What is your opinion of Jesus?

[Trailblazer]

What's the difference? Faith-based beliefs are chosen without sufficient supporting evidence to justify believe in them, which is what makes them faith-based beliefs.

That would be true if those beliefs were based 'only' upon faith, but religious beliefs are also based upon evidence which justifies our belief.
I know there is no evidence that would justify your belief in them, but hopefully we can agree to disagree.

I use the word justify in the academic sense as in the sciences and law that the belief be a sound conclusion to be called justified.

I do not use the word justify in the academic sense as in the sciences and law. Religion is not science or law, so it had to be justified in another way.

 

[Trailblazer]

WHat is this nonsense .. "not subject to proof" ?? What on earth are you talking about .. you were asked for some support for your claim .. some rational for your choice .. on the basis of your religious belief definition .. that the soul actualizes the flesh.

You were then told .. and apparently agree .. that the soul has no ability to actualize the flesh until long after the Zygote.

What then is the point of the Soul being there ? and why not at the sperm .. the arrow shooting into the quiver.

The point is that you have no rational explanation .. either religious, scientific, naturalistic .. no logic ... no reason behind the choice .. of any kind ..

You are wrong about that.
I have a religious reason to believe what I do about the soul, from its inception, through its life in this world, and its eternal destination.

What do you have to support your belief about the soul? What proof do you have that what you are saying is true?

 

[Sargonski]

You are wrong about that.
I have a religious reason to believe what I do about the soul, from its inception, through its life in this world, and its eternal destination.

What do you have to support your belief about the soul? What proof do you have that what you are saying is true?

Holy deflecto rama .. Wrong about What ? what on earth am I wrong about ? wrong for asking you to clarify your position .. based on a point of religious agreement .. that the soul capacitates the flesh.

You agreed that there is no capacitation of the flesh at the zygote stage. You were then asked what is the point of the soul arriving at that time in the process .. why not the arrow .. the sperm .. the straight shot.

What am I wrong about ? all I have done is asking you to clarify your position .. and I did support my belief in the soul .. and can do so further .. but why do you ask given my belief in the soul is the same as yours from a religious perspective. .. Your religious belief about the soul is not in question .. what is in question is the arrival time ..

What was it that I was wrong about ? Quit making such ambiguous accusations without stating what you mean ..

 

[Ajax]

You are talking only about the explicit (or declarative) memory. BTW I can actually recall one autobiographical event from a time when I was 1-2 years old...

I'm not talking about what is passed from generation to generation at all, but how life experience affects DNA and body.

Early life experience can persistently alter expression levels of key genes through epigenetic marking which can underpin changes in behavior, neuroendocrine, and stress responsivity throughout later life. Collectively, this process is referred to as epigenetic programming.

The epigenome can be affected by positive experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities for learning, or negative influences, such as environmental toxins or stressful life circumstances, which leave a unique epigenetic “signature” on the genes.

You are correct... I misunderstood what you wrote and of course I accept the epigenetics.
However the point of my previous messages had nothing to do with epigenetics. I pointed out that, if the religious claims that the soul has memory and enters the embryo at the time of conception are correct, then the embryo should be able to remember all that has happened during pregnancy, as well as during the first two years of its life. However this is not possible. Even if there is a "soul" which survives death, it can not store memories and therefore it won't be able to defend itself on the alleged Judgement day.

 

[Trailblazer]

Holy deflecto rama .. Wrong about What ? what on earth am I wrong about ? wrong for asking you to clarify your position .. based on a point of religious agreement .. that the soul capacitates the flesh.

You agreed that there is no capacitation of the flesh at the zygote stage. You were then asked what is the point of the soul arriving at that time in the process .. why not the arrow .. the sperm .. the straight shot.

What am I wrong about ? all I have done is asking you to clarify your position .. and I did support my belief in the soul .. and can do so further .. but why do you ask given my belief in the soul is the same as yours from a religious perspective. .. Your religious belief about the soul is not in question .. what is in question is the arrival time ..

What was it that I was wrong about ? Quit making such ambiguous accusations without stating what you mean ..

I did not say that your position on the soul is wrong.
I only said you are wrong in saying I don't have religious reason to believe what I believe about the soul.
I have a religious reason to believe what I do about the soul, from its inception, through its life in this world, and its eternal destination.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's the difference?

Tax breaks.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Belief that a soul exists is not evidence that the believer is correct. Without evidence, such a belief is merely a guess. Critical thinkers need sufficient evidence to believe. It immunizes one against accepting false beliefs.

Yes, belief is not evidence, realization of soul awareness otoh though is not belief, it is direct awareness. If you do not have direct soul awareness, you can not know one way or the other. So you either are aware or you are not aware!. Imagining you are aware when you are not is a belief and thus is not a realization of soul awareness. Realization of soul awareness otoh does not require a belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, belief is not evidence, realization of soul awareness otoh though is not belief, it is direct awareness. If you do not have direct soul awareness, you can not know one way or the other. So you either are aware or you are not aware!. Imagining you are aware when you are not is a belief and thus is not a realization of soul awareness. Realization of soul awareness otoh does not require a belief.

Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by soul awareness? Do you mean you no longer have to believe because you know?

 

[Truthseeker]

I'm atheist and believe that Jesus existed, but not as described in the bible. A few years ago i did a thread on my view, it may interest you.

My view on Jesus.

Or it may not...

No, not of particular interest. But each of us was given intellect to decide for ourselves. You have done so.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yes, belief is not evidence, realization of soul awareness otoh though is not belief, it is direct awareness. If you do not have direct soul awareness, you can not know one way or the other. So you either are aware or you are not aware!. Imagining you are aware when you are not is a belief and thus is not a realization of soul awareness. Realization of soul awareness otoh does not require a belief.

It sounds a little disjointed in some spots, but I believe that awareness of the truth is part of any spiritual journey. May you keep on growing in awareness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is not a guess. It is a faith-based belief.

And on faith, you can believe anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

And on faith, you can believe anything.

You can, but you shouldn't. One should not believe anything without evidence.
I could give some examples but I don't want to get in trouble with the staff.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can, but you shouldn't.

And yet, you do it.

One should not believe anything without evidence.

which is to say: on faith.

I could give some examples but I don't want to get in trouble with the staff.

You have already given an example: your own faith-beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Can you elaborate on that? What do you mean by soul awareness? Do you mean you no longer have to believe because you know?

When your ego mind is still, ie., not thinking, the ego does not arise and thus the awareness present is pure awareness, aka soul awareness. This pure awareness is present so long as your ego self does not arise to think. Yes.

 

[Sargonski]

I did not say that your position on the soul is wrong.
I only said you are wrong in saying I don't have religious reason to believe what I believe about the soul.
I have a religious reason to believe what I do about the soul, from its inception, through its life in this world, and its eternal destination.

I did not contest your religious position on the soul .. being that which capacitates the flesh . it is your claim that the soul arrives at conception that is in question .. it is this for which you have no legitimate religious justification .. "The Pope Said So" not making it into the "legitimate" category .

You have given no religious reason for your belief that the soul arrives at conception, what is this religious reason > ?

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet, you do it.

Yes, I believe on faith, faith and evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have given no religious reason for your belief that the soul arrives at conception, what is this religious reason > ?

I don't know what you mean by 'religious reason.'
I believe it because that is what my religion teaches.

 

[Sargonski]

I don't know what you mean by 'religious reason.'
I believe it because that is what my religion teaches.

Does your God teach this .. or your religion ? what part of the Pope analogy is getting lost in the translation.

Do you have a religious text that backs up your claim - presumably something that is coming from God -- or is this "Well Pastor John Said so" ? ?

The first is a legitimate religious reason .. the latter Appeal to human authority fallacy is not. What in your religion teaches you that the soul arrives at conception ? .. please cite the passage from what ever Holy Book you follow .. OR - Pastor John Said so ?

 

[Trailblazer]

Does your God teach this .. or your religion ? what part of the Pope analogy is getting lost in the translation.

Do you have a religious text that backs up your claim - presumably something that is coming from God -- or is this "Well Pastor John Said so" ? ?

The first is a legitimate religious reason .. the latter Appeal to human authority fallacy is not. What in your religion teaches you that the soul arrives at conception ? .. please cite the passage from what ever Holy Book you follow .. OR - Pastor John Said so ?

My religion teaches this and that is a legitimate reason for me to believe it is true.
I am not a Catholic, I am a Baha'i.

The life of the individual begins at conception, when the soul associates itself with the embryo. When death occurs, the body returns to the world of dust, while the soul continues to progress in the spiritual worlds of God.

Life and Death | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

 

[Sargonski]

My religion teaches this and that is a legitimate reason for me to believe it is true.
I am not a Catholic, I am a Baha'i.

The life of the individual begins at conception, when the soul associates itself with the embryo. When death occurs, the body returns to the world of dust, while the soul continues to progress in the spiritual worlds of God.

Life and Death | The Human Soul | The Life of the Spirit | What Bahá’ís Believe

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

OK .. this is not from a Holy Book .. It is "Pastor John Said so" It is a political position .. not a Religious justification/belief. You are still having trouble with the "Pope Said so" fallacy .. just dress it up in a different costume each time. Some Church folks sat around a table and came up with this wonderful political definition of the Soul .. but there is nothing religious about this definition .. is not a valid religious argument
no matter how you dress it up.

I would take the Pentecostals .. "Spreaking in tongues" as having more validity as religious belief .. and they are a bunch of devil whispering snake charmers .. usurping the position of the Logos.

Look .. crying out "The Pope Said So" -- is not a religious argument -- lest your belief is that the Pope is Pontifex Maximus - speaks God's word directly .. like the Logos .. like Jesus spoke God's word through the holy spirit.

But surely you do not believe that of the Pope do you ?