• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for Atheists

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
for those who believe no proof is required
For those who refuse to believe no proof will be accepted
Facile rationalization -- but very poetic!
there are a large number of prophecies all fulfilled in Christ and made by Christ and fulfilled
Hardly a unique claim. They say the same thing about Nostradamus.
Post hoc discovery and interpreted correspondence is invented evidence. It's grasping at straws in the absence of hard evidence.
if a Christian is wrong there is no harm, a good life of virtue
But if an atheist is wrong, well thats an eternal oops
Pascal's wager? That's not evidence, it's fear mongering.
Q: What if the Muslims are right, or the Aztecs? or Romans? Oops! You're screwed.
our religion is revealed by God who can neither deceive or be deceived
Assertion understood, but not accepted. Evidence, please?
Don't many other religions make the same claim, with the same evidence? Are they all true?
 
Facile rationalization -- but very poetic!
Hardly a unique claim. They say the same thing about Nostradamus.
Post hoc discovery and interpreted correspondence is invented evidence. It's grasping at straws in the absence of hard evidence.
Pascal's wager? That's not evidence, it's fear mongering.
Q: What if the Muslims are right, or the Aztecs? or Romans? Oops! You're screwed.
Assertion understood, but not accepted. Evidence, please?
Don't many other religions make the same claim, with the same evidence? Are they all true?

Jn 1:16-17
Jn 14:6

Nostradamus Was condemned for his clairvoyance

thee faith once handed to the saints Jude 1:3

1 cor 13:13 three thing are eternal faith hope and charity greatest being charity

I may not be too bright but I can understand that
Notice reason and science are not listed
Reason is defective, just read my posts
Fallen human nature is fallible
Nobody’s perfect not men anyway least not me humility is attractive pride is ugly
As the old lady from the country used to tell us don’t be ugly
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you say “there is no such a thing as absolute truth” are you making a statement of absolute truth?
It's you, not me claiming absolute truth.
We have to have a mutually acceptable truth to base a conversation?
OK, fair enough.
What investigative modality do you recommend?

You make claims based on tradition, conventionalism and folklore familiar to you. I challenge these as empirically and logically unsupported.
I make claims based on repeatable observation, testing and peer review; on empirical evidence.

Do you have any tangible, testable evidence you can cite?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
And those 'signs and works' would be physical? and evidence for the soul?
The soul is not “in” the body but rather it is associated with the body and it directs the body and brain and mind. It is the soul that directs human faculties. As outer circumstances are communicated to the soul by the eyes, ears, and brain, the soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself.

The soul works through the brain and while we are alive on earth in a physical body, but when we die and no longer have a physical body the soul continues to live. It lives forever, and that is why it is called an immortal soul.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. The soul takes on some kind of a spiritual form made up of elements that exist in the spiritual world.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I guess there is no way you can be surprised if you are wrong.
But you will be surprised if you are wrong. I might also be surprised since I have no idea what the afterlife will be like since God has kept that under His Hat.

“As to those that have tasted of the fruit of man’s earthly existence, which is the recognition of the one true God, exalted be His glory, their life hereafter is such as We are unable to describe. The knowledge thereof is with God, alone, the Lord of all worlds.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 345-346
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then by all means give examples of these 'signs and works' that show a soul exists. I assume these 'signs and works' cannot easily be explained by any other means, right?
I just answered that in this post: #105 Trailblazer, 7 minutes ago
Knowing atheists as well as I do I was waiting for you to ask whether they can easily be explained by any other means. Of course they can as people can come up with any theory they want to.
 

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
Science proves man is a hybrid, body and person.

According to the scientific law of change, man is a hybrid body and person, according to the law of change the body changes all through life, but the person does not change, you are always the same person, so man must be a hybrid!

Your body is physical and sense perceptible, or known by the senses.
What is the origin of your body, it is according to science the result of natural conception.

Your person is not physical, not sense perceptible, therefore not physical, so there must be some non-physical reality, or spiritual reality!
A supernatural reality, superior to physical nature, with intellect and will.

What is the origin of your person, it is not physical so it does not result from physical natural conception, at one time you did not exist, now you do exist, the only logical conclusion is????

thanks

1) Whether talking about our personality or our physicality, it is not true that humans don't change.

2) If I'm understanding the rest of your question correctly, you're wondering where our personalities, minds, thoughts, and feelings come from.

Seems to me that these are emergent phenomena of the brain. The rest of your argument does not follow.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Jn 1:16-17
Jn 14:6

Nostradamus Was condemned for his clairvoyance
And how is this evidence of anything, save religious opposition?
thee faith once handed to the saints Jude 1:3

1 cor 13:13 three thing are eternal faith hope and charity greatest being charity
????? I see no evidence of anything, here, just Christian religious citations. These are no more authoritative than Muslim, Zoroastrian or Mayan citations -- or citations from The Cronicles of Narnia, for that matter.

I may not be too bright but I can understand that
Notice reason and science are not listed
???
Reason is defective, just read my posts
You don't seem well versed in reason or logic. Could you summarize your reasoning, here?
Fallen human nature is fallible
There is no 'fallen human nature'. What's your source for this?
Nobody’s perfect not men anyway least not me humility is attractive pride is ugly.
As the old lady from the country used to tell us don’t be ugly
Are you equating knowledge, logic and reason as pride? Are you using discomfiture with logical challenge as evidence of a personality defect in your challenger? Would such a personality defect counter your interlocutor's argument?
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
No, it is pointing out that there is no good reason to think that souls exist because there is no evidence of their existence.
Individually, there can be evidence of the soul, but there is no objective evidence. Sorry you do not have that evidence, poor soul.
Except that there are pretty general standards for the rules of reason. Those include logic and the use of evidence, both of which also have agreed upon standards.
This is not about logic and reason, it is about internal evidence. I see you are trapped in an external world, you think evidence has to be public for all to see.

Trailblazer, above, and also I have investigated our scriptures with reason and and an inner sense that they are true. The truth of these scriptures is not objective wholly, though there is some external evidence. It is not all subjective. Bot from what I see here, you don't recognize any inner or subjective evidence. You live on the surface only, poor soul.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Individually, there can be evidence of the soul, but there is no objective evidence. Sorry you do not have that evidence, poor soul.

This is not about logic and reason, it is about internal evidence. I see you are trapped in an external world, you think evidence has to be public for all to see.

I know I am fallible and can be subject to optical illusions and other phenomena. In other words, I am skeptical of my own experiences, and for good reason. Internal evidence is very weak evidence.

So, no, I am not *trapped* in an external world. If anything, I am trapped in an internal world that I *know* gives false information frequently. I am trying to determine the truth, which means getting out of that internal world into the reality around me.

So, yes, I do require public and repeatable evidence for belief.

Trailblazer, above, and also I have investigated our scriptures with reason and and an inner sense that they are true. The truth of these scriptures is not objective wholly, though there is some external evidence. It is not all subjective. Bot from what I see here, you don't recognize any inner or subjective evidence. You live on the surface only, poor soul.

No, I do NOT recognize the 'inner evidence' unless it can be independently verified. There are too many ways that I am subject to illusions and quirks of my sensory system. One of those quirks is the illusion elated to embodiment. We *know* it is possible to give a person the illusion of being embodied somewhere not their own body by tricking the brain. This is good evidence that we have to be very careful interpreting things along this line. And, I think, this is why some people feel like they have OOBEs.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The soul is not “in” the body but rather it is associated with the body and it directs the body and brain and mind. It is the soul that directs human faculties. As outer circumstances are communicated to the soul by the eyes, ears, and brain, the soul communicates its desires through the brain to the physical body, which thereby expresses itself.

The soul works through the brain and while we are alive on earth in a physical body, but when we die and no longer have a physical body the soul continues to live. It lives forever, and that is why it is called an immortal soul.

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. The soul takes on some kind of a spiritual form made up of elements that exist in the spiritual world.

I just answered that in this post: #105 Trailblazer, 7 minutes ago
Knowing atheists as well as I do I was waiting for you to ask whether they can easily be explained by any other means. Of course they can as people can come up with any theory they want to.

Actually, you didn't answer the question. You made a number of claims (like the claim that the soul directs human faculties), but did not actually give any 'signs and works' that show a soul exists.

Why do we need *anything* to 'direct human faculties' other than the brain? You seem to agree that the brain is crucial here, but want to add on another layer with no good reason for doing so.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Actually, you didn't answer the question. You made a number of claims (like the claim that the soul directs human faculties), but did not actually give any 'signs and works' that show a soul exists.
It cannot be shown that the soul is directing human faculties and it cannot be shown that a soul exists, since the soul is a sign of God whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. This is a religious belief I have accepted as true, not a claim. I base my belief upon logical reasoning, not just faith.
Why do we need *anything* to 'direct human faculties' other than the brain? You seem to agree that the brain is crucial here, but want to add on another layer with no good reason for doing so.
I did not add it on, it was revealed in scriptures and my reason for believing it is because it is in the scriptures.

The brain is just a bunch of chemicals and the mind is the conscious product of the brain. It is the mind that is responsible for consciousness and our thinking capacity. The mind is powered by the soul. The soul is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. With no lamp there would be no light. It is the mind that enables humans to discover the realities of things and become cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings.

Does the brain control the mind?

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain.Dec 24, 2016

Scientists say your “mind" isn't confined to your brain, or even your
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
raditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain.Dec 24, 2016

Scientists say your “mind" isn't confined to your brain, or even your
I can't see this article unless I enlist in a free trial. I don't want to take advantage of the free trial, that would be unfair, and otherwise I would would have to pay an unspecified amount. I can't be be spending money for every publication I see once or twice.

However, I used to watch a program on PBS called Closer To Truth in which it was often discussed that scientists couldn't understand how the phenomenon of consciousness could come from the physical brain after they had mapped out the functions of the brain so precisely.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It cannot be shown that the soul is directing human faculties and it cannot be shown that a soul exists, since the soul is a sign of God whose reality the most learned of men hath failed to grasp, and whose mystery no mind, however acute, can ever hope to unravel. This is a religious belief I have accepted as true, not a claim. I base my belief upon logical reasoning, not just faith.

I did not add it on, it was revealed in scriptures and my reason for believing it is because it is in the scriptures.

So, one set of claims replaces another.

The brain is just a bunch of chemicals and the mind is the conscious product of the brain. It is the mind that is responsible for consciousness and our thinking capacity.
So far, I can agree.

The mind is powered by the soul. The soul is the lamp; mind is the light which shines from the lamp. With no lamp there would be no light. It is the mind that enables humans to discover the realities of things and become cognizant of their peculiarities and effects, and of the qualities and properties of beings.

Such is the claim. Why should anyone believe it?

Does the brain control the mind?

Only in the sense that hardware controls the software.

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain.Dec 24, 2016

Scientists say your “mind" isn't confined to your brain, or even your

I find it interesting that no such claims seem to be made in standard journals. Instead, they only appear in rather woo articles.

I can't see this article unless I enlist in a free trial. I don't want to take advantage of the free trial, that would be unfair, and otherwise I would would have to pay an unspecified amount. I can't be be spending money for every publication I see once or twice.

Same here.

However, I used to watch a program on PBS called Closer To Truth in which it was often discussed that scientists couldn't understand how the phenomenon of consciousness could come from the physical brain after they had mapped out the functions of the brain so precisely.

And what were they having problems with? It seems that many people subscribe to a 'hard problem of consciousness' when simply knowing what events in the brain correspond to which conscious states *is* the explanation.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Such is the claim. Why should anyone believe it?
Nobody 'should' believe it, they 'would' probably only believe it if they had a reason to.
Only in the sense that hardware controls the software.
What good is hardware if there is no software to run?
What good is a brain if someone has lost their mind?
I find it interesting that no such claims seem to be made in standard journals. Instead, they only appear in rather woo articles.
I have seen many other articles that say the same kinds of things, that evidence shows that the mind goes beyond the physical workings of the brain. I'll try to see if I can dig up some more info.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
And what were they having problems with? It seems that many people subscribe to a 'hard problem of consciousness' when simply knowing what events in the brain correspond to which conscious states *is* the explanation.
Not sure what you mean. Here 's what the initial description of what I mean in Wikipedia:

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how we have qualia[note 1] or phenomenal experiences. That is to say, it is the problem of why we have personal, first-person experiences, often described as experiences that feel "like something." In comparison, we assume there are no such experiences for inanimate things like, for instance, a thermostat, toaster, computer, or a sophisticated form of artificial intelligence.[2] The philosopher David Chalmers, who introduced the term "hard problem of consciousness,"[3] contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, and so forth.[4] Easy problems are (relatively) easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function.[4] That is, even though we have yet to solve most of the easy problems (our understanding of the brain is still preliminary), these questions can probably eventually be understood by relying entirely on standard scientific methods.[4] Chalmers claims that even once we have solved such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[4]

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial. It has been accepted by philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[5] Colin McGinn,[6] and Ned Block[7] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[8] Giulio Tononi,[9][10] and Christof Koch.[9][10] However, its existence is disputed by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett,[11] Massimo Pigliucci,[12] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[13] and Keith Frankish,[14] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[15] Bernard Baars,[16] Anil Seth[17] and Antonio Damasio.

I didn't go into all the details. Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

My opinion is that there is a materialistic bias, and this explains why some dispute this problem.
 
Top