8 hours ago, swansont said:

  14 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Everything we say is opinion and none of that particularly original.

No, not so much. Opinions are subjective. That which is objective is not opinion.

  Quote

The opinion of science or the opinion of religion indoctrinated, adopted and repeated. In science and theology. The evidential support you ask for, then, would only be someone else's opinion, no?

No, the e.g. results of an experiment are available for all to see, and (in principle) recreate. Even as far as religious discussions go, it would be in the form of documents everyone could read.

To expand on this a bit, in science it isn't just "someone else's" opinion, it's everyone else who has performed the same experiment and come up with the same results opinion. I am certain if someone comes up with a method (other than dying) of testing for a soul, there will be no shortage of people attempting to do so.

35 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

testing for a soul,

We could always try weighing it again? Our scales are much more accurate these days;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment

Edited October 24Oct 24 by pinball1970
Missed

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

To expand on this a bit, in science it isn't just "someone else's" opinion, it's everyone else who has performed the same experiment and come up with the same results opinion. I am certain if someone comes up with a method (other than dying) of testing for a soul, there will be no shortage of people attempting to do so.

The responders don't seem to fully understand the logic behind my sentiment. The "science" here isn't science. I know what science is. The point I was making was that ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible. To me the two are different sides of the same coin. "Science" in the context I'm using here isn't science. It is, in fact, far removed.

The ideologically fixated "science" minded "skeptics" who criticize the Bible, God, religion - those people know virtually nothing about religion, God, the Bible. Damnant quod non intelligunt.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, not so much. Opinions are subjective. That which is objective is not opinion.

Nor is it blatantly ignorant.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

No, the e.g. results of an experiment are available for all to see, and (in principle) recreate. Even as far as religious discussions go, it would be in the form of documents everyone could read.

Uh-huh. Do you have evidence for this? I've already posted it, by the way.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Science asks for credible objective evidence and thus far nobody has been able to provide any.

I see this as ironic because credible comes from the Latin word credit which means "believer." Faith. Credentials, credit.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Well, then, let’s see it. Just claiming you have it means nothing. It starts with defining what the soul is.

Very well. Apparently I should point out I've written and posted this earlier elsewhere.

The immortal soul is a pagan concept. Soul comes from a root word which means to bind. Superstitious pagan peoples would bind the hands and feet upon burial to prevent the dead from harming the living. The word evolved into a similar meaning always associated with large bodies of water (the sea) for the same reason. It was thought that the immortal souls were confined in large bodies of water, preventing them from bothering the living.

When translating the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek to English the word soul would be problematic due to it's pagan roots. However, it was the closest word we had. The Hebrew nephesh and the Greek psykhe are the Biblical terms translated into soul. The Hebrew word comes from a root that literally means "breather." The Greek word has a similar meaning. It means life and all that involves. A living being. That can be somewhat complicated by the usual obstacles, like variation in the the use of the word. Greek philosophers or modern day psychiatrists use the Greek word psykhe corresponds to the Hebrew word nephesh (nefesh, etc.)

The soul, according to the Bible, that is, nephesh or psykhe, is mortal, destructible.

Compare translations Ezekiel 18:4: "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die." (WEB)

Compare translations Matthew 10:28: "Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (WEB)


Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30): “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [ne′phesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

The New York Times, October 12, 1962: H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College states regarding nefesh: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, V:ol. XIII, p. 467): “Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”

The New American Bible Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28): “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) on nephesh: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 449, 450: “There is no dichotomy [division] of body and soul in the O[ld] T[estament]. The Israelite saw things concretely, in their totality, and thus he considered men as persons and not as composites. The term nepeš [ne′phesh], though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person. . . . The term [psy‧khe′] is the N[ew] T[estament] word corresponding with nepeš. It can mean the principle of life, life itself, or the living being.”

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152: “The Hebrew term for ‘soul’ (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an ‘animated being’ and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē (‘soul’) was comparable to nefesh.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”

New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454: “The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”

Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557: “The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”

The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556: “The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”

Plato’s “Phaedo,” Secs. 64, 105, as published in Great Books of the Western World (1952), edited by R. M. Hutchins, Vol. 7, pp. 223, 245, 246: “Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? . . . Is it not the separation of soul and body? And to be dead is the completion of this; when the soul exists in herself, and is released from the body and the body is released from the soul, what is this but death? . . . And does the soul admit of death? No. Then the soul is immortal? Yes.”

Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35: “Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”

Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A: Plato, quoting Socrates: "The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods."

Also see

Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027;
Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Who, precisely is making this claim?

It's not my place to speak on another's behalf for fear I may misspeak, but in the spirit of science (ha) why don't you investigate for yourself.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

AFAIK science is agnostic on the matter.

Agnostic? You mean ignorant.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Saying there’s no evidence of something is not a definitive statement of nonexistence. The burden of proof, however, is on those claiming that it exists.

As I've said. I've already done it. Not only have I defined it for you and made the necessary distinctions, I've proved it. The Biblical soul is life. Blood. The nonsensical soul you are confusing it with comes from great thinkers like Socrates. and Plato. Ironically.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

Other than a couple individuals who looked into it, I suspect that it’s a non-factor, not worthy of most scientists’ time, and theists overstate any kind of science interest in the question

Let me reiterate. Biblical soul is life. Blood. Sorry to have overstated it.

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

33 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

those people know virtually nothing about religion,

You don't know what we know.

34 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Biblical soul is life.

The ancient Israelites certainly did not believe in a soul and Jesus of Nazareth did not think that either.

The idea of a soul came later.

This is known scholarship. Like I said perhaps we know some stuff.

40 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Agnostic? You mean ignorant.

No we mean science cannot test the supernatural, science is agnostic on fairies too.

42 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

. Do you have evidence for this?

Yeah, peer review and publication. 

44 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible

Examples please. 

Edited October 24Oct 24 by pinball1970
Missing words

1 hour ago, Pathway Machine said:

The responders don't seem to fully understand the logic behind my sentiment. The "science" here isn't science. I know what science is. The point I was making was that ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible. To me the two are different sides of the same coin. "Science" in the context I'm using here isn't science. It is, in fact, far removed.

The ideologically fixated "science" minded "skeptics" who criticize the Bible, God, religion - those people know virtually nothing about religion, God, the Bible.

Well, who rattled your cage!? 😁

All this fulmination against "ideologically fixated science-minded unbelievers" seems a bit paranoid when the responses you have had so far don't seem to indicate such an attitude. What several of us have been saying is that because science concerns itself exclusively with the physical world, as evidenced by reproducible observations of nature, it has nothing to say about metaphysical ideas such as the soul.

There may well be some physicalists here, that is, people who take the worldview that the physical world, as amenable in principle to reproducible observation, is all there is. That is a perfectly reasonable worldview and not in itself "ideological". There are others here who do not share such a worldview and think there may be more to existence. Both are perfectly compatible with science. Many scientists are religious believers.

You seem to be attacking a particular evangelical atheism, sometimes called the New Atheism, espoused famously by the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Harris): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism. That would be fair enough. I'd go along with you to some extent that Dawkins at least has seemed to waste his time attacking a kind of cardboard cutout of religion that he has constructed himself. Though to be fair to him I think he has moderated his views somewhat in recent years.

But I am having to speculate a bit because you are not very clear what your beef is and with whom. It seems to me this thread would benefit from you identifying your target with more precision: exchange your blunderbuss for a rifle.

21 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Can science determine with any degree of certainty whether or not the soul is real and exists? I know I can. But can science?

Go on then, give us the 'proof' of it's actual physical existence; Rene Descartes tried but it didn't end in success.

I'm a believer in the concept of the soul, in certain contexts, but that doesn't make a soul real outside of my brain.

5 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

The responders don't seem to fully understand the logic behind my sentiment. The "science" here isn't science. I know what science is. The point I was making was that ideologically fixated science minded unbelievers are as notoriously bad representatives of science as ideologically fixated believers are of God and the Bible. To me the two are different sides of the same coin. "Science" in the context I'm using here isn't science. It is, in fact, far removed.

You seem to be confusing yourself, or you're being deliberately obtuse, science, in the context of this post, is context free. 😉

Edited October 24Oct 24 by dimreepr

20 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Well spotted, I knew I recognised that avatar. He ended up on ignore very quickly on that forum.

In desperation and abject stupidity I was slandered and falsely accused by idiotic morons. Nothing new, I've been posting on idiotic atheist forums for over a quarter century.

Do me a favor, hippie. Don't talk to me.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Go on then, give us the 'proof' of it's actual physical existence; Rene Descartes tried but it didn't end in success.

I have. Here and here.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm a believer in the concept of the soul, in certain contexts, but that doesn't make a soul real outside of my brain.

It doesn't make it real, no, but it is already real as a pagan concept and a mistranslation of a Biblical concept that is very much real and testable. The Platonic concept is nonsense, the Biblical concept is concrete, real, scientifically demonstrably - well obviously.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

You seem to be confusing yourself, or you're being deliberately obtuse, science, in the context of this post, is context free. 😉

HEY! I do not have to be deliberately obtuse!

It comes quote naturally. But, uh, contextuallessism? I like that. That's just crazy enough to work. Could get you and I a book tour like Chris Hitchens and Al Sharpton.

Huh? Think about it. Have your peeps call my peeps.

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

22 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

I have. Here and here.

Not to my knowledge, you're going to have to explain it 'here', can you do that?

26 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

HEY! I do not have to be deliberately obtuse!

Yet you chose too, why?

29 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

It doesn't make it real, no, but it is already real as a pagan concept and a mistranslation of a Biblical concept that is very much real and testable. The Platonic concept is nonsense, the Biblical concept is concrete, real, scientifically demonstrably - well obviously.

Does a psychopath have a soul, in your world?

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Well, who rattled your cage!? 😁

The apes, apparently. 

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

All this fulmination against "ideologically fixated science-minded unbelievers" seems a bit paranoid when the responses you have had so far don't seem to indicate such an attitude.

[Laughs] 

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

What several of us have been saying is that because science concerns itself exclusively with the physical world, as evidenced by reproducible observations of nature, it has nothing to say about metaphysical ideas such as the soul.

And what I've been saying is that there is an obvious and well known distinction between the Biblical and the metaphysical concepts of the soul. You, maybe can see why I'm not terribly impressed when ignorant (I mean that in the nonderogatory sense) science minded atheists criticize the Bible? Ignaz Semmelweis ring a bell? It took y'all a pretty long time to figure that stuff out when the Bible was on about it for thousands of years before science caught on. It was only 1986 when science finally realized that babies could feel. They would perform major surgery on them without anesthesia, only paralyzing them so they wouldn't squirm. You think science has given mankind all of these astoundingly accurate and significant discoveries but people were boiling water long before science figured out how it worked. The Bible described the earth as spherical when science thought it was a turtle resting on the backs of four elephants. It described the hydrologic cycle when your science thought it came from sluice holes in a solid metal dome and even to this day you still blame that on the Bible. And now, I'm talking about real science, not the fake dumb ideology you seemed to have picked up. 

The stuff I'm talking about isn't spectacular new stuff I just made up. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE. The JWs have been teaching it for over a hundred years and they got it from someone else.  

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

There may well be some physicalists here, that is, people who take the worldview that the physical world, as amenable in principle to reproducible observation, is all there is. That is a perfectly reasonable worldview and not in itself "ideological". There are others here who do not share such a worldview and think there may be more to existence. Both are perfectly compatible with science. Many scientists are religious believers.

You seem to be attacking a particular evangelical atheism, sometimes called the New Atheism, espoused famously by the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Harris): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism. That would be fair enough. I'd go along with you to some extent that Dawkins at least has seemed to waste his time attacking a kind of cardboard cutout of religion that he has constructed himself. Though to be fair to him I think he has moderated his views somewhat in recent years.

But I am having to speculate a bit because you are not very clear what your beef is and with whom. It seems to me this thread would benefit from you identifying your target with more precision: exchange your blunderbuss for a rifle.

I don't have a target, I return the criticism of skeptics - as well as the ignorance and apostacy of believers. 

I . . . I speak the truth! [slams fist on desk] The known truth! 

With - admittedly - the odd distraction and error, see if I don't. [1]

[1] Excerpt taken from a poem by Vogon Jelts:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not to my knowledge, you're going to have to explain it 'here', can you do that?

I can try. The Biblical soul is blood. Life. These are not entirely unknown metaphysical concept. Even to science. 

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

The apes, apparently. 

[Laughs] 

And what I've been saying is that there is an obvious and well known distinction between the Biblical and the metaphysical concepts of the soul. You, maybe can see why I'm not terribly impressed when ignorant (I mean that in the nonderogatory sense) science minded atheists criticize the Bible? Ignaz Semmelweis ring a bell? It took y'all a pretty long time to figure that stuff out when the Bible was on about it for thousands of years before science caught on. It was only 1986 when science finally realized that babies could feel. They would perform major surgery on them without anesthesia, only paralyzing them so they wouldn't squirm. You think science has given mankind all of these astoundingly accurate and significant discoveries but people were boiling water long before science figured out how it worked. The Bible described the earth as spherical when science thought it was a turtle resting on the backs of four elephants. It described the hydrologic cycle when your science thought it came from sluice holes in a solid metal dome and even to this day you still blame that on the Bible. And now, I'm talking about real science, not the fake dumb ideology you seemed to have picked up. 

The stuff I'm talking about isn't spectacular new stuff I just made up. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE. The JWs have been teaching it for over a hundred years and they got it from someone else.  

I don't have a target, I return the criticism of skeptics - as well as the ignorance and apostacy of believers. 

I . . . I speak the truth! [slams fist on desk] The known truth! 

With - admittedly - the odd distraction and error, see if I don't. [1]

[1] Excerpt taken from a poem by Vogon Jelts:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

I can try. The Biblical soul is blood. Life. These are not entirely unknown metaphysical concept. Even to science. 

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

I can try. The Biblical soul is blood. Life. These are not entirely unknown metaphysical concept. Even to science. 

Try harder...

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Yet you chose too, why?

Uh, well, yes . . . usually for my own entertainment purposes.

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Does a psychopath have a soul, in your world?

The Biblical perspective is that anything that breaths has a soul. Eye for eye, soul for soul. I.e. blood for blood, life for life. When we die, our soul dies. We are souls. Honestly, most fun aside, it isn't rocket science.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Try harder...

Sorry. If you don't get it by now you won't and why bother anyway. Go on and do what it is that you do do. Really. I don't understand why militant atheists bother. You don't have to concern yourself with God, whether he exists or not. You are free to be free from it. You see? It's just dumb fake ideology against dumb fake ideology. The number 42 for philosophers. Instead of job security ideology security.

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

1 minute ago, Pathway Machine said:

Uh, well, yes . . . usually for my own entertainment purposes.

The Biblical perspective is that anything that breaths has a soul. Eye for eye, soul for soul. I.e. blood for blood, life for life. When we die, our soul dies. We are souls. Honestly, most fun aside, it isn't rocket science.

Most of us will suffer, if we have a soul and nature mostly confirms that; but what if we don't possess that genome, how would god punish us?

Just now, dimreepr said:

Most of us will suffer, if we have a soul and nature mostly confirms that; but what if we don't possess that genome, how would god punish us?

WHAT?! 

What is this? A real discussion? Without the ideology! A serious question?

All of us will suffer. Genome? Not sure what you think that has to do with it. Are you paying attention? Is anyone paying attention? 

You guys! Ohhhh! I'm going to have to keep an eye on you rascals!

Seriously? You have some metaphysical concepts that you find interesting - intriguing? I mean, that's cool, I sometimes wrongly come off as someone who is dictating or the arbiter of truth and the only truth. We don't have to conform to one another's beliefs in order to be respectful of them. I don't criticize differing beliefs I only correct beliefs about the Bible. 

So, you are coming from the perspective of the pagan soul? The platonic perspective? Genome has nothing to do with the soul. God allegedly gave us life, our soul, so he isn't going to punish us for it or our suffering, so I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm willing to learn. Explain it to me.  

Edited October 24Oct 24 by Pathway Machine

8 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

All of us will suffer

What if one doesn't care?

Just now, dimreepr said:

What if one doesn't care?

One doesn't care that they suffer? Uh. Cool with me. To each his own. You know . . . sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree? I travel the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking for something

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

Whatever, you know. Whatever floats your boat. Or ark as Noah and Moses would say. But from the Biblical perspective, as I am want to give, everlasting punishment by God is, ultimately, just death. We are worm food. No heaven. No fiery torment. Hell is a pagan concept. Look at it like this. If a friend is about to jump off a ridiculously high and jagged cliff and you say "you'll be sorry." You don't mean they will literally regret it because they will be dead. Same thing with God's punishment of the wicked.

I mean, if that's your thing I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is. Biblically.

17 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

One doesn't care that they suffer? Uh. Cool with me. To each his own. You know . . . sweet dreams are made of this. Who am I to disagree? I travel the world and the seven seas, everybody's looking for something

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused

Whatever, you know. Whatever floats your boat. Or ark as Noah and Moses would say. But from the Biblical perspective, as I am want to give, everlasting punishment by God is, ultimately, just death. We are worm food. No heaven. No fiery torment. Hell is a pagan concept. Look at it like this. If a friend is about to jump off a ridiculously high and jagged cliff and you say "you'll be sorry." You don't mean they will literally regret it because they will be dead. Same thing with God's punishment of the wicked.

I mean, if that's your thing I hate to break it to you, but that's what it is. Biblically.

it seems nuance is lost on you...

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

it seems nuance is lost on you...

Well, I, uh . . . okay.

8 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

I see this as ironic because credible comes from the Latin word credit which means "believer." Faith. Credentials, credit.

You evade Swanson's point with a semantic quibble. He was clear in his comment that scientific evidence for a soul is lacking. Hitchens razor applies here. Show us your 21 grams or move on. Word games don't impress people here.

2 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Do me a favor, hippie. Don't talk to me.

Anyone can reply to your comments here, you don't get to exclude anyone. If Pin asks you to back up any claims you make, he is doing you a favor and supporting the integrity of the discussion.

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

You evade Swanson's point with a semantic quibble. He was clear in his comment that scientific evidence for a soul is lacking. Hitchens razor applies here. Show us your 21 grams or move on. Word games don't impress people here.

Are you not #&@&*! reading what I'm writing? The Bible soul is blood. Life. Is your objection to the facts theological or scientific. Blood. Life. They exist, no?!

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

You evade Swanson's point with a semantic quibble. He was clear in his comment that scientific evidence for a soul is lacking. Hitchens razor applies here. Show us your 21 grams or move on. Word games don't impress people here.

I second this. You argue fallaciously then cover it up with rants you think make some kind of point. I see no decent arguments from you so far about this topic, only denigration of your detractors from a very high horse.

You argued that science denies religion while agreeing with me that science isn't the right tool to use with religion. Do you see the conflict? Science explains the natural world. You're basing your arguments on misconceptions, and you're not the first.

3 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Are you not #&@&*! reading what I'm writing? The Bible soul is blood. Life. Is your objection to the facts theological or scientific. Blood. Life. They exist, no?!

Sorry, but your earlier posts come across as unclear on your definitions, and it looked like you had a problem with people rejecting the metaphysical conjecture. I.e. soul = incorporeal essence of a human which survives the cessation of brain function. I would hardly dispute that blood or life exist, nor do I much care how some ancient scripts choose to describe vital signs.

6 minutes ago, Pathway Machine said:

Are you not #&@&*! reading what I'm writing? The Bible soul is blood. Life. Is your objection to the facts theological or scientific. Blood. Life. They exist, no?!

This is unreasoned, unclear, and unhelpful. Conversation with you online is difficult and unrewarding. Off-topic, this might be a small part of the reason why you've had problems at other discussion forums.

2 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

The apes, apparently. 

[Laughs] 

And what I've been saying is that there is an obvious and well known distinction between the Biblical and the metaphysical concepts of the soul. You, maybe can see why I'm not terribly impressed when ignorant (I mean that in the nonderogatory sense) science minded atheists criticize the Bible? Ignaz Semmelweis ring a bell? It took y'all a pretty long time to figure that stuff out when the Bible was on about it for thousands of years before science caught on. It was only 1986 when science finally realized that babies could feel. They would perform major surgery on them without anesthesia, only paralyzing them so they wouldn't squirm. You think science has given mankind all of these astoundingly accurate and significant discoveries but people were boiling water long before science figured out how it worked. The Bible described the earth as spherical when science thought it was a turtle resting on the backs of four elephants. It described the hydrologic cycle when your science thought it came from sluice holes in a solid metal dome and even to this day you still blame that on the Bible. And now, I'm talking about real science, not the fake dumb ideology you seemed to have picked up. 

The stuff I'm talking about isn't spectacular new stuff I just made up. Moses wrote Genesis in 1513 BCE. The JWs have been teaching it for over a hundred years and they got it from someone else.  

I don't have a target, I return the criticism of skeptics - as well as the ignorance and apostacy of believers. 

I . . . I speak the truth! [slams fist on desk] The known truth! 

With - admittedly - the odd distraction and error, see if I don't. [1]

[1] Excerpt taken from a poem by Vogon Jelts:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!"

I can try. The Biblical soul is blood. Life. These are not entirely unknown metaphysical concept. Even to science. 

And the spittle-flecked ranting continues…….

You seem to be furious with everybody and everything here, and you have only just arrived.

I’m mystified. I’d better sit back and see if others have more luck getting a coherent argument out of you.

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

OP seems to be advancing the thesis that religion tends to be appropriated and corrupted by secular power structures. I agree. Most here would agree. So what is there to constitute a chat topic?

Still don't see an answer to this earlier question. What particular matter are you wanting to discuss? I'm a small-B buddhist, so I'm open to any topic on how spiritual practice can avoid being co-opted by political/economic power hierarchies.

Careful with the Vogon poetry, however - we could have members of the Arts Nobbling Council looking in, and we don't want them feeling it necessary to gnaw off their own feet. Same applies to works by the Azgoths of Kria, or Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings. Check out our Bad Poetry thread sometime, if you'd like.

3 hours ago, Pathway Machine said:

Do me a favor, hippie. Don't talk to me.

Don't be silly, I recognised you from another platform and teased you a bit that's all.

Calm down, stop taking everyone on aggressively.

What is it about the soul you want to say? Now, for you?

Science is silent on the matter, no recent (last 100 years)published literature.

I cited a "study" from the last century, was that the science community's last word?

Thoughts?