Brain vs soul.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: Brain vs soul.
I have a genuine (if cynical) fondness for those poor bastards who can't figure out that we do not ban people because they say things we don't like. Well, "fondness" might be the wrong word... sympathy, perhaps... and definitely a dark amusement at watching them flail against their perceived persecution.

So in a moment of pity, I will explain it for those who feel they have been oppressed by those big, bad atheists:

You only get banned if you're an unregenerate douchebag-- like if you just want to preach at us and use our forum as a pulpit, or you use dishonest semantics word games that are pointless and run people around in endless time-wasting circles (and yet Tomato still here, somehow...), or you are a proponent of 100% taboo things that only a despicable scumbag could ever support (such as a rape/molestation apologist) such that continuing to allow you to post here would amount to (or appear to be, to the public) tacit complicity by the atheist community here in supporting your scumbaggery by offering you a means to propagandize it.

That's it. Simply having views on politics, or religion, or science with which most people here disagree is in no way a basis for banning. Simply being an asshole is not enough to be banned. You must have a degree of contempt for the forum or for basic human decency that makes you a drain on the community, in order to be banned.

Dishonestly pretending that you were banned for having unpopular opinions-- which is absolute slander to the community and especially to our mods-- is simply evidence that you are exactly the sort of scumbag that needs to be prevented from posting here.

Get your shit together and learn how to be a decent fucking human being. Seriously.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-03-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(19-03-2017 11:56 AM)kim Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 11:53 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So do I, and there's a whole industry based off that idea too. Ok, it's smut.

Blush

Well, as the saying goes .... "Kid tested, mother approved." Wink

I'm pretty sure there is a kid gloves joke in here somewhere, but can't quite put my tentacle on it Drinking Beverage

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
29-03-2017, 10:19 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(27-01-2017 11:24 AM)sneroul the thinker Wrote:  Greetings I was thinking of what the soul actually is and what functions does it have.
from what I researched it seems that our soul is made of tine biological robots and is probably material like it or not. even if it exist it is certainly located in our brains since it is the only organ that we will not be able to survive without. ,also if you think your soul is imaterial why can a simple knock to the head completly change your personallity. in short a brain transplant is the only operation where is is better do be the donor that the receiver. so to sum it up it it would seem that we are our brain. now I read recently that some people have nde's even when all brain function stop. it could possibly be formed while recovering. never the less i want to see what your opinion is.

I'm a bit confused as to how you define soul. It seems you have a bit more explanation to do here. Since the traditional definition of it implies an immaterial and eternal/ atemporal aspect of our nature, it would follow that your new material definition requires an entirely new understanding of the term. I don't think you'll be successful though if you continue with this understanding. The traditional definition is much more useful.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2017, 10:47 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
At work.

Hey Naielis!

Just a question.... but how is something 'Immaterial' a good explanation for... anything, really? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(29-03-2017 10:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hey Naielis!

Just a question.... but how is something 'Immaterial' a good explanation for... anything, really? Consider

Well it classifies the term. It's not a complete explanation, but it's not a bad classification.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
29-03-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
At work.

Okay, we have a word.

Now, what does the word mean/pertain too?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2017, 11:04 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(29-03-2017 10:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(29-03-2017 10:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

Hey Naielis!

Just a question.... but how is something 'Immaterial' a good explanation for... anything, really? Consider

Well it classifies the term. It's not a complete explanation, but it's not a bad classification.

It is not an explanation at all and as a classification it is a euphemism for "not understood".

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2017, 11:08 AM
RE: Brain vs soul.
(29-03-2017 11:04 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(29-03-2017 10:52 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it classifies the term. It's not a complete explanation, but it's not a bad classification.

It is not an explanation at all and as a classification it is a euphemism for "not understood".

Well you're right that it's not an explanation. I agreed on that in my previous comment. But it doesn't necessarily refer to unknown substances or properties. For example, the emergent property of consciousness can be explained in terms of qualitative awareness. But it certainly can refer to an unknown object or phenomenon.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: