By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Kenny]

All pretty much from the brain, so I suppose the brain is the home of the soul according to that thinking.

I would also classify this as the soul operating through the brain.

 

[Kenny]

\

But now that you bring it up, it makes sense that people who would be attracted to the cruel theology you describe would be so predisposed to commit the many, many atrocities done in Jesus's name throughout history.

Would you then attribute the same response to those attracted to the cruel theology of atheists by the atrocities done in the name of atheism?

 

[Polymath257]

The field of Psychology is the study of the soul

And yet, according to the psychologists, their study is the mind and behavior.

Of course. But we yet have understood the conscience of man. It is part of the soul

Conscience or consciousness? Both are functions of the brain.

Conscience is simply the result of societal and genetically induced sympathy for others.

Consciousness is ill-defined, which is the primary reason it is hard to study.

Conscience is non-material

I assume you have proof of this claim?

I would classify that at two people looking at the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion. Having been exposed to “spirits” and its influence in the material, I would disagree

I was talking about *spirituality as he described it*.

If something (a spirit, say) influences the material world, it is, almost by definition, material.

 

[Polymath257]

I would also classify this as the soul operating through the brain.

And yet, we know the brain exists but have no evidence for anything like a soul.

 

[Polymath257]

Would you then attribute the same response to those attracted to the cruel theology of atheists by the atrocities done in the name of atheism?

How many of those did their atrocities *because* of atheism, as opposed to a desire for power? For Christianity, the two are inextricably linked.

 

[Kenny]

And yet, according to the psychologists, their study is the mind and behavior.

It IS the study of the soul! The soul controls the material mind which controls the behavior

Conscience or consciousness? Both are functions of the brain.

which are control by the soul

Conscience is simply the result of societal and genetically induced sympathy for others.

That has not been empirically verified.

Consciousness is ill-defined, which is the primary reason it is hard to study.

Because it goes beyond the material

I assume you have proof of this claim?

You can’t see it?

I was talking about *spirituality as he described it*.

The soul has a spiritual component

If something (a spirit, say) influences the material world, it is, almost by definition, material.

I wouldn’t agree. I would say it is spiritual that affects the material and therefore more spiritual

Or..

two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you then attribute the same response to those attracted to the cruel theology of atheists by the atrocities done in the name of atheism?

I guess you missed my reply to @Starise a few pages back:

It's funny how often I run into this chauvinism and conceit from theists: this idea - like you're arguing here - that the presence or absence of a tenet of your beliefs is enough to define someone else's belief system.

The fact that you can't see the differences between belief systems that don't include gods is a "you" problem.

My belief systems and philosophies:

- humanism
- freethought
- skepticism

If any of these include "cruel theology," feel free to hold me to account.

 

[Polymath257]

It IS the study of the soul! The soul controls the material mind which controls the behavior

That is a claim. But what is the evidence this is what is going on?

As far as I can see, it is NOT a hypothesis that is taken seriously by psychologists or those studying the brain, consciousness, or anything else.

which are control by the soul

Any evidence for this claim? We see *nothing* in the functioning of the brain or mind that cannot be described by the physical properties of the brain.

That has not been empirically verified.

Because it goes beyond the material

No, because there is no commonly accepted definition. For example, is a fish conscious? is a bacterium? Is the universe as a whole?

You can’t see it?

No. In fact, the evidence we have points to consciousness being a property of the brain.

The soul has a spiritual component

Again, what evidence do you have for a 'soul'. And, further, what evidence do you have that it has a non=physical component?

I wouldn’t agree. I would say it is spiritual that affects the material and therefore more spiritual

Or..

two people looking at the same evidence and coming to different conclusions

Funny that those that specialize in the study of these things don't see a soul or anything non-material.

That isn't two people disagreeing. it is someone with a philosophical commitment disagreeing with those who study this for a living.

 

[metis]

I believe there is something within us genetically that teaches us some right from wrong as we are social animals and all social animals have a "pecking order" of some type, although there are always going to be some "delinquents" as well.

Thus, maybe this right from wrong pecking order may be the "soul".

 

[ElishaElijah]

Since some of those committing atrocities were the ones that chose the books to be included in the Bible, that might be a hard thing to argue.

Your opinion of God and the Bible really holds no weight. God is the Author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit is who spoke (He still speaks) to the men who wrote the Bible, Jesus Christ is the Word that became flesh.
I’m not sure the atrocities you’re referencing after all you can’t stomach that Jesus Christ paid the ultimate price for sin and don’t understand that.

Also, your idea of justice for atrocities in our current world and how God should deal with sin is, just forgive the person, no penalty, no justice for the victim, no hope for the transgressor.

 

[metis]

the Holy Spirit is who spoke (He still speaks) to the men who wrote the Bible

He doesn't speak to anyone now? Also, did God speak to the authors of the Bhagavad Gita? the Qu'ran? the Talmud?

 

[ElishaElijah]

He doesn't speak to anyone now?

You can say this because you have traversed the width, height and depths of all spiritual matters and are omniscient, have reached the height of all knowledge and experience of the universe? Sorry you haven’t heard anything from Him, maybe you’ve quenched and grieved the Holy Spirit or worse blasphemed Him.

As far as the others you mentioned, I’m not them so can’t say who they heard from, I know who I have heard from and don’t bother with those others.

 

[Kenny]

I guess you missed my reply to @Starise a few pages back:

It's funny how often I run into this chauvinism and conceit from theists: this idea - like you're arguing here - that the presence or absence of a tenet of your beliefs is enough to define someone else's belief system.

No I didn’t see it - Not sure how that connects to your statements though - the analogy of “cruel theology” - because of “atrocities"

The fact that you can't see the differences between belief systems that don't include gods is a "you" problem.

This is a common “attack” method when there is no support for your position.

My belief systems and philosophies:

- humanism
- freethought
- skepticism

If any of these include "cruel theology," feel free to hold me to account.

I was just using your analogy and application. Do you see any “cruel theology” with love you neighbor as yourself?

 

[Kenny]

That is a claim. But what is the evidence this is what is going on?

As far as I can see, it is NOT a hypothesis that is taken seriously by psychologists or those studying the brain, consciousness, or anything else.

I don’t agree

soul​

Updated on 11/15/2023
n. the nonphysical aspect of a human being, considered responsible for the functions of mind and individual personality and often thought to live on after the death of the physical body.

Note: non-physical; responsible for functions of mind

I think your position is based on what you believe - “ those who adhere to materialism, positivism, or reductionism reject it absolutely. "

Any evidence for this claim? We see *nothing* in the functioning of the brain or mind that cannot be described by the physical properties of the brain.

Please note definition

No, because there is no commonly accepted definition. For example, is a fish conscious? is a bacterium? Is the universe as a whole?

change of subject.

No. In fact, the evidence we have points to consciousness being a property of the brain.

negatory

Again, what evidence do you have for a 'soul'. And, further, what evidence do you have that it has a non=physical component?

please refer to definition

Funny that those that specialize in the study of these things don't see a soul or anything non-material.

Depends on who is doing the study

That isn't two people disagreeing. it is someone with a philosophical commitment disagreeing with those who study this for a living.

At this point, it is disagreeing, as far as I can tell

 

[McBell]

I don’t agree

soul​

Updated on 11/15/2023
n. the nonphysical aspect of a human being, considered responsible for the functions of mind and individual personality and often thought to live on after the death of the physical body.

Note: non-physical; responsible for functions of mind

I think your position is based on what you believe - “ those who adhere to materialism, positivism, or reductionism reject it absolutely. "


Please note definition

change of subject.


negatory

please refer to definition

Depends on who is doing the study

At this point, it is disagreeing, as far as I can tell

You do know that a definition of is not evidence for, right?

soul

sōl​

noun​

A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.​

​

This part of a human when disembodied after death.​

​

In Aristotelian philosophy, an animating or vital principle inherent in living things and endowing them in various degrees with the potential to grow and reproduce, to move and respond to stimuli (as in the case of animals), and to think rationally (as in the case of humans).​

 

[Kenny]

You do know that a definition of is not evidence for, right?

soul

sōl​

noun​

A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death, capable of moral judgment, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state.​

​

This part of a human when disembodied after death.​

​

In Aristotelian philosophy, an animating or vital principle inherent in living things and endowing them in various degrees with the potential to grow and reproduce, to move and respond to stimuli (as in the case of animals), and to think rationally (as in the case of humans).​

This only affirms my position…. thank you.

 

[McBell]

This only affirms my position…. thank you.

What position is that?
The only thing a definition confirms is that the word has a definition.

A definition for the word soul is in no way evidence that the soul exists.

 

[Kenny]

What position is that?
The only thing a definition confirms is that the word has a definition.

A definition for the word soul is in no way evidence that the soul exists.

You will have to read the previous posts. Psychology is the study of the soul

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No I didn’t see it - Not sure how that connects to your statements though - the analogy of “cruel theology” - because of “atrocities"

You were trying to lump all atheists together.

Atheists - i.e. all the people who aren't theists - are no more of a religion or belief system than all the people who aren't Dharmics.

This is a common “attack” method when there is no support for your position.

I can't take a position until you ask a coherent question.

I was just using your analogy and application. Do you see any “cruel theology” with love you neighbor as yourself?

I don't see much "love your neighbour as yourself" in Christianity.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I would classify that at two people looking at the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion. Having been exposed to “spirits” and its influence in the material, I would disagree.

Kenny, I think the only thing you and I agree on is the existence of the soul (and spirits), but I'm sure our agreement stops there.