Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sabine Grant · 06-04-2003, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Salut again Biff ! Good morning Sabine

I percieve grace as the solving issue to sin if sin is defined as part of human nature which cannot be resolved by the obedience to laws.
Which means that you have to redefine sin. A sin is a offence against God. An action (thought, word, or deed--or omission of deed) taken by an individual.
If you redefine it as being part of human nature punishable by the God who created human nature you have eliminated "justice" from the equation.
So to me, grace makes sense. It is the very point Christ makes.
If the Jesus character had made a single and clear point on the subject we wouldn't be having this thread. But the Jesus character makes multiple and contradictory points on the subject. That's because the different authors were drawing from their own imaginations. There wasn't any Jesus for the authors to report on what he declared; instead you find the different personalities of the different authors emerging in the guise of Jesus the superhero.
No I am not of any specific denomination or church doctrine. My belief is the result of my personal walk with Christ.
Oh I knew that already. It puts you in the same ecclesiastical boat we Atheists are in.
But I've gotta say that unless you are several thousand years older than you seem to be then you have never had a "personal walk with Christ."
Back where I come from Christians are very concerned about humility (in fact I still find myself saying "the" mother instead of "my" mother). To claim that your reading and thinking about Jesus is "my personal walk with Christ" is the sin of Pride. Considering that you have rejected Church doctrine and all denominations because you've decide that you know better than they do is not only Prideful (inflated ego) but --by definition--makes you a Heretic.

You will find that outside of the US, christians do not necessarly fit the stereotyped definition given to christianity with the assumption that all christians abide to that definition.
Please spare me your Euro-centrism. I am a naturalized American. My profession has required that I be a "world traveler."
I am well aware of all the forms of Christianity that this planet suffers from.
I am also well aware that you are using the weighted word "stereotype" not because Christianity doesn't have a definition, but because you don't want to use that definition though you still want to call yourself a Christian.
Most of the people here who call themselves Christian are doing exactly the same thing. I do find it somewhat odd that so many "freelancers" should come to the Atheist web boards to promote Christianity--when what they call Christianity is nothing more than their individual musings.

Human justice as we know it promotes retribution for what is defined as evil actions by our society.
" That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

The divine grace promotes a way to be restored in a relationship with God despites of evil actions. It does not interfere with human justice though..... it deals only with the spiritual aspect of a human being.

You are still missing the point. By GRACE God decides to forgive you, out of no personal merit of your own but by the actions of Jesus. Which completely negates personal responsibility and eliminates any possibility of justice. The NT is quite clear on this point.
However it is also quite clear that the exact opposite is true and that personal responsibility & justice are of the utmost importance.
"Cheery Picking" Christians tend to choose whichever version suits their own personalities and then either completely ignore the other or attempt to double-talk it away.
But both contradictory versions are clearly there in the NT. Desperate theologians try to present this as a "mystery," something beyond human intelligence. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!!!! (flash, pop!) The�umm, er�the Great and, er, Powerful OZ has spoken!!!" But these contradictions let us see the little man behind the curtain quite clearly. No Gods beyond time and space, no conquering of death, no miracles�just some little scribbler sitting at his desk �who can't even keep his story straight.

Bonjour Biff.... you may want to add Africa centrism to the Euro centrism.......

The paragraph in which you attempt to define the reasons why I chose a personal walk with Christ rather than abiding to church dogma attributes to me an intent which is uncorrect. Rather than negativising my motives as you did, I suggest you realize that your analysis is based on your personal interpretation of my motives which may be far from the reality. Your assuming tendencies which result in attributing negative intents to another person's mind are IMO not productive in a dialogue.
" you have decided that you know better than they do".....my faith is not based on any claim to know......it is based on a relationship with Christ..... that is what I mean by " my walk with Christ". You may continue to attempt to define how I live my faith thru a multitude of assumptions, but understand that your limited knowledge of whom I am and how I have lived my life so far places you at risk to make quite a few mistakes in your analysis.

" so many freelancers.... to promote christianity ". You are again assuming that my desire to be a member of this forum is motivated by some personal agenda to promote christianity. Actualy my agenda is to reconciliate humanism and christianity within what they may share in common. Quite a challenge in a forum where many from both sides rather focus on the differences. As I often point " adding water to the well rather than oil to the fire".

As far as the definition of sin is concerned..... do you percieve the human nature to be made of one unique element or do you aknowledge it as always " torn" between the dualism of good and evil ?
As a aside way question......Biff do you consider yourself a humanist?

Biff the unclean · 06-04-2003, 10:05 AM

The paragraph in which you attempt to define the reasons why I chose a personal walk with Christ rather than abiding to church dogma attributes to me an intent which is uncorrect.
As much as you seem to love telling people that they can't understand your motivations and setting yourself up to be "above comment" there is no paragraph above where I attempt to define your reasons. So get off your high horse. I did notice the effects however.

Rather than negativising my motives as you did, I suggest you realize that your analysis is based on your personal interpretation of my motives which may be far from the reality.
Back in the 80's I twice had lunch with Jackie "O." Yet I never mention this to anybody because it is pure "name dropping."
How much worst "name dropping" is claiming to have taken a stroll with Jesus?
Your assuming tendencies which result in attributing negative intents to another person's mind are IMO not productive in a dialogue.
No, you are the one who is labeling them negative. I already said they put you in the same boat I am in.

" you have decided that you know better than they do".....my faith is not based on any claim to know
Yet you went out of your way to point out that while you call yourself a Christian you reject organized Christianity. If you have done that without "knowing" then you have a problem.

Does anyone else notice a pattern here with Sabine?
Whenever she is faced with a problem which requires thought�in this case the mutually contradictory concepts of justice, sin & grace showing the NT to be a work of fiction�that she always presents herself as being the victim of an injustice and then becomes all angry. BUT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN RAISED. I mention this because only yesterday I received a couple of PMs from other people about the same problem that they were having with her. I just thought that I would bring it out here so that nobody would be fooled by these shenanigans again.

......it is based on a relationship with Christ.....
You are going to have to explain what you mean by this catch phrase that you keep repeating. Christ is a character in a novel from thousands of years ago in Roman times. You can't have an actual relationship with him
that is what I mean by " my walk with Christ".
You can't define a catch phrase with a buzz word and expect people to understand what the hell you are talking about. Christ is a character in a novel from thousands of years ago in Roman times. You can't walk around with him.

You may continue to attempt to define how I live my faith thru a multitude of assumptions, but understand that your limited knowledge of whom I am and how I have lived my life so far places you at risk to make quite a few mistakes in your analysis.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. You aren't fooling anyone anymore Sabine. Nobody believes that you are being victimized so you can drop the act anytime now.

" so many freelancers.... to promote christianity ". You are again assuming that my desire to be a member of this forum is motivated by some personal agenda to promote christianity.
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me�it's not all about you Sabine. Deal with the points of my last blurb and drop this misdirection.

As far as the definition of sin is concerned..... do you percieve the human nature to be made of one unique element or do you aknowledge it as always " torn" between the dualism of good and evil ?
Neither.
The definition of sin I was using was the bibles. I don't believe in sin at all. It's just another plot device in the story, it has nothing to do with reality. But it is a plot device that is misused and contradicted in the poorly written story line.
As a aside way question......Biff do you consider yourself a humanist
I'm not going to answer that until you tell me what you mean by Humanist. Since no two Christians on this board even agree about what is a Christian I can only imagine the wacky definitions of Humanist that are floating around.

Sabine Grant · 06-04-2003, 12:55 PM

Biff.... we are not in Kindergarten anylonger even though everything we may have learned we learned it there. Drop the personal nagging and come back to the reality that you again attribute to my mind motives and thoughts I may not have.

Of course I will rock the boat of anyone who assumes the worst of someone else. And if a certain majority is perturbed by my incline to expect fair and non assuming arguments, I guess they will have to live with it.

I will define humanism thru my father's example on how he applied and practised humanistic values in his life.It resulted in him being an open minded individual who appreciated diversity and individuality and validated human beings not according to their beliefs or lack of but to the potential each human being has to contribute to the betterment of mankind. He deligted in people and gave them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunatly as he suffered a stroke in his old age, he lost that wonderful character as his personality was affected. I expect the best from humanists. Which is to be taken as a compliment but also as a challenge.

AJ113 · 06-04-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabine Grant
Can you please give specific refs to the passages you mention. thanks!

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Matthew 11:12-14
12From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.

Matthew 22:36-40
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[2] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[3] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Sabine Grant · 06-04-2003, 02:22 PM

AJ113 : thanks for your reply. I want to aknowledge that I have read your post and will offer a response when I have time to be back on my computer. A tres bientot, Vero.

Biff the unclean · 06-04-2003, 05:34 PM

Drop the personal nagging and come back to the reality that you again attribute to my mind motives and thoughts I may not have.
I make my comments based on what you write. Since you claim to be persecuted by everyone who doesn't agree with you (a number of whom have contacted me to cheer me on) then choosing to debate on a forum whose stated intent is so diametrically opposed to your own seems a strange, and a stressful, thing to do.

Of course I will rock the boat of anyone who assumes the worst of someone else.
Really? I haven't noticed you going anywhere near our more vile and insulting Xians.
And if a certain majority is perturbed by my incline to expect fair and non assuming arguments, I guess they will have to live with it.
A certain majority have noticed that you start whining and becoming paranoid only to evade topics and not because of any inherant nobleness of character.

I will define humanism thru my father's example on how he applied and practised humanistic values in his life. It resulted in him being an open minded individual who appreciated diversity and individuality and validated human beings not according to their beliefs or lack of but to the potential each human being has to contribute to the betterment of mankind.
Just as I thought. A personalized definition based on father love.
I've heard definitions that vary from 'a person who studied the humanities in college' to 'someone who worships humans instead of almighty God.'
Your Dad sounds like a fine man. I'm sure that when people disagreed with him he didn't stick his thumb in his mouth and complain that they were picking on him. I'm also sure that his mind being "open" did not mean that he lacked opinions.
Very little of what you stated are part of the humanist philosophy.
He deligted in people and gave them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunatly as he suffered a stroke in his old age, he lost that wonderful character as his personality was affected. I expect the best from humanists.
Personality changes after a stroke are a very good indication that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul" but an all to physical and all too fragile organ, the brain.

Which is to be taken as a compliment but also as a challenge.
I see a few problems with your desire to combine humanism and Christianity.
First--it's already been done. The self-evident benefits of Humanism have been adopted but the majority of Christians since the 1700's. Most of those just assume that it's part of being a Christian and never realize that it's in direct opposition. They never give it a seconds thought.
Those that do realize that it is opposed to classical Christianity label these Humanists as Liberal Christians. The dreaded "L" word. They preach long and hard about how these liberals aren't "real Christians" And they are correct, these nice people are Humanists who just happen to be Christians too--sort of.
While Christianity definitely benefits by adding Humanism to it (as can be demonstrated by the majority of first world 21st century Christians--who cherry pick the bible for only it's nicest pieces) Humanism loses out by being tied to such a misanthropic fable.

Nowhere357 · 06-05-2003, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Personality changes after a stroke are a very good indication that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul" but an all to physical and all too fragile organ, the brain.

Forgive me if I have you out of context here. Our subjective mental awareness (the mind) seems to arise from the brain - but is not the brain.

So physical changes like the unfortunate one above of course alter the state of the mind, but that is not an indication that the mind does not exist.

I don't see how it follows that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul". It only indicates that the mind (or self or soul) seems to emerge deterministically.

Biff the unclean · 06-05-2003, 09:49 AM

Forgive me if I have you out of context here.
By all means. Don't stand on ceremony.
Our subjective mental awareness (the mind) seems to arise from the brain - but is not the brain.
It is not the brain itself, it is the functioning of the brain. Some wag once wrote that the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile.
The function of producing these thoughts is a physical one. This can easily be demonstrated by mixing a small amount of alcohol into the blood stream. Alcohol, a fairly common compound which is excellent for disinfecting, makes dramatic changes in the brains ability to produce thoughts consistent with the individuals personality when only minute amounts are used.

So physical changes like the unfortunate one above of course alter the state of the mind, but that is not an indication that the mind does not exist.
The stroke that was talked about before (note to self: TAKE YOUR NORVASC) was probably cause by something as innocuous as a few blood cells clotting into a little gummy mass about the size of a pencil eraser. Yet the effects on the mind can be devastating. They can alter a person's entire persona. And this tiny mass does so not by any ethereal means but simply by physically blocking the functioning of a physical organ, the brain.

Although we call alcohol "spirits" it is only chemicals. It causes a chemical reaction that effects the functioning of the brain and again the persona is changed.

I don't see how it follows that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul". It only indicates that the mind (or self or soul) seems to emerge deterministically.
You've been hearing these primitive myths about "souls" all your life and don't realize that your statement is a non sequitur.
Since you can demonstrate that the "self" is affected by physical means through the physical brain you can demonstrate that what we call "the mind" is being produced by this organ. It has never been demonstrated that a "mind" exists independently of the brain (and central nervous system)
What would make you believe that a persons thoughts/personality were eternal? What makes you believe that thoughts would continue to be produced in the absence of a brain? Would urine continue to be produced in the absence of a bladder?

You'll notice that in all the primitive myths about souls (and in Thorne Smith's wonderful book Topper too) that they can see and hear and feel (and according to Smith booze it up).
But they don't have eyes or ears or nerves. If a soul didn't need these physical organs to see and hear after they are dead how is it that there are blind and deaf people before they are dead? Don't they have the same "eternal" soul?

BadBadBad · 06-05-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Does anyone else notice a pattern here with Sabine?
Whenever she is faced with a problem which requires thought�in this case the mutually contradictory concepts of justice, sin & grace showing the NT to be a work of fiction�that she always presents herself as being the victim of an injustice and then becomes all angry. BUT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN RAISED. I mention this because only yesterday I received a couple of PMs from other people about the same problem that they were having with her. I just thought that I would bring it out here so that nobody would be fooled by these shenanigans again.

Absolutely Biff. How about it Sabine? Stop whining and address the issues you've been confronted with. I'm also still waiting for you to answer with your definition of the word hypocrit.

If you're still having trouble with basic english words like choice, predestination, psychosis, dementia, humanist. Then here. Look them up:

Dictionary

AJ113 · 06-05-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Does anyone else notice a pattern here with Sabine?
Whenever she is faced with a problem which requires thought�in this case the mutually contradictory concepts of justice, sin & grace showing the NT to be a work of fiction�that she always presents herself as being the victim of an injustice and then becomes all angry. BUT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN RAISED. I mention this because only yesterday I received a couple of PMs from other people about the same problem that they were having with her. I just thought that I would bring it out here so that nobody would be fooled by these shenanigans again.

When I was a theist I used to to employ similar tactics. I can assure you it is a clear indication that the theist is well and truly backed into a corner and has no way out other than to focus on alleged accusations and victimisation.

:boohoo:

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

06-04-2003, 10:05 AM	#122
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	The paragraph in which you attempt to define the reasons why I chose a personal walk with Christ rather than abiding to church dogma attributes to me an intent which is uncorrect. As much as you seem to love telling people that they can't understand your motivations and setting yourself up to be "above comment" there is no paragraph above where I attempt to define your reasons. So get off your high horse. I did notice the effects however. Rather than negativising my motives as you did, I suggest you realize that your analysis is based on your personal interpretation of my motives which may be far from the reality. Back in the 80's I twice had lunch with Jackie "O." Yet I never mention this to anybody because it is pure "name dropping." How much worst "name dropping" is claiming to have taken a stroll with Jesus? Your assuming tendencies which result in attributing negative intents to another person's mind are IMO not productive in a dialogue. No, you are the one who is labeling them negative. I already said they put you in the same boat I am in. " you have decided that you know better than they do".....my faith is not based on any claim to know Yet you went out of your way to point out that while you call yourself a Christian you reject organized Christianity. If you have done that without "knowing" then you have a problem. Does anyone else notice a pattern here with Sabine? Whenever she is faced with a problem which requires thought�in this case the mutually contradictory concepts of justice, sin & grace showing the NT to be a work of fiction�that she always presents herself as being the victim of an injustice and then becomes all angry. BUT DOESN'T DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN RAISED. I mention this because only yesterday I received a couple of PMs from other people about the same problem that they were having with her. I just thought that I would bring it out here so that nobody would be fooled by these shenanigans again. ......it is based on a relationship with Christ..... You are going to have to explain what you mean by this catch phrase that you keep repeating. Christ is a character in a novel from thousands of years ago in Roman times. You can't have an actual relationship with him that is what I mean by " my walk with Christ". You can't define a catch phrase with a buzz word and expect people to understand what the hell you are talking about. Christ is a character in a novel from thousands of years ago in Roman times. You can't walk around with him. You may continue to attempt to define how I live my faith thru a multitude of assumptions, but understand that your limited knowledge of whom I am and how I have lived my life so far places you at risk to make quite a few mistakes in your analysis. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You aren't fooling anyone anymore Sabine. Nobody believes that you are being victimized so you can drop the act anytime now. " so many freelancers.... to promote christianity ". You are again assuming that my desire to be a member of this forum is motivated by some personal agenda to promote christianity. Me, me, me, me, me, me, me�it's not all about you Sabine. Deal with the points of my last blurb and drop this misdirection. As far as the definition of sin is concerned..... do you percieve the human nature to be made of one unique element or do you aknowledge it as always " torn" between the dualism of good and evil ? Neither. The definition of sin I was using was the bibles. I don't believe in sin at all. It's just another plot device in the story, it has nothing to do with reality. But it is a plot device that is misused and contradicted in the poorly written story line. As a aside way question......Biff do you consider yourself a humanist I'm not going to answer that until you tell me what you mean by Humanist. Since no two Christians on this board even agree about what is a Christian I can only imagine the wacky definitions of Humanist that are floating around.

06-04-2003, 12:55 PM	#123
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	Biff.... we are not in Kindergarten anylonger even though everything we may have learned we learned it there. Drop the personal nagging and come back to the reality that you again attribute to my mind motives and thoughts I may not have. Of course I will rock the boat of anyone who assumes the worst of someone else. And if a certain majority is perturbed by my incline to expect fair and non assuming arguments, I guess they will have to live with it. I will define humanism thru my father's example on how he applied and practised humanistic values in his life.It resulted in him being an open minded individual who appreciated diversity and individuality and validated human beings not according to their beliefs or lack of but to the potential each human being has to contribute to the betterment of mankind. He deligted in people and gave them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunatly as he suffered a stroke in his old age, he lost that wonderful character as his personality was affected. I expect the best from humanists. Which is to be taken as a compliment but also as a challenge.

06-04-2003, 02:22 PM	#125
Sabine Grant Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 32,364	AJ113 : thanks for your reply. I want to aknowledge that I have read your post and will offer a response when I have time to be back on my computer. A tres bientot, Vero.

06-04-2003, 05:34 PM	#126
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Drop the personal nagging and come back to the reality that you again attribute to my mind motives and thoughts I may not have. I make my comments based on what you write. Since you claim to be persecuted by everyone who doesn't agree with you (a number of whom have contacted me to cheer me on) then choosing to debate on a forum whose stated intent is so diametrically opposed to your own seems a strange, and a stressful, thing to do. Of course I will rock the boat of anyone who assumes the worst of someone else. Really? I haven't noticed you going anywhere near our more vile and insulting Xians. And if a certain majority is perturbed by my incline to expect fair and non assuming arguments, I guess they will have to live with it. A certain majority have noticed that you start whining and becoming paranoid only to evade topics and not because of any inherant nobleness of character. I will define humanism thru my father's example on how he applied and practised humanistic values in his life. It resulted in him being an open minded individual who appreciated diversity and individuality and validated human beings not according to their beliefs or lack of but to the potential each human being has to contribute to the betterment of mankind. Just as I thought. A personalized definition based on father love. I've heard definitions that vary from 'a person who studied the humanities in college' to 'someone who worships humans instead of almighty God.' Your Dad sounds like a fine man. I'm sure that when people disagreed with him he didn't stick his thumb in his mouth and complain that they were picking on him. I'm also sure that his mind being "open" did not mean that he lacked opinions. Very little of what you stated are part of the humanist philosophy. He deligted in people and gave them the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunatly as he suffered a stroke in his old age, he lost that wonderful character as his personality was affected. I expect the best from humanists. Personality changes after a stroke are a very good indication that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul" but an all to physical and all too fragile organ, the brain. Which is to be taken as a compliment but also as a challenge. I see a few problems with your desire to combine humanism and Christianity. First--it's already been done. The self-evident benefits of Humanism have been adopted but the majority of Christians since the 1700's. Most of those just assume that it's part of being a Christian and never realize that it's in direct opposition. They never give it a seconds thought. Those that do realize that it is opposed to classical Christianity label these Humanists as Liberal Christians. The dreaded "L" word. They preach long and hard about how these liberals aren't "real Christians" And they are correct, these nice people are Humanists who just happen to be Christians too--sort of. While Christianity definitely benefits by adding Humanism to it (as can be demonstrated by the majority of first world 21st century Christians--who cherry pick the bible for only it's nicest pieces) Humanism loses out by being tied to such a misanthropic fable.

06-05-2003, 09:49 AM	#128
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Forgive me if I have you out of context here. By all means. Don't stand on ceremony. Our subjective mental awareness (the mind) seems to arise from the brain - but is not the brain. It is not the brain itself, it is the functioning of the brain. Some wag once wrote that the brain secretes thoughts like the liver secretes bile. The function of producing these thoughts is a physical one. This can easily be demonstrated by mixing a small amount of alcohol into the blood stream. Alcohol, a fairly common compound which is excellent for disinfecting, makes dramatic changes in the brains ability to produce thoughts consistent with the individuals personality when only minute amounts are used. So physical changes like the unfortunate one above of course alter the state of the mind, but that is not an indication that the mind does not exist. The stroke that was talked about before (note to self: TAKE YOUR NORVASC) was probably cause by something as innocuous as a few blood cells clotting into a little gummy mass about the size of a pencil eraser. Yet the effects on the mind can be devastating. They can alter a person's entire persona. And this tiny mass does so not by any ethereal means but simply by physically blocking the functioning of a physical organ, the brain. Although we call alcohol "spirits" it is only chemicals. It causes a chemical reaction that effects the functioning of the brain and again the persona is changed. I don't see how it follows that a persons "self" is not some eternal "soul". It only indicates that the mind (or self or soul) seems to emerge deterministically. You've been hearing these primitive myths about "souls" all your life and don't realize that your statement is a non sequitur. Since you can demonstrate that the "self" is affected by physical means through the physical brain you can demonstrate that what we call "the mind" is being produced by this organ. It has never been demonstrated that a "mind" exists independently of the brain (and central nervous system) What would make you believe that a persons thoughts/personality were eternal? What makes you believe that thoughts would continue to be produced in the absence of a brain? Would urine continue to be produced in the absence of a bladder? You'll notice that in all the primitive myths about souls (and in Thorne Smith's wonderful book Topper too) that they can see and hear and feel (and according to Smith booze it up). But they don't have eyes or ears or nerves. If a soul didn't need these physical organs to see and hear after they are dead how is it that there are blind and deaf people before they are dead? Don't they have the same "eternal" soul?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.