Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sojourner553 · 10-13-2002, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:
[QB]Yes I disagree and you seem to have everything backwards.

Are you so sure it is "me"???

Quote:

per Amos:

Belief in divinity requires no historic evidence at all,

That would explain why there are THOUSANDS of different religions and sects.

Quote:

and, in fact, our search for historic evidence is misleading because Jesus never did exist except in the myth and it is precisely that he existed in the myth that Jesus was real and therefore rightfully could say "I am the way."

Peter Pan showed "the way" to Never Never land. Does that make it real?

Quote:

George Washington and Stephen Carr are not real but only the man called George Washington or Stephen Carr is real.

All in the definitions. Yawn.

Quote:

In my view myth is real and as we described our self by our name we are representations of our ego identity.

Sounds like shades of Hegel to me. Hegel predicted there could only be 7 planets because this was a perfect number and...

Quote:

In Christendom, as believers, we seek to find reality in Jesus and must subsequently crucify our own Jesus to become Christ-ian.

No different from other religions. What makes yours the right one? Odds are you were born into your religion.

Quote:

On the other hand, if you call faith more than "mere historicity" you are correct.

If I said that I was typing too fast and left out some words...

Quote:

My objection here is that faith is much easier and therefore much less than "mere historicity" because faith only requires that we are honest with our self.

So how do you distinguish between what you would call "true" faith and "false" faith. Or are you proposing they are all real.

There are people who believe/have believed in (have faith )that there are alien abductions, and witches, fairies.

In high school I knew a Catholic girl who (the day after seeing the Exorcist) sincerely wondered if she was possessed. I had a Mexican maid who thought the wind banging our backyard gate was an evil spirit (it only happened when the wind blew in from the north...ahem.)

My mother (now 78) was told by her father that it wasn't necessary to go to college because "Jesus was coming soon." He was very sincere by the way-He died disheartened he did not make it to the Rapture.)

My theory is that it's all hogwash and superstition. Sure explains the VARIETY of it out there.

Quote:

The STORIES about Jesus were true, but true only as myth and therefore real but not real as in historically real and therefore traceable in history.

I think you mean here "not traceable in history." If nothing is traceable...

How do you distinguish this from ghosts?

And if it were "all true in myth" why is it there is no CONSISTENCY IN THE MYTHS???

Now if there were consistency -- without a strong secular authority behind the scenes forcing this -- THIS WOULD BE INDICATIVE OF A MIRACLE!!!

But the lack of uniformity in AGREEMENT on what is true (including across cultures and historical periods) is one of my biggest personal proofs... that it truly is all myth.

Sojourner

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Sojourner553 · 10-13-2002, 05:46 PM

By the way, Amos -- your mumbo jumbo sounds right out of Plato's Plato's tripartite soul --which was later used by Christians to justify a soul separate from the body.

Lucretius (c 98-55 BC), a follower of the
Epicureans, reasoned brilliantly why the mind is not a part of our natural body.

His conclusions --still valid today-- were based on his observations that:

* When the body is severely wounded, the mind is also affected.
* When one is drunk, the body AND the mind are both affected.
* The mind ages with the body. Babies are born with few if any mental
abilities. Learning over time greatly enhances our mental capabilities.
As the body breaks down from age, mental capacity can diminish also.
* "Understanding" does not occur at random in the body--say in the feet or
hands. It occurs only in one physical place--the brain.
* If the soul is immortal, why can't we remember actions from our previous
lives?

Scientific evidence (to date) has supported Lucretius, not Plato's model.

For there are ATOMS to be seen under a microscope to support the theory that George Washington was real, etc.

The same can not be said for spirits or myths.

Sojourner

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

galiel · 10-13-2002, 06:15 PM

I think you meant to say the mind is not apart from our natural body.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:

Lucretius (c 98-55 BC), a follower of the
Epicureans, reasoned brilliantly why the mind is not a part of our natural body.

10-13-2002, 06:39 PM

Sojourner, it is obvious that you are not teachable and further, I am not interested in teaching you anything but must respond to correct your assumption of my position.

All religions are man made and serve a purpose. You may disagree with this purpose but that is not important. This makes all religions a means to an end and it is no tthe case in all religions that we must die before this end is achieved.

My religion is right for me because I was born into it.

There is no difference between true faith and false faith because only that which is true can produce faith. We can have false opinion only believe in spooks, or aliens or the second coming of Jesus.

There are false religions but that would just mean that they do not lead us to the correct end. Yes they can be wrong and harmful.

All major mythologies are transparent and can be compared with each other.

The souls is not separate from the body but the ego is. The soul is in charge of the body and if you call that separate that would be right.

Lucretius was wrong about the immortality of the soul because our intuition is the memory of our soul and Plato's theory of recollection is also based on this same memory.

He was correct in that we feel pain in our mind and not our limbs, etc.

10-13-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
I think you meant to say the mind is not apart from our natural body.

Probably, but since our soul is in charge of our body it must be independent of our body. Our soul is incarnate and contains "the thousand year reign" to make our soul eternal and our body temporal.

RyanS2 · 10-13-2002, 09:17 PM

Quote:

soul is in charge of the body

People have complained to me that I'm hard to understand at times, but Amos, your vernacular responses are testing even the most ardent students of semiotics. Are you positing a "Ghost in the mind's shell" that controls the mind? It was disproven ages ago, the first test that I can remember being somewhat cruel, a psychologist drilled a hole in a dogs head and blasted out most of its brain with a high-pressure water hose. The only part of it left was the part that controlled the most basic of functions. The dog would growl if hit, eat if presented with food, drink if presented with water, and walk forward if prodded, but other than that it simply sat there, completely blank. It was purely mechanistic in terms of responses. If a soul independant of the mind existed, this would surely be impossible, the soul could exist even without the mind in place.

Steven Carr · 10-13-2002, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by galiel:
Does Steven Carr exist?

Yes, but I would say that wouldn't I?

Vinnie · 10-14-2002, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Yes.

And that was in response to which question?

Vinnie

10-14-2002, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RyanS2:


People have complained to me that I'm hard to understand at times, but Amos, your vernacular responses are testing even the most ardent students of semiotics. Are you positing a "Ghost in the mind's shell" that controls the mind? It was disproven ages ago, the first test that I can remember being somewhat cruel, a psychologist drilled a hole in a dogs head and blasted out most of its brain with a high-pressure water hose. The only part of it left was the part that controlled the most basic of functions. The dog would growl if hit, eat if presented with food, drink if presented with water, and walk forward if prodded, but other than that it simply sat there, completely blank. It was purely mechanistic in terms of responses. If a soul independant of the mind existed, this would surely be impossible, the soul could exist even without the mind in place.

So there you go. The intuit mind was removed and the dog became a mere animal without any "doginess" about it because all that was left was the brain that was responsible for the motorskills of the dog. The soul is separate from the dog just means that the soul (subconscious mind wherein intuit knowledge is incarnate for many generations) is an charge of the body parts to make it act like a dog and also to allow it to change over time and over many generations of time. We call this adaptation and the conscious mind of the dog is needed to collect data for processing in this soul from where it becomes engrained in its genetic makeup.

It is not a ghost but the doginess of each dog and they are usually true to their breed and family traits.

Keith Russell · 10-14-2002, 11:32 AM

Amos said:
Probably, but since our soul is in charge of our body it must be independent of our body.

Keith: Nonsense. The CEO of a company is 'in charge of' the company, but he is also part of the company. Likewise, the brian controls most--if not all--bodily functions, but the brain is also part of the body.

Amos continued:
Our soul is incarnate and contains "the thousand year reign" to make our soul eternal and our body temporal.

Keith: Once again, it looks like English, but it's not... There is no corresondence between the word 'soul' and any 'thing'.

Keith.

10-13-2002, 05:46 PM	#22
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	By the way, Amos -- your mumbo jumbo sounds right out of Plato's Plato's tripartite soul --which was later used by Christians to justify a soul separate from the body. Lucretius (c 98-55 BC), a follower of the Epicureans, reasoned brilliantly why the mind is not a part of our natural body. His conclusions --still valid today-- were based on his observations that: * When the body is severely wounded, the mind is also affected. * When one is drunk, the body AND the mind are both affected. * The mind ages with the body. Babies are born with few if any mental abilities. Learning over time greatly enhances our mental capabilities. As the body breaks down from age, mental capacity can diminish also. * "Understanding" does not occur at random in the body--say in the feet or hands. It occurs only in one physical place--the brain. * If the soul is immortal, why can't we remember actions from our previous lives? Scientific evidence (to date) has supported Lucretius, not Plato's model. For there are ATOMS to be seen under a microscope to support the theory that George Washington was real, etc. The same can not be said for spirits or myths. Sojourner [ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-13-2002, 06:39 PM	#24
Amos Guest Posts: n/a	Sojourner, it is obvious that you are not teachable and further, I am not interested in teaching you anything but must respond to correct your assumption of my position. All religions are man made and serve a purpose. You may disagree with this purpose but that is not important. This makes all religions a means to an end and it is no tthe case in all religions that we must die before this end is achieved. My religion is right for me because I was born into it. There is no difference between true faith and false faith because only that which is true can produce faith. We can have false opinion only believe in spooks, or aliens or the second coming of Jesus. There are false religions but that would just mean that they do not lead us to the correct end. Yes they can be wrong and harmful. All major mythologies are transparent and can be compared with each other. The souls is not separate from the body but the ego is. The soul is in charge of the body and if you call that separate that would be right. Lucretius was wrong about the immortality of the soul because our intuition is the memory of our soul and Plato's theory of recollection is also based on this same memory. He was correct in that we feel pain in our mind and not our limbs, etc.

10-14-2002, 11:32 AM	#30
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Amos said: Probably, but since our soul is in charge of our body it must be independent of our body. Keith: Nonsense. The CEO of a company is 'in charge of' the company, but he is also part of the company. Likewise, the brian controls most--if not all--bodily functions, but the brain is also part of the body. Amos continued: Our soul is incarnate and contains "the thousand year reign" to make our soul eternal and our body temporal. Keith: Once again, it looks like English, but it's not... There is no corresondence between the word 'soul' and any 'thing'. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.