I would also classify this as the soul operating through the brain.All pretty much from the brain, so I suppose the brain is the home of the soul according to that thinking.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I would also classify this as the soul operating through the brain.All pretty much from the brain, so I suppose the brain is the home of the soul according to that thinking.
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?\
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.
And yet, according to the psychologists, their study is the mind and behavior.The field of Psychology is the study of the soul
Conscience or consciousness? Both are functions of the brain.Of course. But we yet have understood the conscience of man. It is part of the soul
I assume you have proof of this claim?Conscience is non-material
I was talking about *spirituality as he described it*.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 would also classify this as the soul operating through the brain.
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?
And yet, according to the psychologists, their study is the mind and behavior.
which are control by the soulConscience or consciousness? Both are functions of the brain.
That has not been empirically verified.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.
You can’t see it?I assume you have proof of this claim?
I was talking about *spirituality as he described it*.
I wouldn’t agree. I would say it is spiritual that affects the material and therefore more spiritualIf something (a spirit, say) influences the material world, it is, almost by definition, material.
I guess you missed my reply to @Starise a few pages back: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?
That is a claim. But what is the evidence this is what is going on?It IS the study of the soul! The soul controls the material mind which controls the behavior
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.which are control by the soul
That has not been empirically verified.
No, because there is no commonly accepted definition. For example, is a fish conscious? is a bacterium? Is the universe as a whole?Because it goes beyond the material
No. In fact, the evidence we have points to consciousness being a property of the brain.You can’t see it?
Again, what evidence do you have for a 'soul'. And, further, what evidence do you have that it has a non=physical component?The soul has a spiritual component
Funny that those that specialize in the study of these things don't see a soul or anything non-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
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.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.
He doesn't speak to anyone now? Also, did God speak to the authors of the Bhagavad Gita? the Qu'ran? the Talmud?the Holy Spirit is who spoke (He still speaks) to the men who wrote the Bible
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.He doesn't speak to anyone now?
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.
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.
Please note definitionAny 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.
change of subject.No, because there is no commonly accepted definition. For example, is a fish conscious? is a bacterium? Is the universe as a whole?
No. In fact, the evidence we have points to consciousness being a property of the brain.
please refer to definitionAgain, what evidence do you have for a 'soul'. And, further, what evidence do you have that it has a non=physical component?
Depends on who is doing the studyFunny that those that specialize in the study of these things don't see a soul or anything non-material.
At this point, it is disagreeing, as far as I can tellThat isn't two people disagreeing. it is someone with a philosophical commitment disagreeing with those who study this for a living.
You do know that a definition of is not evidence for, right?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
This only affirms my position…. thank you.You do know that a definition of is not evidence for, right?
soul
sōlnounA 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).
What position is that?This only affirms my position…. thank you.
You will have to read the previous posts. Psychology is the study of the soulWhat 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 were trying to lump all atheists together.No I didn’t see it - Not sure how that connects to your statements though - the analogy of “cruel theology” - because of “atrocities"
This is a common “attack” method when there is no support for your position.
I don't see much "love your neighbour as yourself" in Christianity.I was just using your analogy and application. Do you see any “cruel theology” with love you neighbor as yourself?
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.