing in life after death.

quote:

How about the brain, "love hate and inspiration" come from the brain, as do all emotions, ever see Waterboy?

I have seen Waterboy...a movie? Wow what great scientific source you got there! Here's the thing, the soul exists. You may call it what you like: "the breath of life", "your waste of life", "the power that moved you to live", etc. You started living, and whatever it was that started the whole thing off is what people refer to as a soul. FYI, we do not have a scientific explanation of when somebody starts living, why do you think abortion is such a controversial issue? And then to answer your thing about the brain ~ You are a big fan of what can be observed, so I think you can possibly agree with this (although since it doesn't fit your opinion then prolly not). Anyway, what have we found out? When the body dies, all the physical indications of consciousness (speech, reflex) stop. However, we do not observe the soul or spirit of that person ceasing to exist. What you observe of the body does not tell us anything about whether or not we have a soul that goes on to another place. Look up a little bit about people who go brain dead. You will be interested in what you find. Your brain obviously does not control consciousness.

quote:

And as far as seeing and believing goes... I guess I'm not blessed enough for that... I'll be on my way to hell now.

And don't be so dramatic. What I meant was, since I can't see things like love, hate, or even air, that doesn't mean I shouldn't believe they exist.

quote:

You dont think that building multi-million dollar churches for the sake of profit of the few is a bad idea? Why do you need the Astrodome to pray in? Do you have any idea the kind of money that they pull in and put out? Religion is a business especially Christianity.

Stop putting words in my mouth. No, I despise and totally disagree with churches that feel the need to build their buildings out of gold and make profits. I think they should be torn down and sold piece by piece. My question was why on earth did you single out non-denominational Christians. I take offense to that, b/c I am one. And for your information. I've been going to church in a building that is prolly not much bigger than a modern day home and was built in the early 70s by the people who attended, just so they could have somewhere to meet. You obviously have a very tainted view of Christianity, but you also don't have much of a clue about anything other than what you have either heard or seen from on television. I mean seriously, have you ever even been to a non-denominational Christian church? Or any Christian church for that matter? You seem to know diddly squat about it. You're just like those people who make generalizations about whole races of people based on running into a few and seeing them on tv.

quote:

Thats ironic, because I figured a 2 year old would understand my points... but I guess I was mistaken.

wtf? How ironic, a 2 year old that knows how to read! I'm sorry but did I miss something, b/c I seem to be understanding your points quite easily, if thats what you wanna call them. Or maybe you just aren't reading my posts and this is all you have left to say... OR, maybe because I HAPPEN to have a different opinion than you (GOD FORBID), that you are so insecure to be able to accept that fact. You know what I have to say to this. God bless and good luck finding friends...that will be able to tolerate you that is.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
Oh hell no, I will not play the burden of proof game with you or anyone else. Sorry, but I don't need to prove that I don't have a soul.

quote:

Orignally posted by Hydrok:
I'd love to see evidence that I have a soul, or anyone does for that matter...

Right, so we're supposed to play the "burden of proof game," but you're exempt? I don't think I really need to elaborate beyond that, do I?

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
If I cant see it and you can't point to it and show me, then it's not there. So the burden of proof on the soul issue lies with you.

So despite being told by both Hollie and me that the soul issue is beyond the pale of science to address, you continue in your asinine insistence that we somehow make science explain something that it is wholly unequipped to handle. So why not address the issue philosophically? I do believe Hollie has already taken a stab at it, so perhaps you would care to retort with something other than a continuance of the science rhetoric. To paraphrase good Prince Hamlet, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Hydrok, than are dreamt of in your science."

Even your Beloved Science cannot fully explain consciousness. To term it as some sort of emergent trait based on synaptic pathways seems a bit inadequate. Such a notion as consciousness requires a philosophic approach to explicate.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
You dont think that building multi-million dollar churches for the sake of profit of the few is a bad idea? Why do you need the Astrodome to pray in? Do you have any idea the kind of money that they pull in and put out? Religion is a business especially Christianity.

It would be different if churches only went around building multi-million dollar buildings within which to worship. The problem is, they don't. You are ignoring all the acts of munificence done by the Church and by the faithful. Why is that? Because it is an inconvenient fact? All of us who do believe are more than willing to admit--and indeed have admitted--that corruption has and does exist in the Church. Perhaps you'd care to admit that the Church as a whole isn't some monolithic Organ of Evil, depriving the poor of their money to lay down some mortar.

quote:

Originally posted by faerienite:

I'd wager he was already quite well aware of this. Personally, I'm not intimidated, disgusted, nor annoyed by the frank dedication he puts into his posts; frankly, how he accomplishes the task of wordchoice is of no immediate concern to me as a contributer to this thread.

Quite so. I hope that my vocabulary neither impresses nor intimidates anyone because it's not meant to do so. It's just there. In fact, I'd be quite happy if nobody paid it any attention whatsoever.

"Well, personally I think there is a God..."
What does that mean? It certainly doesn't prove His/Her/It/Their existance.