Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 301
  1. #241
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Support or Retract that claim.

    You asked me to define OBE and I did. Consciousness leaving the body and then returning. And at no point did I change that. So do not repeat the claim that I changed my argument unless you can show a change that I made.
    OK. I won’t repeat it but I also don’t retract it. That said, you *did* change from NDE to OBE and then you only changed to your new definition since the one I gave wasn’t good enough.


    These aren't "my" words. These are words that have definitions that can be found in the dictionary. You provided a dictionary definition of "consciousness" and I accepted it and still do accept it. And EVERYONE knows what "leaving" means. It means to, well, leave the location where one was previously situated.
    I withdrew it from play because I won’t do your work for you.

    If you want to refuse to address my logic chain until I provided definitions of words that everyone, including you, already knows, then go ahead and not respond. And if you don't respond, let alone challenge, my argument, then it stands.
    It doesn’t stand yet because you haven’t stated what you mean by consciousness. State it and I will consider moving on.

    This is a classic ad hom fallacy.

    And again, if you want to use THIS as an excuse to not address my argument, then don't address it and let it stand.
    It’s fact that this whole thread is hanging off that mistake. That’s even without understanding how, per Squatch, you plan to link “consciousness leaving the body” to anything.


    There is no shift. They are all the same thing.
    No they’re not otherwise, you wouldn’t have had to keep qualifying things.

    OBEs are consciousness leaving the body, having the experience of leaving the body (so they can see and hear), and then returning to the body.
    Ah - “having the experience”. Gotcha. So this is the new working definition. Good - I accept that people are having an experience. This allows for the experience being an illusion or hallucination or dream. Correct?


    And what I'm specifically talking about is pretty based on an argument YOU made. You argued that consciousness exists only in the body and that is the only place that consciousness can have experiences. This exchange from post 89 sums it up.
    Seems like you’re agreeing with me on that point though - or at least, you’re not precluding it. So you are saying it is possible that these experiences are can only happen in the brain unless proven otherwise, right?

    [Quote]
    And I have supported that it's possible that consciousness can have experiences outside of the body since I supported that OBEs are possible. Again, your refusal to rebut it means it stands. But if we are at an impasse, then I will attack your argument a different way.

    I Challenge to support a claim. you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that consciousness/experience is only in the brain.
    I withdrew that statement ages ago. Seriously, keep up!

  2. #242
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    I have decided to ignore everything in your last post that does not forward the debate and respond to the stuff that does.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Ah - “having the experience”. Gotcha. So this is the new working definition. Good - I accept that people are having an experience. This allows for the experience being an illusion or hallucination or dream. Correct?
    Correct.

    Just as having an OBE experience is POSSIBLY the consciousness actually leaving the body and returning, it's also POSSIBLE that it's a dream or hallucination.

    To note:

    There is a difference between "OBEs" and "OBE experiences"

    OBEs refer to the consciousness leaving the body and returning
    "OBE experiences" refer to having the experience of an OBE which may or may not be a genuine OBE (such as a hallucination or a dream).




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Seems like you’re agreeing with me on that point though - or at least, you’re not precluding it. So you are saying it is possible that these experiences are can only happen in the brain unless proven otherwise, right?
    Yes, both options are possible.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I withdrew that statement ages ago. Seriously, keep up!
    So you retract the claim that experiences only happen in the body and will not repeat it in this debate?

    Okay.
    Last edited by mican333; March 14th, 2019 at 10:07 PM.

  3. #243
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have decided to ignore everything in your last post that does not forward the debate and respond to the stuff that does.



    Correct.

    Just as having an OBE experience is POSSIBLY the consciousness actually leaving the body and returning, it's also POSSIBLE that it's a dream or hallucination.

    To note:

    There is a difference between "OBEs" and "OBE experiences"

    OBEs refer to the consciousness leaving the body and returning
    "OBE experiences" refer to having the experience of an OBE which may or may not be a genuine OBE (such as a hallucination or a dream).
    I have no idea what the distinction is - you realize OBE is an acronym right? You can’t have an experience experience! The whole thing *is* an experience!

    I believe this might be a record as to how many times the argument has had to rephrase things and now there’s a dispute as to whether this is an experience experience or just an experience! The mind boggles.


    Yes, both options are possible.
    Which “both” options? I’m only agreeing to material explanations as we are currently discussing; I don’t understand what other options there are. We agree that the these are experiences by living people - you’re going to have to be explicit if you’re claiming something else.


    So you retract the claim that experiences only happen in the body and will not repeat it in this debate?

    Okay.
    I will take the position that all explanations are material and the current science points to this; and all other explanations are unproven pseudoscience that needs explanation before I can understand enough to make any further statements.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 15th, 2019 at 04:38 AM.

  4. #244
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yet when I did provide a definition he moved goal posts and changed things.

    I'm afraid I didn't see where he did that. Can you link to a post subsequent to post 173 where he claimed the dictionary definitions don't apply?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It isn’t up to me to choose how he defines his own words

    I agree with this statement, but I don't think that is where we are in this thread. He has provided definitions (or at least pointed at them and I provided them) it is now up to you to address the claim given those definitions. If he tries to change the definition later, call him on it and argue that we need to stick to the definitions he offered. That would be a moving the goal post fallacy after all.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Additionally, his assumption about what is commonly understood is not trusted given his previous incorrect statement on the matter of souls=consciousness. It’s clear to me his position doesn’t rely on facts but a willful ignorance of even his own materials.

    Please apply the principle of charity here. We ask debaters to do that with you, and with me, and with future, and with mindtrap, and with eye, we can do it with Mican as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    Recall we went from floating bodies and that see and hear things to now just the “consciousness leaving the body”. To avoid further shifting, *he* needs to define what he means by consciousness and leaving/returning.

    He has already offered those definitions. He is using the definitions I quoted for conciousness and leaving. What further explanation are you waiting for?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #245
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I have no idea what the distinction is - you realize OBE is an acronym right? You can’t have an experience experience! The whole thing *is* an experience!

    I believe this might be a record as to how many times the argument has had to rephrase things and now there’s a dispute as to whether this is an experience experience or just an experience! The mind boggles.
    And, as usual, your comments about my debating is pretty much incorrect.

    I've consistently used the term "OBE" to mean "consciousness leaving the body and then returning" and never, not once, provided a different definition for that. So there hasn't been a SINGLE term-change from me let alone a record-breaking amount.

    But we need to differentiate between having a genuine OBE and experiencing one (as an experience is not necessarily a genuine occurrence of what's experienced since one can have a false experience via dream or hallucination). So to avoid confusion, I thought we should have two different terms.

    So:

    OBE - consciousness actually leaving the body and returning
    OBE experience - experiencing leaving the body and returning with the possibility that it didn't really happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Which “both” options? I’m only agreeing to material explanations as we are currently discussing; I don’t understand what other options there are. We agree that the these are experiences by living people - you’re going to have to be explicit if you’re claiming something else.
    The options are:

    1. These experiences only happen in the brain (as you hold)
    2. Some experiences happen outside of the brain. An OBE would be an example of this.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I will take the position that all explanations are material and the current science points to this
    All explanations that we have are material. But as far as I know, the origin of experience has not been explained. So you have not supported that all experiences are housed in a material matrix (the body).


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    and all other explanations are unproven pseudoscience that needs explanation before I can understand enough to make any further statements.
    As far as I know, all explanations of where experience resides is unproven.

    If you are going to argue that the material explanation is proven, then please support that.

    Otherwise your position is just as supported as all "pseudoscientific" explanations (as in not supported at all).

  6. #246
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I'm afraid I didn't see where he did that. Can you link to a post subsequent to post 173 where he claimed the dictionary definitions don't apply?
    That’s not what I said. I said he changed from NDE, a general experience, to OBE, a more specific one. And then when I offered my definition, he changed the topic of discussion to “consciousness leaving ...”.

    And NOW, we’re going to be quibbling over experience experiences and experiences!



    I agree with this statement, but I don't think that is where we are in this thread. He has provided definitions (or at least pointed at them and I provided them) it is now up to you to address the claim given those definitions. If he tries to change the definition later, call him on it and argue that we need to stick to the definitions he offered. That would be a moving the goal post fallacy after all.
    It has been changed yet again to “OBE experiences”!



    Please apply the principle of charity here. We ask debaters to do that with you, and with me, and with future, and with mindtrap, and with eye, we can do it with Mican as well.
    Normally, but this debate has taken too many shifts and turns and retractions and resets such that I have to remind *him* where we are!

    So I’m taking the latest redefinition as to what we are taking about moving forward.



    He has already offered those definitions. He is using the definitions I quoted for conciousness and leaving. What further explanation are you waiting for?
    His own statements. I can’t look back any more.

  7. #247
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    That’s not what I said. I said he changed from NDE, a general experience, to OBE, a more specific one. And then when I offered my definition, he changed the topic of discussion to “consciousness leaving ...”.

    I'll grant that he changed from NDE to a broader OBE reference (you have the general to specific backwards there) very early in the thread. I'm not sure I see the issue with that. You asked him to offer a definition on several occasions. Setting aside whatever definitions you offered, he has offered the "conciousness leaving the body" definition.

    Thus, you need to operate off of that definition or offer one of your own and defend why it is better.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    It has been changed yet again to “OBE experiences”!

    I get why you think that is a change, but it really isn't. What Mican is referring to is sometimes called a Qualia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/). IE it is the character of an experience. He isn't changing the definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharmak
    His own statements. I can’t look back any more.

    You don't have to. These are the definitions for the thread. Please note the red:

    Conciousness:
    the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself...
    the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../consciousness

    Leaving:
    to terminate association with : withdraw from
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leaving
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #248
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,490
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Unanswered questions:

    Do animals and plants have souls?

    And you haven’t answered the question as to whether animals or plants have “souls”
    1. I am not an animal whisperer.
    2. Reminder: the subject of your thread is the soul of humans.
    3. I have, nevertheless, begun a hear-to-heart dialogue with our loveable lab inquiring about the nature of his spirit. When/if I get any insights I will comment.

    Are you a Flat Earther?
    Don’t know what that is nor does it matter what I am or what you are. This is a debate board. It’s not about the person but the soundness of the argument and discussion points.

    Yet when Susan Blackmore had the experience, she went towards a scientific understanding rather than a mysticism. One works, the other doesn’t.
    What specifically doesn’t work?


    Religions are the biggest peddlers of the idea and the ones who have most to gain from promoting it any playing on peoples’ fears. It’s the one thing they have over everyone.
    The concept of the soul has been around long before organized religion. Who has what over everyone?

    That you’re talking about acupuncture working in today’s day and age is astounding.
    The American College of Physicians formally recommends acupuncture for the treatment of back pain. Published in the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine, clinical guidelines were developed by the American College of Physicians (ACP) to present recommendations based on evidence. Citing quality evidence in modern research, the ACP notes that nonpharmacologic treatment with acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain is recommended. The official grade by the ACP is a “strong recommendation.”
    https://www.healthcmi.com/Acupunctur...octor-approved

    Human vision is limited along a known “visible” electromagnetic spectrum! And we already have detectors for the full spectrum - this will easy to detect. So either it has been done and proven to show nothing or it hasn’t
    Or researchers will continue analyzing the effects through brain imaging and other experiments of such events. We can learn a lot by studying aftereffects.

    I dispute the “no way of knowing” has been conclusively proven.
    I don’t think researchers in the OBE field are trying to prove anything. Their rigorous approach is about collecting, verifying and analyzing evidence.

    The physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.” Stevenson himself was convinced that, once the precise mechanisms underlying his observations were known, it would bring about “a conceptual revolution that will make the Copernican revolution seem trivial in comparison.” It’s hard to argue with that, assuming it ever does happen.
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...y-just-cynics/


    I see no need to explore other unproven ideas and justify them with apologetics.
    I understand your lack of wanting to understand the scholarly research work in this area. But here’s some food for thought… some skeptics do have a more objective attitude:

    I’d be happy to say it’s all complete and utter nonsense—a moldering cesspool of irredeemable, anti-scientific drivel. The trouble is, it’s not entirely apparent to me that it is. So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously? The data don’t “fit” our working model of materialistic brain science, surely. But does our refusal to even look at his findings, let alone to debate them, come down to our fear of being wrong? “

    I would not accept that instantly the soul was the best explanation.
    And it sounds like from your comments, that you would not review the academic work from researchers and doctors in this field of inquiry if you had such an experience. So I guess that’s settled.

    Data that has zero net effect on the real world?
    Can you please support this?

    If these data were credible, I would expect it a matter of the greatest import and we’d put some serious money into it.
    It’s important enough to maintain a division supporting 50-years of research at the University of Virginia and now branching out to other universities and research labs.

    Greyson doesn’t have the best rationalwiki entries,
    The last paragraph and your other apologetics and the scam artists being promoted here are troubling.
    Please support through a reputable medical website link since these are all doctors that:

    1. Dr. Bruce Greyson, the Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, and the former director of The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS),[1] formerly the Division of Personality Studies, at the University of Virginia. Professor of Psychiatric Medicine in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, Division of Outpatient Psychiatry, at the University of Virginia is a pseudoscientist.


    2. Dr. Pin Van Lommel, Dutch author and researcher in the field of near-death studies, who studied medicine at Utrecht University, specializing in cardiology; worked as a cardiologist at the Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, for 26 years is a scam artist.

    3. Dr. Jeffrey Long, practices radiation oncology at a hospital in Louisiana and is an american author and researcher into the phenomenon of near-death experience is a scam artist.
    Dr. Michael Sabom a medical doctor and a cardiologist in Atlanta, and a near-death research is a scam artist.

    So I have to disbelieve that you have done any kind of critical research on this matter. If a quick google
    I didn’t need to do a google search on these doctors. I read their books along with about 12 or so others, including Susan Blackmore and scientists who had opposing views years ago.

    Sure, I don’t mind investigating things - people are welcome to do whatever they can to understand the world as they see fit. I just think it’s all a lot of bunk
    I understand your position. And if you ever change your mind, the research work will be out there.

    Electrons aren’t invisible - they’ve been detected! It’s literally not non-material - what are you talking about?
    Electrons are particles inside atoms along with protons and neutrons. We can detect and measure the effects of atoms, but they are invisible to light.

    "Atoms are so much smaller than the wavelength of visible light that the two don’t really interact. To put it another way, atoms are invisible to light itself. However, atoms do have observable effects on some of the things we can see."


    And what do you mean “some people can feel it”?
    Some people are more sensitive to energy waves than others.

    Souls are an offshoot idea of religions that have grown legs.
    I think most people believe in the concept of the soul because they feel and experience the spirit within themselves.

    OBE is certainly no proof souls exist anyway
    No, it’s not proof, but it is a continuing growing body of rigourously acquired evidence that is accumulating and compelling.

    I don’t even know why we’re talking about OBEs
    You asked for support for my comment that this is an” active area of academic scientific research” so I gave you support.

    but all the evidence that everyone has presented doesn’t convinces me it is happening all in the mind and that anyone that says otherwise are peddling in bad science and bad ideas.
    What have you truly studied? If you study the research papers and publications published by the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, the information from 50 years of research may not convince you, but it might change your perspective about the phenomena.

    To be untransparent about your true motivations is just wasting time because we’re going to get to that point anyway.
    My main motive in jumping into your thread was to ask you a question about how you might react to a personal observation of what you claim doesn’t exist. You’ve answered it. Thanks
    Last edited by eye4magic; March 15th, 2019 at 02:15 PM.
    "The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” --"The Mental Universe” | Nature
    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator

  9. #249
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    I'll grant that he changed from NDE to a broader OBE reference (you have the general to specific backwards there) very early in the thread. I'm not sure I see the issue with that. You asked him to offer a definition on several occasions. Setting aside whatever definitions you offered, he has offered the "conciousness leaving the body" definition.

    Thus, you need to operate off of that definition or offer one of your own and defend why it is better.



    I get why you think that is a change, but it really isn't. What Mican is referring to is sometimes called a Qualia (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/). IE it is the character of an experience. He isn't changing the definition.
    1. I have it right. NDE is "near death experience" - it is a superset of OBE "out of the body experience"; the former could just be seeing light at the end of the tunnel, the latter is an experience of being out of the body.
    2. The issue is that it is me doing to work to figure out what Miccan is actually saying.
    3. "consciouness leaving the body" has morphed, yet again, to "OBEs are consciousness leaving the body, having the experience of leaving the body (so they can see and hear), and then returning to the body.
    ".
    4. And now we have to distinguish between E experiences vs experiences!
    5. If Mican is referring to Qualia then he should say so immediately - this term has not yet shown up. If that's the true goal then the position should be stated up front rather than me poking holes and discovering it.


    You don't have to. These are the definitions for the thread. Please note the red:
    Conciousness:
    the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself...
    the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../consciousness

    Leaving:
    to terminate association with : withdraw from
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leaving
    OK - I don't understand why Mican can't use his own words but I will take that as a working definition once the other nonsense has been sorted out. I hold you responsible if he dodges this one too.

    ---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    1. I am not an animal whisperer.
    2. Reminder: the subject of your thread is the soul of humans.
    3. I have, nevertheless, begun a hear-to-heart dialogue with our loveable lab inquiring about the nature of his spirit. When/if I get any insights I will comment.
    Interesting non-answer - so basically there's no OOB or spirits floating from animals. What makes us special i wonder.


    Don’t know what that is nor does it matter what I am or what you are. This is a debate board. It’s not about the person but the soundness of the argument and discussion points.
    It matters a great deal because the soundness of the argument is already shattered with pseudoscience - your noncommittal answer is different from your earlier claim that "it is possible".

    What specifically doesn’t work?
    Using religion to explain reality.


    The concept of the soul has been around long before organized religion. Who has what over everyone?
    Support.


    The American College of Physicians formally recommends acupuncture for the treatment of back pain. Published in the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine, clinical guidelines were developed by the American College of Physicians (ACP) to present recommendations based on evidence. Citing quality evidence in modern research, the ACP notes that nonpharmacologic treatment with acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain is recommended. The official grade by the ACP is a “strong recommendation.”
    https://www.healthcmi.com/Acupunctur...octor-approved
    This is a response to the opiod crisis - so anything is better than addiction. Nevertheless, this is a controversial ruling and still doesn't mean accupuncture works - it could still be a placebo effect.

    E: Observing a spirit leave the body is not delusion to me. I actually view it as a natural process. The only reason it may seem delusion to some people is because it is not something our regular vision can observe. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur. Human visibility is limited
    S: Human vision is limited along a known “visible” electromagnetic spectrum! And we already have detectors for the full spectrum - this will easy to detect. So either it has been done and proven to show nothing or it hasn’t
    E:Or researchers will continue analyzing the effects through brain imaging and other experiments of such events. We can learn a lot by studying aftereffects.
    You're dodging the fact that you're not making sense - your point that human visibility is limited is saying nothing: we already know it is. That's not to say that we have detectors for electromagnetic radiation and other phenomena. This has nothing to do with the brain if it is outside of human vision, as you say. And if human vision is limited, how is it that some people can see this and even then only once or rarely. I think you're taking too much on face value and trying to reverse engineer an answer.


    I don’t think researchers in the OBE field are trying to prove anything. Their rigorous approach is about collecting, verifying and analyzing evidence.

    Using already debunked theories!

    The physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences, surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.” Stevenson himself was convinced that, once the precise mechanisms underlying his observations were known, it would bring about “a conceptual revolution that will make the Copernican revolution seem trivial in comparison.” It’s hard to argue with that, assuming it ever does happen.
    What a load of BS. The guy's other click-bait garbage is:
    He is the author of The Belief Instinct (2011), Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That? (2012) and Perv (2013). To learn more about Jesse's work, visit www.jessebering.com or add him on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/jesse.bering).
    Recent Articles


    Rational wiki describes him as
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
    As former head of the department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Stevenson's early reputation as a careful researcher caused his later reincarnation writings to be given some attention in academic circles. Despite this early interest, the vast majority of scientists came to see him as "earnest, dogged but ultimately misguided, led astray by gullibility, wishful thinking and a tendency to see science where others saw superstition."[2]

    So let's throw him and everything he says in the dustbin.

    I understand your lack of wanting to understand the scholarly research work in this area. But here’s some food for thought… some skeptics do have a more objective attitude:
    I’d be happy to say it’s all complete and utter nonsense—a moldering cesspool of irredeemable, anti-scientific drivel. The trouble is, it’s not entirely apparent to me that it is. So why aren’t scientists taking Stevenson’s data more seriously? The data don’t “fit” our working model of materialistic brain science, surely. But does our refusal to even look at his findings, let alone to debate them, come down to our fear of being wrong? “
    Why do I need to have an open mind when others, who are likely more trustworthy have already dismiss them. Perhaps if you can point to a specific study, I can look at it - I owe you that.


    And it sounds like from your comments, that you would not review the academic work from researchers and doctors in this field of inquiry if you had such an experience. So I guess that’s settled.
    That's a silly scenario - I'm unlikely to have such an experience or if I were I'd read Susan Blackmore's thoughts on the matter. I won't go to pseudo-scientists.


    Can you please support this?
    Yes - the data and findings are only taken seriously by other pseudo-scientists. This is much like the insular world of Flat Earthers. I have no reason to believe anything they say.

    It’s important enough to maintain a division supporting 50-years of research at the University of Virginia and now branching out to other universities and research labs.
    It's probably funded by some crank with lots of money.

    Please support through a reputable medical website link since these are all doctors that:

    1. Dr. Bruce Greyson, the Chester F. Carlson Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences, and the former director of The Division of Perceptual Studies (DOPS),[1] formerly the Division of Personality Studies, at the University of Virginia. Professor of Psychiatric Medicine in the Department of Psychiatric Medicine, Division of Outpatient Psychiatry, at the University of Virginia is a pseudoscientist.


    2. Dr. Pin Van Lommel, Dutch author and researcher in the field of near-death studies, who studied medicine at Utrecht University, specializing in cardiology; worked as a cardiologist at the Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, for 26 years is a scam artist.

    3. Dr. Jeffrey Long, practices radiation oncology at a hospital in Louisiana and is an american author and researcher into the phenomenon of near-death experience is a scam artist.
    Dr. Michael Sabom a medical doctor and a cardiologist in Atlanta, and a near-death research is a scam artist.
    My support is that they are peddling rubbish per the sources I already quoted. You can take them as seriously as you want but I'm not.

    I didn’t need to do a google search on these doctors. I read their books along with about 12 or so others, including Susan Blackmore and scientists who had opposing views years ago.
    Yes! And she changed her mind - that's her whole point - that she started in mysticism and came to the conclusion the brain is likely the source of all these experiences!

    I understand your position. And if you ever change your mind, the research work will be out there.
    I offered to read one convincing piece.

    Electrons are particles inside atoms along with protons and neutrons. We can detect and measure the effects of atoms, but they are invisible to light.

    "Atoms are so much smaller than the wavelength of visible light that the two don’t really interact. To put it another way, atoms are invisible to light itself. However, atoms do have observable effects on some of the things we can see."
    What are you talking about? You were originally talking about PEOPLE detecting electrons:
    Just because we can’t observe it or feel it or fully understand it, (though some people can feel it)


    Some people are more sensitive to energy waves than others.
    Some people CLAIM they are more sensitive - this is just more nonsense since we're covered by all sorts of electromagnetic radiation all the time. And also, what is an "energy wave"?


    I think most people believe in the concept of the soul because they feel and experience the spirit within themselves.
    I don't disagree that this is likely all in the mind.


    No, it’s not proof, but it is a continuing growing body of rigourously acquired evidence that is accumulating and compelling.
    Compelling only to those that already believe!

    You asked for support for my comment that this is an” active area of academic scientific research” so I gave you support.
    And you gave me a bunch of pseudoscience and disreputable people and organizations!

    What have you truly studied? If you study the research papers and publications published by the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia, the information from 50 years of research may not convince you, but it might change your perspective about the phenomena.
    Here's the thing - if it were convincing we wouldn't be having this discussion and I won't so easily find information that makes me suspect the people you've quoted. This is a little niche that has done nothing in 50 years but peddle ideas that have been debunked, promote superstitious thought or otherwise be marginalized. This is all Flat Earth and Young Earth territory - it's all convincing "science-like" but no-one serious takes them seriously.
    My main motive in jumping into your thread was to ask you a question about how you might react to a personal observation of what you claim doesn’t exist. You’ve answered it. Thanks
    You're welcome! Good chat. I remain wholly skeptical and wholly unconvinced.

  10. #250
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And, as usual, your comments about my debating is pretty much incorrect.
    Well, if that were true, you wouldn’t to keep clarifying yourself nearly every other post!

    I've consistently used the term "OBE" to mean "consciousness leaving the body and then returning" and never, not once, provided a different definition for that. So there hasn't been a SINGLE term-change from me let alone a record-breaking amount.
    You started off with NDE and then changed again just now. It doesn’t matter what you “meant”, it’s what you said. And now, you have to clarify yourself even further so don’t tell me you haven’t provided different definitions!

    But we need to differentiate between having a genuine OBE and experiencing one (as an experience is not necessarily a genuine occurrence of what's experienced since one can have a false experience via dream or hallucination). So to avoid confusion, I thought we should have two different terms.

    So:

    OBE - consciousness actually leaving the body and returning
    OBE experience - experiencing leaving the body and returning with the possibility that it didn't really happen.
    Um, they’re still both experiences. You must agree that with both scenarios, there is a living person throughout the whole experience and that only a living person is reporting such. Correct?


    The options are:

    1. These experiences only happen in the brain (as you hold)
    2. Some experiences happen outside of the brain. An OBE would be an example of this.
    Still no idea what you mean by “outside of the brain”. What *exactly* is outside of the brain and how does “it” get there? What substrate does holds this supposed consciousness whilst it is outside the body?

    I am also currently not holding any position, as I have already withdrawn it. Keep up! Only you are making claims there is something outside of the brain without explaining what you even mean by that. Stop trying to debate with yourself and state and explain fully what your own position is and let me worry about mine.


    All explanations that we have are material. But as far as I know, the origin of experience has not been explained. So you have not supported that all experiences are housed in a material matrix (the body).
    I don’t know what “origin of experience” even is. And you haven’t supported anything non material.

    As far as I know, all explanations of where experience resides is unproven.
    I don’t understand that sentence.

    If you are going to argue that the material explanation is proven, then please support that.
    I don’t need to - I am arguing this is all I know - if there are other options, I have yet to seen a clear explanation as to what they are. If you can explain that then maybe I’d have something to say.

    Otherwise your position is just as supported as all "pseudoscientific" explanations (as in not supported at all).
    I don’t need to hold any position yet because you’re making all the claims and not explaining anything. You’re bringing in multiple new terms and new ideas with not a jot of support or explanation as to what you’re even talking about.

    I am more confused about this post than any other: on the one hand you’re claiming I’m holding a position which I dropped ages ago, and you’re offering another set of ideas that make zero sense.

    As for pseudoscience, I have no idea what you mean since I haven’t offered support for anything yet, other than quoting back your own source; you’re mistaking a perceived position and the lack of information with pseudoscience. That’s not what pseudoscience is. On the other hand, your own articles as well as all of eye’s, *are* actual pseudoscience, as classified by various references I have already provided.

    Also, for someone who keeps whining about personal comments you certainly making lots of personal comments yourself: address the argument and not me personally! I’ll forgive you for this post but you need to stop your aggressive language.
    Last edited by SharmaK; March 16th, 2019 at 06:26 AM.

  11. #251
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    I'm going to move your last comment to the top.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Also, for someone who keeps whining about personal comments you certainly making lots of personal comments yourself: address the argument and not me personally! I’ll forgive you for this post but you need to stop your aggressive language.
    This looks like a baseless and (ironically) personal comment. That's not to say that I never made a personal comment although with no, or little, exception, when I did they were responses to your personal comments. For example then ONLY personal comment I made in my post was "And, as usual, your comments about my debating is pretty much incorrect" which was a response to your personal comments about my debating.

    But either way, I'm glad you made that comment and voiced your displeasure with making personal comments. So I'm going to be extra careful to refrain from making personal comments and only makes arguments that are about the debate. My arguments will be about your arguments, not you, and not your debating.

    Likewise I will take a zero tolerance approach to comments about me and my debating and respond to those with a simple "attack the argument, not the debater".


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, if that were true, you wouldn’t to keep clarifying yourself nearly every other post!
    attack the argument, not the debater


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You started off with NDE and then changed again just now. It doesn’t matter what you “meant”, it’s what you said. And now, you have to clarify yourself even further so don’t tell me you haven’t provided different definitions!
    attack the argument, not the debater.

    The rest is valid debate so I'm through with "attack the argument, not the debater" in this post.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um, they’re still both experience. You must agree that with both scenarios, there is a living person throughout the whole experience and that only a living person is reporting such. Correct?
    But there is a difference between X happening and someone experiencing X happening and this needs to be differentiated.

    If you tell me that you that I watched a movie yesterday, I do mean that I actually, really, watched a movie. If I tell you that I had the experience of watching a movie, that does not necessarily mean that I watched a movie for maybe I had a dream that I watched a movie. And likewise things can happen to people that they don't experience. People are sometimes unconscious when certain things happen to them (like a surgery) so they have surgery but don't experience surgery. So there is a relevant difference between X and the "experience of X" and this needs to be differentiated.

    And since "experience" confuses things a bit, Squatch had a good solution. Instead of "OBE experience", we'll call it "OBE Qualia".

    OBE - the consciousness leaving the body and returning
    OBE Qualia - having the experience of consciousness leaving the body and returning.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Still no idea what you mean by “outside of the brain”. What *exactly* is outside of the brain and how does “it” get there? What substrate does holds this supposed consciousness whilst it is outside the body?
    "Outside the brain" means no longer residing in the brain. And If consciousness leaves the brain, I do not know the process that makes it happen and therefore cannot answer those other questions.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I am also currently not holding any position, as I have already withdrawn it. Keep up! Only you are making claims there is something outside of the brain without explaining what you even mean by that. Stop trying to debate with yourself and state and explain fully what your own position is and let me worry about mine.
    My position that you have not supported that the soul doesn't exist. Keep up!

    And no, I NEVER claimed that there actually is something outside of the brain. I claimed that it's possible that there is and THAT argument has been supported (as ruled by Squatch).



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t know what “origin of experience” even is. And you haven’t supported anything non material.
    It was your argument that all experience originates in the brain. So by your argument, the brain is the "origin of experience".

    And I'm not arguing that there is non-material so I have no burden to support it. It's YOUR argument that experience only resides in the brain that is under discussion.




    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t understand that sentence.
    To restate. I've seen no evidence that supports your position that experience only takes place in the brain.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t need to - I am arguing this is all I know - if there are other options, I have yet to seen a clear explanation as to what they are. If you can explain that then maybe I’d have something to say.
    Support cannot be based on "all I know". Support is based on one providing EVIDENCE that their position is correct. Until you provide evidence that experience only happens in the brain, what support exists for the alternatives or what those alternative might even be is irrelevant to whether your claim is supported.

    So currently your claim fails for lack of support. Saying that I have some burden to explain or support alternatives to what you are arguing is shifting the burden.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I don’t need to hold any position yet because you’re making all the claims and not explaining anything. You’re bringing in multiple new terms and new ideas with not a jot of support or explanation as to what you’re even talking about.
    1. You are wrong that I'm bringing anything new to this.
    2. Even if you were right, it's IRRELEVANT TO WHETHER YOU HAVE SUPPORTED YOUR ARGUMENT.
    3. If you are not taking the position that experience resides soley in the brain, then I will consider that position retracted and since that was the position I was challenging, then I guess I've defeated your position since you have retracted it and therefore I have no need to offer rebuttals, let alone a burden to explain or support my rebuttals.

    So to be clear,

    Do you retract the argument that experience resides only in the brain. If not, then please support that position or retract it.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    As for pseudoscience, I have no idea what you mean since I haven’t offered support for anything yet, other than quoting back your own source; you’re mistaking a perceived position and the lack of information with pseudoscience. That’s not what pseudoscience is. On the other hand, your own articles as well as all of eye’s, *are* actual pseudoscience, as classified by various references I have already provided.
    First off, they are not MY articles. I provided one small section of two separate articles to support that there were at least 3000+ cases of NDEs and then later retracted that claim. So the articles support ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to my arguments and therefore they are not my articles. They mean literally nothing to any argument that I am currently holding. And if an article does not support any of my arguments, then it cannot be considered my source.

    If you want to bring those articles into the debate to support one of your arguments, that's fine. But unless you are doing that, the articles support no one's argument (between you and I anyway - I can't speak for eye) and therefore are irrelevant to our debate.

    So to sum up the above into a simple sentence which I will likely forward if article are brought up in the future - "I don't see the relevance of those articles to our debate."
    Last edited by mican333; March 16th, 2019 at 07:31 AM.

  12. #252
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm going to move your last comment to the top.



    This looks like a baseless and (ironically) personal comment. That's not to say that I never made a personal comment although with no, or little, exception, when I did they were responses to your personal comments. For example then ONLY personal comment I made in my post was "And, as usual, your comments about my debating is pretty much incorrect" which was a response to your personal comments about my debating.

    But either way, I'm glad you made that comment and voiced your displeasure with making personal comments. So I'm going to be extra careful to refrain from making personal comments and only makes arguments that are about the debate. My arguments will be about your arguments, not you, and not your debating.

    Likewise I will take a zero tolerance approach to comments about me and my debating and respond to those with a simple "attack the argument, not the debater".
    Agreed. We should not use the words “you”, “your”, or “I”.

    I see that towards the end you can’t help yourself but attack me for using your own sources against you. Please stop.

    But there is a difference between X happening and someone experiencing X happening and this needs to be differentiated.
    There is no difference in that it is a living human throughout the entire period and that they have a brain that they use to communicate this. Correct?


    If you tell me that you that I watched a movie yesterday, I do mean that I actually, really, watched a movie. If I tell you that I had the experience of watching a movie, that does not necessarily mean that I watched a movie for maybe I had a dream that I watched a movie. And likewise things can happen to people that they don't experience. People are sometimes unconscious when certain things happen to them (like a surgery) so they have surgery but don't experience surgery. So there is a relevant difference between X and the "experience of X" and this needs to be differentiated.
    And sometimes people are not unconscious during surgery! So there’s an additional difference - that people who believe they are unconscious, when they’re not, also believe they have other experiences. Lucid dreams is a good example of this.

    And since "experience" confuses things a bit, Squatch had a good solution. Instead of "OBE experience", we'll call it "OBE Qualia".

    OBE - the consciousness leaving the body and returning
    OBE Qualia - having the experience of consciousness leaving the body and returning.
    Introducing new terms whilst the current terms are being disputed will lead to a deeper rabbit hole - it extends an already tenuous argument into a likely even more tenuous series of discussions. The likelihood of this being successful is low. I reject the suggestion.


    "Outside the brain" means no longer residing in the brain. And If consciousness leaves the brain, I do not know the process that makes it happen and therefore cannot answer those other questions.
    So the current argument is that an unknown process is still possible? Please explain!



    And no, I NEVER claimed that there actually is something outside of the brain. I claimed that it's possible that there is and THAT argument has been supported (as ruled by Squatch).
    Same difference - the claim that something unknown happens in an unknown way is still possible makes not sense. The words don’t make sense and the concept makes no sense. So how can this still be possible?



    It was your argument that all experience originates in the brain. So by your argument, the brain is the "origin of experience".

    And I'm not arguing that there is non-material so I have no burden to support it. It's YOUR argument that experience only resides in the brain that is under discussion.

    To restate. I've seen no evidence that supports your position that experience only takes place in the brain.
    It was withdrawn and not in play. Further harassment in this area will not be tolerated. Address the actual arguments being made, i.e. the claim something that cannot be explained is possible, not some perception of what you believe the counter arguments are!


    Support cannot be based on "all I know". Support is based on one providing EVIDENCE that their position is correct. Until you provide evidence that experience only happens in the brain, what support exists for the alternatives or what those alternative might even be is irrelevant to whether your claim is supported.

    So currently your claim fails for lack of support. Saying that I have some burden to explain or support alternatives to what you are arguing is shifting the burden.
    The evidence is the living human being experiencing some phenomenon that is currently unexplained! We both agree that exists. From the evidence already presented earlier there are apparently lots of people who have made this claim. So that’s the evidence.


    First off, they are not MY articles. I provided one small section of two separate articles to support that there were at least 3000+ cases of NDEs and then later retracted that claim. So the articles support ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in regards to my arguments and therefore they are not my articles. They mean literally nothing to any argument that I am currently holding. And if an article does not support any of my arguments, then it cannot be considered my source.
    These are all evidence pointing to NDEs, as I believe you are arguing (but bafflingly cannot explain) being pseudoscience. One of them, the first, was an link to article you presented to support your case; when I pointed out this is a PS blog, you presented a second article, that suggested a material source. They may not be what what cherry picked and I am not saying they are not part of *your* argument; but mine.

    I only point out the source was yours because the link was yours.


    If you want to bring those articles into the debate to support one of your arguments, that's fine. But unless you are doing that, the articles support no one's argument (between you and I anyway - I can't speak for eye) and therefore are irrelevant to our debate.
    I made them relevant as support of PS.


    So to sum up the above into a simple sentence which I will likely forward if article are brought up in the future - "I don't see the relevance of those articles to our debate."
    They are to support that NDEs (or whatever it is that is currently being claimed) is PS.

  13. #253
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It was withdrawn and not in play. Further harassment in this area will not be tolerated. Address the actual arguments being made, i.e. the claim something that cannot be explained is possible, not some perception of what you believe the counter arguments are!
    Well, my OBE argument was presented to counter the argument that experience resides only in the brain.

    If you are retracting that argument, then I have no need to continue to rebut it with the "OBEs are possible" argument. There's no good reason to defend my rebuttal to your argument if you have retracted your argument.

    So to be clear.

    You ARE retracting your argument that consciousness exists only in the brain, right?

    And if so, then what IS your argument that supports the OPs position that the soul does not exist? Or are you retracting that as well?

    And if you are not retracting your argument that consciousness exists only in the brain, then I will respond to the rest of your last post.

  14. #254
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, my OBE argument was presented to counter the argument that experience resides only in the brain.

    If you are retracting that argument, then I have no need to continue to rebut it with the "OBEs are possible" argument. There's no good reason to defend my rebuttal to your argument if you have retracted your argument.

    So to be clear.

    You ARE retracting your argument that consciousness exists only in the brain, right?

    And if so, then what IS your argument that supports the OPs position that the soul does not exist? Or are you retracting that as well?

    And if you are not retracting your argument that consciousness exists only in the brain, then I will respond to the rest of your last post.
    You'll have to tie up the timeline and respond as you see fit. I can't help you if you're not properly keeping track of the debate.

  15. #255
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You'll have to tie up the timeline and respond as you see fit. I can't help you if you're not properly keeping track of the debate.
    Well, I see the prohibition on personal comments didn't last long.

    And I have responded as I see fit.

    To the best of my knowledge, all of your arguments that support the OP are no longer in play and therefore the OP's position that the soul does not exist is not supported and fails for that reason. And if I'm right about that, then all of my rebuttals aren't addressing any argument of yours that's still in play and therefore are no longer appropriate topics of discussion on this thread.

    Of course I acknowledge that my understanding of the status of your arguments might be incorrect. And arguing whose fault it is that I am mistaken on that issue is a waste of time, would be once again engaging in personal comments, and does not forward the debate.

    So if you still have arguments that support that the soul does not exist in play in this debate, please state them so I will know which argument I should be addressing.

    And if you have no arguments in play, then the OPs position has no arguments supporting it and fails for that reason.

    So

    Question to opponent. Do you still have arguments in play that support that the soul does not exist? If so, what are they?

  16. #256
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I see the prohibition on personal comments didn't last long.
    Um - that was a response to your question: you're asking me to do your work again.


    And I have responded as I see fit.

    To the best of my knowledge, all of your arguments that support the OP are no longer in play and therefore the OP's position that the soul does not exist is not supported and fails for that reason. And if I'm right about that, then all of my rebuttals aren't addressing any argument of yours that's still in play and therefore are no longer appropriate topics of discussion on this thread.

    Of course I acknowledge that my understanding of the status of your arguments might be incorrect. And arguing whose fault it is that I am mistaken on that issue is a waste of time, would be once again engaging in personal comments, and does not forward the debate.

    So if you still have arguments that support that the soul does not exist in play in this debate, please state them so I will know which argument I should be addressing.

    And if you have no arguments in play, then the OPs position has no arguments supporting it and fails for that reason.

    So

    Question to opponent. Do you still have arguments in play that support that the soul does not exist? If so, what are they?
    Um - my OP still stands. It's up to you to decide how you want to rebut it! I'm not going to act shocked if you need another do-over.

    I seem to recall that your immediate response to the OP was to say that ALL religions believed that the soul=consciousness. Can we get back to that so that you can admit you were wrong on that? And further, that all your subsequent rebuttals are also withdrawn?

  17. #257
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um - that was a response to your question: you're asking me to do your work again.
    "you're not properly keeping track of the debate" is a personal comment.

    Attack the argument, not the debater.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Um - my OP still stands. It's up to you to decide how you want to rebut it! I'm not going to act shocked if you need another do-over.
    And "I'm not going to act shocked if you need another do-over" is also a personal comment.

    And I have decided how I'm rebutting it. I'm saying that your argument is unsupported and fails for that reason. THAT is my rebuttal.

    I KNOW some of your arguments were withdrawn by you (like the experience exists only in the body argument) and I believe others have been essentially withdrawn by not responding to the rebuttals to them (like the "concept doesn't make sense" argument and many of your science arguments that ceased in the face of Squatch's confirming that the challenges to them are legitimate).

    And I don't claim that my understanding is perfect so I allow for the possibility that I am incorrect and you do indeed have arguments that support that the soul does not exist that is still in play.

    So unless you DO have argument that support the OP that are still in play, then the OP fails for lack of support.

    So again,

    Question to opponent.Do you still have arguments in play that support that the soul does not exist? If so, what are they?

  18. #258
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "you're not properly keeping track of the debate" is a personal comment.

    Attack the argument, not the debater.
    OK: the argument has been all over the place, constantly reworking and being refined as holes are discovered and retracted just as often.



    And "I'm not going to act shocked if you need another do-over" is also a personal comment.
    We’re no longer debating though since you’d dropped everything.


    And I have decided how I'm rebutting it.
    Sigh.

    I'm saying that your argument is unsupported and fails for that reason. THAT is my rebuttal.
    OK. And?


    I KNOW some of your arguments were withdrawn by you (like the experience exists only in the body argument) and I believe others have been essentially withdrawn by not responding to the rebuttals to them (like the "concept doesn't make sense" argument and many of your science arguments that ceased in the face of Squatch's confirming that the challenges to them are legitimate).

    And I don't claim that my understanding is perfect so I allow for the possibility that I am incorrect and you do indeed have arguments that support that the soul does not exist that is still in play.

    So unless you DO have argument that support the OP that are still in play, then the OP fails for lack of support.

    So again,

    Question to opponent.Do you still have arguments in play that support that the soul does not exist? If so, what are they?
    They are listed in the OP! I have nothing further to add to the OP as I believe it still contains my full thoughts on the matter.

    I will respond to criticisms to the OP if they make sense and I understand the terms being used. I will even tolerate goal shifting and retractions though I too have to admit, I have lost track of the details.

    So if you want a do-over, begin with the OP.

  19. #259
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,331
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK: the argument has been all over the place, constantly reworking and being refined as holes are discovered and retracted just as often.
    If you are implying that it's my fault that this is happening, then it's still a personal comment.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    They are listed in the OP! I have nothing further to add to the OP as I believe it still contains my full thoughts on the matter.
    Okay, then I will consider this the answer to my question and consider the OPs arguments to be the ONLY arguments in play (unless you have made it clear that you have withdrawn one of the OPs arguments).

    And I will consider every other argument by you to no longer being play since you made it clear that you have nothing further to add.

    So here are the OPs arguments and my responses.



    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    1. If it is immaterial, it doesn’t exist other than as an idea (or a wish).
    Ideas and wishes are things that exist only in the mind. So in essence, this is arguing that the consciousness only exists in the mind. But you have withdrawn that argument (quote from post 252: "It was withdrawn and not in play") so this point is withdrawn.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    2. The idea of a soul being eternal brings many problems, not least of which, where do they come from and where do they go after death and how could there possibly be enough room for everyone, forever. Of course, each religion has various ways to resolve the issue, from reincarnation to a supposedly ever expanding heaven/hell or simply being absorbed back into some deity. But none of these solve the space issue or resources or how souls will interact with each other.
    Just because you don't understand how it would happen if it does happen does not support that it does not happen.

    I mean if you didn't understand how planes stay in the sky, that does not support that planes can't fly.


    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    3. It’s clear that we are the sum of our brains and our bodies. Attempts to ‘measure’ the weight of the soul at the time of death have usually failed at being convincing (see the 21gram experiment - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment) and all the stories about out of the body experiences have been equally inconclusive. So there is no proof of anything other than the physical brain providing the animating force.
    Failure to prove that we are more than the sum of our brains and bodies is not evidence that we are not more than the sum of our brains and bodies. To argue otherwise is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

  20. #260
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The soul does not exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are implying that it's my fault that this is happening, then it's still a personal comment.
    And we aren’t debating. We discussing how you want to play the next move.


    Okay, then I will consider this the answer to my question and consider the OPs arguments to be the ONLY arguments in play (unless you have made it clear that you have withdrawn one of the OPs arguments).

    And I will consider every other argument by you to no longer being play since you made it clear that you have nothing further to add.

    So here are the OPs arguments and my responses.
    I’m granting you a do-over. Neither of our arguments are in play. Correct?

 

 
Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What is the 'soul' ? do you have one?
    By isaone in forum Religion
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 11th, 2008, 08:07 AM
  2. Soul To Soul
    By Vivacious Brat in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 8th, 2007, 04:30 PM
  3. The Soul
    By Trendem in forum Religion
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: July 15th, 2007, 11:21 PM
  4. What is the soul?
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: February 1st, 2006, 09:31 AM
  5. What is a soul, and do we have one?
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: September 29th, 2004, 11:31 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •