What is a soul? Can it die?

[Kilgore Trout]

Hostility and wishful ideology are two different things.
Perhaps a debate on the equality of their nature?

You spew hostility, they spew fanciful ideology.

You misinterpret Mike. I feel absolutely no hostility when I tell people what a load of crap such ideas are.

 

[YmirGF]

You misinterpret Mike. I feel absolutely no hostility when I tell people what a load of crap such ideas are.

And I am a better person thanks to your comments... I think so many are so infantile that they cannot take the odd body blow to their thinking that they must rear up on their hind legs and start barking about the "insensitivity" and "lack of open-mindedness". If people simply made better arguments they wouldn't feel a need for others to take them seriously -- because they would have already earned that right.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

You misinterpret Mike. I feel absolutely no hostility when I tell people what a load of crap such ideas are.

You may not "feel" any hostility, but vomiting such a line can only add to germinate hostility.
In other words, if there was not hostile intent, you would have simply not posted. Because who really cares if "you" think it is a load of crap? Or, what non-hostile value does it add to the conversation?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

On the contrary: there is no way that science--evolution included--CAN address theological matters, the Next Life included!

So it necessarily remains silent on the topic and can say nothing whatever about it.

Bruce

Yet, as a non-scientist, there's nothing stopping me, personally, from telling everyone what a load of crap such ideas are.

If you wouldn't mind. How did you personally determine that theological matters are equivalent to a load of crap?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You may not "feel" any hostility, but vomiting such a line can only add to germinate hostility.
In other words, if there was not hostile intent, you would have simply not posted. Because who really cares if "you" think it is a load of crap? Or, what non-hostile value does it add to the conversation?

I'm assuming that your problem is with the phrase "load of crap," otherwise the implication of your conclusion is that everyone's intent for posting is to be hostile, otherwise they simply wouldn't post anything.

I used the phrase "load of crap" as an intentional rhetorical device in counterpoint to his assertion that science (and somehow evolution) has to remain silent on theological matters - the implication of his statement being that, on some level, science and theology are in opposition, that someone who opposes theology must be doing it on purely a scientific basis, and that since science "must remain silent," nobody can oppose theology.

So, the phrase "load of crap" served double duty - first, as an unveiled description, not of theology, but of his failed argument to silence opposition to theology - and, secondly, as an intentionally unscientific phrase highlighting that, even if it were the case that science had to remain silent about theology, it certainly isn't the only opposition to theology anyway.

There's actually a bit more to it than that, but that should give you at least some of the purpose behind my language, and why my intent, nor feelings, were hostile.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If you wouldn't mind. How did you personally determine that theological matters are equivalent to a load of crap?

Because the simple and rational explanations for these psychological coping mechanisms arising, are entirely sufficient to explain their existence and nothing that could not be shown to exist, has ever been shown to exist.

If I walk in a room and see a 3 year old holding a fudge popsicle, and there's melted chocolate all over their face, the explanation that someone came down the chimney, rubbed chocolate all over the kid's face, and then vanished into thin air, is completely unnecessary and extraneous. The explanation of what happened is clear and obvious.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I'm assuming that your problem is with the phrase "load of crap," otherwise the implication of your conclusion is that everyone's intent for posting is to be hostile, otherwise they simply wouldn't post anything.

I used the phrase "load of crap" as an intentional rhetorical device in counterpoint to his assertion that science (and somehow evolution) has to remain silent on theological matters - the implication of his statement being that, on some level, science and theology are in opposition, that someone who opposes theology must be doing it on purely a scientific basis, and that since science "must remain silent," nobody can oppose theology.

So, the phrase "load of crap" served double duty - first, as an unveiled description, not of theology, but of his failed argument to silence opposition to theology - and, secondly, as an intentionally unscientific phrase highlighting that, even if it were the case that science had to remain silent about theology, it certainly isn't the only opposition to theology anyway.

There's actually a bit more to it than that, but that should give you at least some of the purpose behind my language, and why my intent, nor feelings, were hostile.

I understand, but your implication of his post, is that he meant "nobody can oppose theology" and that is not what he was saying. He is simply stating that science tests and is concerned about the observable, and therefor can't test much to do with theology so they remain silent. Not silent because they can't oppose it, but silent because they can't test it.

Anyway no big deal...

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Because the simple and rational explanations for these psychological coping mechanisms arising, are entirely sufficient to explain their existence and nothing that could not be shown to exist, has ever been shown to exist.

So, do you find such ideas threatening in anyway?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, do you find such ideas threatening in anyway?

I don't find ideas threatening. They just are.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I don't find ideas threatening. They just are.

That doesn't make sense. If you receive a call from a stranger that says they have your wife, and they will kill her in an hour unless you sing happy birthday to them, that would have an effect other than simply "they just are". That is besides the point though...

So is an idea that doesn't have any evidence, the same thing as something that is a load of crap?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That doesn't make sense. If you receive a call from a stranger that says they have your wife, and they will kill her in an hour unless you sing happy birthday to them, that would have an effect other than simply "they just are". That is besides the point though...

Threatening to kill my wife is an actual threat, not an idea. Do you see the difference? And your ability to understand what I'm saying or not certainly makes it not besides the point.

So is an idea that doesn't have any evidence, the same thing as something that is a load of crap?

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on what else the idea has going for it, and where in its development it is.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Threatening to kill my wife is an actual threat, not an idea. Do you see the difference? And your ability to understand what I'm saying or not certainly makes it not besides the point.



Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on what else the idea has going for it, and where in its development it is.

So Jesus is coming back and many will die. That is a threat from the author. So you still feel not threatened?
How did you decide that was an idea and not a threat, and how is that different than the threat to your wife?

Thanks

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So Jesus is coming back and many will die. That is a threat from the author. So you still feel not threatened?

Nope.

How did you decide that was an idea and not a threat, and how is that different than the threat to your wife?

Credibility of threat.

 

[Eliot Wild]

And I am a better person thanks to (Kilgore Trout's) comments...

I too feel much the same way. I try to be as direct and honest as possible with people. But I still don't have Kilgore's keen talent for powerful conciseness that often cuts right through the b-s. I admire that greatly and as a professional writer I even try to be attentive to it outside of RF and apply it in my work.

Many of the misunderstandings I fall victim to in my posts on RF result from my tendency to beat around the bush and be overly longwinded in attempts to soften my position. In other words, sometimes I could avoid confusion if I just called a duck a duck and quit worrying about other people's sensitivities.

For the record, no one should ever be soft on me when I have erred in my reasoning. Please be as direct as possible and use whatever rhetorical speech you think might seep through my thick skull.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Nope.



Credibility of threat.

So in order to determine if Jesus was a credible threat, you did what? Did you first hear of Jesus as an adult?
How long did it take you to determine Jesus was not a threat?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So in order to determine if Jesus was a credible threat, you did what? Did you first hear of Jesus as an adult? How long did it take you to determine Jesus was not a threat?

Proof of Jesus, i.e., the bible, Christianity, religion in general, prophecy, god, etc., is required before consideration of the threat is even relevant.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Proof of Jesus, i.e., the bible, Christianity, religion in general, prophecy, god, etc., is required before consideration of the threat is even relevant.

Of course... So you never in your life gave one inkling of thought that Jesus might be real. In other words in whatever studies you have undergone, you had already made your mind up about the matter?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I too feel much the same way. I try to be as direct and honest as possible with people. But I still don't have Kilgore's keen talent for powerful conciseness that often cuts right through the b-s. I admire that greatly and as a professional writer I even try to be attentive to it outside of RF and apply it in my work.

Many of the misunderstandings I fall victim to in my posts on RF result from my tendency to beat around the bush and be overly longwinded in attempts to soften my position. In other words, sometimes I could avoid confusion if I just called a duck a duck and quit worrying about other people's sensitivities.

For the record, no one should ever be soft on me when I have erred in my reasoning. Please be as direct as possible and use whatever rhetorical speech you think might seep through my thick skull.

High praise indeed, as I find your writing and arguments among the most coherent, thorough, and organized on RF.

I think the primary difference between us is that you're more interested in engaging in dialogue and details than I am. Go back 10 years, and I used to sound a lot more like you. Part of this is seeing the same things over and over, and another is the realization that if you just cut through the fluff and pinpoint the central issue, it saves a lot of time and confusion finding out whether somebody is even capable of, or willing, to understand your side. Too many details in debate just endlessly sidetrack the argument from one unimportant detail to another.

The flipside is that the point of these boards is, pretty much, to engage in dialogue and details, because people generally don't come here to be lectured to. But hey, it's the most I can muster most of the time.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course... So you never in your life gave one inkling of thought that Jesus might be real. In other words in whatever studies you have undergone, you had already made your mind up about the matter?

Apparently, you missed my id est detailing what I meant by the broad idea of "proof of Jesus." Reread for further understanding.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Apparently, you missed my id est detailing what I meant by the broad idea of "proof of Jesus." Reread for further understanding.

id est? I guess I did miss something.