Christianity creates violence

[PratchettFan]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

Does Pratchettfan need to retreat such that he can only address Hollie in the third person?

It wouldn't make sense to speak of you in the first or second person when I am talking about you to another person, would it?

 

[Newby]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

She's not interesting, she's a drone, she has no original thought. But, more power to you, have fun!

 

[Newby]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

Does Pratchettfan need to retreat such that he can only address Hollie in the third person?

It wouldn't make sense to speak of you in the first or second person when I am talking about you to another person, would it?

I was getting ready to post the exact same thing... lol He wasn't speaking to you Hollie, therefore it is proper grammar to refer to you in the third person. lol

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[007]

"Religious Roots

The origins of the fundamental reciprocal relationship between physical violence and physical pleasure can be traced to philosophical dualism and to the theology of body/soul relationships. In Western philosophical thought man was not a unitary being but was divided into two parts, body and soul. The Greek philosophical conception of the relationship between body and soul was quite different than the Judeo-Christian concept which posited a state of war between the body and soul. Within Judeo-Christian thought the purpose of human life was to save the soul, and the body was seen as an impediment to achieving this objective. Consequently, the body must be punished and deprived. In St. Paul's words: "Put to death the base pursuits of the body—for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live" (Romans 8:13). St. Paul clearly advocated somatosensory pleasure deprivation and enhancement of painful somatosensory stimulation as essential prerequisites for saving the soul.

"Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Corinthians, 7:1).

Aristotle did not view a state of war between the body and soul, but rather envisioned a complimentary relationship in which the state of the soul or mind was dependent on the state of the body. In fact he stated that "the care of the body ought to precede that of the soul." (Politica)

Aristotle also appreciated the reciprocal relationship between pleasure and pain, and recognized that a compulsive search for bodily pleasure originates from a state of bodily discomfort and pain:

Now, excess is possible in the case of the goods of the body, and it is the pursuit of excess, but not the pursuit of necessary pleasures, that makes a man bad. For all men get some kind of enjoyment from good food, wine, and sexual relations, but not everyone enjoys these things in the proper way. The reverse is true of pain: a bad person does not avoid an excess of it, but he avoids it altogether. For the opposite of an excess is pain only for the man who pursues the excess. . . .

Accordingly, we must now explain why the pleasures of the body appear to be more desirable. The first reason, then, is that pleasure drives out pain. When men experience an excess of pain, they pursue excessive pleasure and bodily pleasure in general, in the belief that it will remedy the pain. These remedial (pleasures) become very intense—and that is the very reason why they are pursued because they are experienced in contrast with their opposite. (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 7)

In his discussion of the highest good, Aristotle was quite explicit:

"Therefore, the highest good is some sort of pleasure, despite the fact that most pleasures are bad, and, if you like, bad in the unqualified sense of the word." (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 7)

It is evident that the Judeo-Christian concept of body pleasure is quite the opposite of that outlined by Aristotle, particularly, the relief of body pain and discomfort through somatosensory pleasure. This denial of somatosensory pleasure in Pauline Christian doctrine has led to alternative forms of 'relief' through such painful stimulations as hair-shirts, self-scourgings, self-mutilations, physical violence against others, and in the non-sensory pleasures of drugs.

Experimental animal studies have documented counterparts to these phenomena. For example, animals deprived of somatosensory stimulation will engage in mutilations of their own bodies. Animals deprived of touching early in life develop impaired pain perception and an aversion to being touched by others. They are thus blocked from experiencing the body-pleasure therapy that they need for rehabilitation. In this condition, they have few alternatives but physical violence, where pain-oriented touching and body contact is facilitated by their impaired ability to experience pain. Thus, physical violence and physical pain become therapies of choice for those deprived of physical pleasure.

The question arises as to how Christian philosophy and theology, which borrowed heavily from Aristotle, managed to avoid, if not outright reject, Aristotle's teachings regarding the morality of pleasure. The roots to this question can be found throughout the Old Testament, beginning with the account in Genesis of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. The first consequence of Eve's transgression was that nudity became shameful. This even may well be the beginning of man's hostility toward women and the equating of woman with evil, particularly the evils of the body. This is vividly portrayed in Zechariah (5:5-8) in an angel's description of the flying bushel:

"This is a bushel container coming. This is their guilt in all the land." Then a leaden cover was lifted and there was a woman sitting inside the bushel. "This is wickedness, he said, and he thrust her inside the bushel, pushing the leaden cover into the opening."

Violence against sexuality and the use of sexuality for violence, particularly against women, has very deep roots in Biblical tradition, and is spelled out very early. The nineteenth chapter of Genesis (19:1-11), the first book of the Old Testament, holds that the rape of woman is acceptable but the rape of man is "a wicked thing." This chapter about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah describes Lot's hospitality to two male travelers (actually two angels) who were housed with him. "
Article Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

Bit of a read, and this is just the excerpt, but worth-while.

So here we have one more CHRISTIAN BASHING thread by a HOMO... shocker.

If homos hate Christianity so much, then why do they so desperately want a Christian marriage?

 

[PratchettFan]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

She's not interesting, she's a drone, she has no original thought. But, more power to you, have fun!

One of the problems with this medium is you tend to see only small slivers of people and we draw conclusions based upon those slivers. I've been reading Hollie for some time now and I like and admire her. There is a lot of passion but also quite a pleasant sense of humor. I feel very comfortable crossing swords with her. She may see me in an entirely different light, but she makes me smile.

 

[Hollie]

You're making the consistent error of confusing biological organisms with mechanical components. They are different, of course. Mechanical components react differently to chemical stimuli than biological organisms do.

Similarly, you're confusing your "soul" thing (newly revised to "consciousness"), with mechanical components. Cells in the brain react differently to chemical stimuli than do mechanical components. Dramatic changes in behavior can be achieved by inducement of chemicals in the brain. If you need additional information on this, you can research the medical science and confirm for yourself the advances in mind altering and mood altering drugs used in the field of psychiatry.

I don't need "belief" to understand the affects of chemical compounds in the brain. I also have no requirement for "belief" to understand your "soul" thing is completely dependent on the brain for its perception. Suffer damage or injury to the brain and this "soul" thing vanishes.

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So here we have one more CHRISTIAN BASHING thread by a HOMO... shocker.

If homos hate Christianity so much, then why do they so desperately want a Christian marriage?

It is possible the "homos" seek legal rights inherent in a recognized legal union like marriage.......I am also not aware of a generalized hatred of "homos" for Christianity give many consider themselves Christian...

 

[Hollie]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

She's not interesting, she's a drone, she has no original thought. But, more power to you, have fun!

One of the problems with this medium is you tend to see only small slivers of people and we draw conclusions based upon those slivers. I've been reading Hollie for some time now and I like and admire her. There is a lot of passion but also quite a pleasant sense of humor. I feel very comfortable crossing swords with her. She may see me in an entirely different light, but she makes me smile.

Have you confused this site with your online dating service?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, I understand what you believe. I'm not even saying you are wrong. But you have done nothing except claim knowledge you don't have. You say you don't need belief, but you cling to your belief like a non-swimmer with a life preserver.

BTW.... the " 'soul' thing" is your thing - not mine. You are the one fixated on it. Perhaps the problem is you are still dealing with being a Christian and just can't seem to understand not everyone else is. I've never been a Christian and there is no "soul" in my faith. However, my faith requires I question all of my ideas, while Christianity does not and, clearly, neither does yours. One should acknowledge their belief and recognize it for what it is, but one should not be led by it.

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

 

[PratchettFan]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

She's not interesting, she's a drone, she has no original thought. But, more power to you, have fun!

One of the problems with this medium is you tend to see only small slivers of people and we draw conclusions based upon those slivers. I've been reading Hollie for some time now and I like and admire her. There is a lot of passion but also quite a pleasant sense of humor. I feel very comfortable crossing swords with her. She may see me in an entirely different light, but she makes me smile.

Have you confused this site with your online dating service?

 

[Newby]

PF, it doesn't matter how many times you tell her that you're not a Christian, she won't listen and will still stupidly call you derogatory, infantile names in her posts. You disagree with her, you've accurately described her position to a 'T', therefore you can only be a 'fundamentalist' to her, and who knows what that even means in her child like little mind?

I don't know I would take it that far, but Hollie is pretty set. OTOH, she provides an excellent vehicle for me to test my own ideas. She certainly does not accept them and forces me to justify them. It has not been unknown for me to discover that a given concept I am putting forth is nonsense. I try to return the favor. We both get out of it what we will. And I am always hopeful that someday, someone on either side of the issue will be able to justify their certainty. That would be interesting.

She's not interesting, she's a drone, she has no original thought. But, more power to you, have fun!

One of the problems with this medium is you tend to see only small slivers of people and we draw conclusions based upon those slivers. I've been reading Hollie for some time now and I like and admire her. There is a lot of passion but also quite a pleasant sense of humor. I feel very comfortable crossing swords with her. She may see me in an entirely different light, but she makes me smile.

You've seen a sense of humor? Really? I've only seen batshit looney ravings at anything Christian. She's a troll for the most part.

 

[Hollie]

Actually, I've made claims to knowledge that is supported by medical science: that damage, injury or chemical inducement to the brain changes personality. Quite clearly, it was you supporting the idea of some "soul" thing when you uprooted the goal posts and revised that to "consciousness". I've tried to explain to you that biological organisms react differently to chemical stimuli than mechanical components.

It seems your fundamentalist religious views are causing you real angst when your belief in "souls" is met with skepticism.

Still, you cannot describe this "soul", thing, you cannot identify how we test for the "soul" and you cannot explain how this "soul" disappears as the result of damage or chemical imbalance in the brain.

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

 

[PratchettFan]

Once again, you respond to what you believe rather than what I write. It is you who are the fundamentalist. I don't know what sect of Christianity you were raised in, but I have concluded you have yet to leave it.

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

 

[Hollie]

I've actually responded to what you wrote. I've repeatedly asked you to identify this "soul" thing, later revised and edited to "consciousness", that you as yet, avoid addressing.

What is this "soul", thing? Can you demonstrate the "soul"? What are the properties of the "soul"?

I understand that the "soul" thing may be an important component of your fundamentalist views but I've given you a defendable, supportable case that your "soul" thing is actually a complex interaction of chemical and electro-chemical processes in the brain.

Your claims to "souls" cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus suggesting a supernatural realm. Why should anyone accept that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds? Gawds are, by definition, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an asserted immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal "souls".

Why do you suppose such gawds would make "souls" so susceptible to manipulation by a few chemical compounds?

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

 

[PratchettFan]

What part of "there is no "soul" in my faith" did you not understand? Don't think I am a Christian just because you are.

I think you confuse making an argument with supporting an argument. Please do provide me with a link from an accredited research lab which has identified the source of human consciousness. And don't tell me to do my own research. I don't think there is one, but you claim to have access to the information. Your claim.... your responsibility to support. If you can't then you are just believing.

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

 

[Hollie]

You somehow forgot what you're argument is about. It was you who attempted to replace your "soul" thing with the term "consciousness". I've been holding your feet to the fire in an attempt to have you explain what this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is all about.

You appear to demand that this this "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is under the purview of your gawds within some supernatural realm. I'm suggesting that your asserted "soul" thing (you later revised to" consciousness"), is really personality which is the result environment, social circumstances, experience, etc., acted upon by chemical processes in the brain. Such chemical processes in the brain can be acted upon by the external application of force or injury and alteration of electro-chemical inputs.

There is no "belief" required to understand the above.

So, now would be an appropriate time to counted the science data with your "beliefs" that supernatural agents have somehow endowed mankind with "souls" you insist exist but can't explain in any meaningful way.

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

 

[PratchettFan]

You haven't presented any scientific data and I still don't believe in the "soul".

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

 

[Hollie]

I have no scientific data for "souls".

That doesn't mean you can't believe in them.

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

 

[PratchettFan]

You have no scientific data at all. But that doesn't mean you can't believe you do.

Right. There is no scientific data for psychiatric medicine. It's all a conspiracy.

There is lots of scientific data for psychiatric medicine. Which does not change the simple fact that you have no scientific data at all. All you have is belief.

Ah. You accept my premise that there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. There is then an absence of belief. You're still entitled to other conspiracy theories.

No. I agree there is scientific data for psychiatric medicine. I do not accept your suggestion that your premise has anything at all to do with psychiatric medicine. You have presented no data, made no such connection and have just made claims I am supposed to accept on faith. All you have is belief. You're still entitled to believe that it is more than belief, just don't try to sell it to a psychiatrist.

There is no faith required to accept the data regarding medicine for psychiatric care.

You can refuse to accept the data but your religion of disbelief in science is refuted by fact.

There is no faith required to accept the data for thermodynamics either. However, that too has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. When you have data which does, please do let me know. I would love to see it.