Immortal Souls / Immortality Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2012, 01:37 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 07:36 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-10-2012 03:16 AM)Magoo Wrote:  Well KC what's your counter argument on this?
I wouldn't waste my time on asking him questions like that. He doesn't need any rational or logically consistent arguments to back up his belief, because he has blind faith. Nothing you do or say will change anything at his position. He has demonstrated this over and over again during the time he's been on this forum.

Gotcha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2012, 01:38 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 01:37 PM)Magoo Wrote:  
(07-10-2012 07:36 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I wouldn't waste my time on asking him questions like that. He doesn't need any rational or logically consistent arguments to back up his belief, because he has blind faith. Nothing you do or say will change anything at his position. He has demonstrated this over and over again during the time he's been on this forum.

Gotcha.

I wouldn't hold my breath either, Magoo, but I am too much of an optimist to say that KC will never come around.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2012, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2012 03:09 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Debunking "Souls"
KC actually knows more theology, correctly, and more about the Bible than almost any theist I have ever known, here or anywhere. He knows exactly why he thinks the way he does. I almost fell off my chair the day he gave the "felix culpa" argument for the fall/sin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa .
He should be teaching someone in a University setting. We do accept him here, and poke at newbies to see how much they know about what they think they are talking about, but if we expect theists to accept us at face value, "in good faith", and "legitimate", ie not with usual Fundamentalist "non-belief as moral failing" approach, then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems. The respect works both ways. But we do get to continue to point out flaws in each other's stuff.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-10-2012, 02:11 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ... then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems.

The fuck's got into you, Fullerene. There are no belief systems which are legitimate because "belief" itself is fuckin' illegitimate. ... But I got no problem tolerating whatever particular metaphysics you have acquired and shaped for yourself. ... None of my business really. Wink

This is not my signature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
07-10-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  KC actually knows more theology, correctly, and more about the Bible than almost any theist I have ever known, here or anywhere. He knows exactly why he thinks the away he does. I almost fell off my chair the day he gave the "felix culpa" argument for the fall/sin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa .
He should be teaching someone in a University setting. We do accept him here, and poke at newbies to see how much they know about what they think they are talking about, but if we expect theists to accept us at face value, "in good faith", and "legitimate", ie not with usual Fundamentalist "non-belief as moral failing" approach, then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems. The respect works both ways. But we do get to continue to point out flaws in each other's stuff.

Yeah, what Girly said.

I respect the extent of his knowledge, but I have no respect for what drove him to acquire it. His belief system is based on a false premise and is undeserving of respect.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2012, 02:37 PM
Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  KC actually knows more theology, correctly, and more about the Bible than almost any theist I have ever known, here or anywhere. He knows exactly why he thinks the away he does. I almost fell off my chair the day he gave the "felix culpa" argument for the fall/sin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa .
He should be teaching someone in a University setting. We do accept him here, and poke at newbies to see how much they know about what they think they are talking about, but if we expect theists to accept us at face value, "in good faith", and "legitimate", ie not with usual Fundamentalist "non-belief as moral failing" approach, then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems. The respect works both ways. But we do get to continue to point out flaws in each other's stuff.

And I have more knowledge about Spider-Man than most people on this forum. I'd be as delusional as KC if I tried to explain how Peter Parker is a real person who was bitten by a radioactive spider. You gonna respect my legitimate belief?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
07-10-2012, 02:46 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 02:37 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(07-10-2012 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  KC actually knows more theology, correctly, and more about the Bible than almost any theist I have ever known, here or anywhere. He knows exactly why he thinks the away he does. I almost fell off my chair the day he gave the "felix culpa" argument for the fall/sin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa .
He should be teaching someone in a University setting. We do accept him here, and poke at newbies to see how much they know about what they think they are talking about, but if we expect theists to accept us at face value, "in good faith", and "legitimate", ie not with usual Fundamentalist "non-belief as moral failing" approach, then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems. The respect works both ways. But we do get to continue to point out flaws in each other's stuff.

And I have more knowledge about Spider-Man than most people on this forum. I'd be as delusional as KC if I tried to explain how Peter Parker is a real person who was bitten by a radioactive spider. You gonna respect my legitimate belief?

Well Spiderman lives in New York, doesn't he? And guess what? NEW YORK IS A REAL PLACE!!!

Boom. Total Spiderman proof all up in yo' cerebrals.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Misanthropik's post
07-10-2012, 02:50 PM (This post was last modified: 07-10-2012 02:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 02:11 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(07-10-2012 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ... then we ought to respect the absolute legitimacy of belief systems.

The fuck's got into you, Fullerene. There are no belief systems which are legitimate because "belief" itself is fuckin' illegitimate. ... But I got no problem tolerating whatever particular metaphysics you have acquired and shaped for yourself. ... None of my business really. Wink

Yeah, I stated that badly. I respect the right to have the belief, I don't have to respect the belief, and I haven't seen many, so far, that make any sense. The systems in the West are all founded on historical "goofs' and ignorance of their own historical roots. I only tolerate as long as it doesn't start impinging on anyone eles's rights, and that seems to happen frequently. By "legitimate" I didn't mean the (belief) system was sound, I meant they have the right to hold one, (or not), and it says nothing further to me about the person holding the belief, other than it's stupid.
American Fundamentalism is somewhat unique in Christianity, when they say a position of un-belief is a moral failing, or "rebellion". It's why they get SO worked up about what they call the "New ('militant') Atheism".
They operate on the assumption that we've (already) "heard the good news", and "rejected the good news". If there IS no real choice, then it ain't "good news". If I MUST accept it, there is no choice.

Edit : Holy crap. Please change this to the "pile on Bucky while he's writing a clarification, and now gets to feels sorry for himself for a while" thread. Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating Yogi, CAAT-LY.
Living daily with the high tragedy of being #2 on Laramie Hirsch's ignore list.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-10-2012, 03:06 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
(07-10-2012 02:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  American Fundamentalism is somewhat unique in Christianity, when they say a position of un-belief is a moral failing, or "rebellion". It's why they get SO worked up about what they call the "New ('militant') Atheism".
They operate on the assumption that we've (already) "heard the good news", and "rejected the good news". If there IS no real choice, then it ain't "good news". If I MUST accept it, there is no choice.

If i have a debate on this issue with a RC her in germany, i will receive the same argument of being a "rebell" against god and his moral, as well as you in the states.
The viewpoint of theists on this is pretty much the same all over the world.
So much for your unique American Fundis.
The difference to the states is, if the RC let this out in public, he will earn a big outburst of laughter.

If atheism is a religion, then not playing football is an Olympic discipline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Marco Krieger's post
07-10-2012, 03:11 PM
RE: Debunking "Souls"
QualiaSoup just uploaded a new video deal specifically with the problem of Dualism. I think it might be relevant here.




E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: