A Question for Christians

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

Couldn't the soul have shaped the neural network in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

Genetics?

[imported_luckyme]

Good luck, Lestat.
My experience is that xtrians will discuss the specifics or implications of their beliefs only in vague terms if at all. I can understand why, but it always seems strange from a rational viewpoint how they're not interested in, "Well, if I believe X then in situation Y, this must be going on."

In the few months I've been here there's been several cases where they just disappear after stating "I'm going to show from a factual basis...yadada". Then they run into questions that show the naked emporer and 'poof' they don't even finish the conversation.

I suspect it's because most non-theists had to do some hard thinking in order to leave their usually xtrian indoctrination so they've probed more of the obscure corners and of course they have nothing to fear losing by honestly tackling the tougher questions.
any thoughts while you wait for some comments, luckyme

[Lestat]

I think you're very right. I was raised Catholic and yes... I had to ask myself what I felt were some very tough questions. Perhaps more difficult was accepting the answers I inevitably came up with.

I do admire people like NotReady, BluffThis, BigDaddyO, RJT, etc., who seem quite willing to stay on message and don't run away. I just wish I understood the rationale they use.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you're very right. I was raised Catholic and yes... I had to ask myself what I felt were some very tough questions. Perhaps more difficult was accepting the answers I inevitably came up with.
I do admire people like NotReady, BluffThis, BigDaddyO, RJT, etc., who seem quite willing to stay on message and don't run away. I just wish I understood the rationale they use.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you read through the treads on this forum you'll find lots of evidence that it the "asking myself some tough questions" is the part most xtrians haven't done. I'm not claiming their conclusion would be anything like mine, I'm always surprised that it's obvious they haven't 'been there' before. Here's an example from the recent "Athiests; a question. " thread. Two statements by the same poster just a couple posts apart -
[ QUOTE ]
We could say that at 8:53pm he ceases to be alive, but he doesn't cease to exist until some time after that. That's George in the hospital bed, and he's dead. So, I'll grant that he ceases to be alive at 8:53pm, but tell me why you think he ceases to exist at 8:53pm.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's my view too by the way--that once I'm dead I no longer exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now, even if there is some way to reconcile those statements, then the klutziness of the expression would indicate this is new territory at anything but periscope depth.
Or look at Bluffthis' reaction to this common type of philosophical question. (and it can't be discounted as impossible in the future, which a 18th century ducker could hide behind).Bluffthis-
[ QUOTE ]
(A) Ridiculous questions don't indicate a sincere desire to learn, but to start a debate about improbable hypothetical situations and "details"..... (B) And David pointed out that there is an obvious logical answer.

[/ QUOTE ]
If somebody asks me a question with an obvious logical answer, I'd usually give it and if asked for the logic I'd say "cheeesh, if ..." in some mildly condescending tone.
But apparently this particular obvious logical answer requires I research back a few centuries to when the brain was used for cooling blood -
[ QUOTE ]
If you are sincere, then google for Aquinas+soul+summa or soul+catechism+catholic for the catholic beliefs,

[/ QUOTE ]
Like you, I appreciate Bigdaddyo's stab at it but does his reply sound like he's went into this area in depth at some time.. "where is the soul, how is it attached to me, is it me, does it make the decisions or do I, if it does then what am I, if it doesn't then what role does it play, why does it matter what happens to the body upon death if the soul has left, has it left, does it leave immediately"
"how come Casper can put his hand through the wall yet pick up the phone".
I don't buy Bluffthis's "obvious logical answer" statement. I find these areas tough at best and very difficult to harness in a total logical framework. luckyme

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
lots of stuff insinuating that christians don't think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the most likely reason that someone like BLUFFThis avoided the whole "debate" is because Lestat's intention was transparent. Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder. If you follow Lestat's later posting you can see this exact thing happens, as he begins to introduce things like physiological connections, etc.

This is not an "honest question" or even seeking to debate -- it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent". This is why it is pointless to "debate" or attempt to answer Lestat's "question"; because it isn't really a question but rather a poorly disguised trap. Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it."? I think it is pretty obvious that the answer is "Hell NO!".

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lots of stuff insinuating that christians don't think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the most likely reason that someone like BLUFFThis avoided the whole "debate" is because Lestat's intention was transparent. Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder. If you follow Lestat's later posting you can see this exact thing happens, as he begins to introduce things like physiological connections, etc.

This is not an "honest question" or even seeking to debate -- it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent". This is why it is pointless to "debate" or attempt to answer Lestat's "question"; because it isn't really a question but rather a poorly disguised trap. Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it."? I think it is pretty obvious that the answer is "Hell NO!".

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to join in our discussions more often. This was an excellent reply and indeed the reason I don't keep threads going to amuse such posters. And like you said, they keep pretending not to understand while adding more and more minute questions about an already ridiculous premise.

While taking positions to their logical extremes is a valid method to expose the full implications of various arguements, these types of far out hypothetical questions only have the intentions you gave.

A sincere person wanting to understand christianity can read the bible and commentaries and catechisms on same. If they wish to honestly know more about buddhism, then they can read the sutras and writings of buddhists through the ages. Same with science or any other topic.

We got a whole squad of these guys infesting this forum and they keep making new accounts when people finally realize they are being toyed with and stop responding.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat presented a "simple' question with very little details and wanted an answer. The transparent intention is that he will then follow up with numerous "complications" attacking each answer given -- in an attempt to trap the responder.

[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree and disagree. The best way to find out about another persons views is to not constrict their ability to describe them by setting up a bunch of perhaps irrelevant preconditions. You state a general condition and let them add the lines that fit how they see it. Successful negotiatiing often works along those lines also.
If you lay out a detailed scenario, you're almost for sure going to put in stipulations that make it impossible for the other guy to answer ( have you stopped beating your wife).
Yes, there will be followup 'details' on both sides, that's the point of the general question on a philosophy forum, "I think X because of ABC".
I WANT people to find sloppy thinking or overlooked facts in stances I've arrived at, it's one reason I post on here and the crew seems to heave-to pretty well. No, it doesn't mean I'm going to become a Moonie, or that NR will take up Zen. The hope is that all parties will come away with a better grasp of their view and a better understanding/appreciation for the other guys.
I don't understand the 'fear' part.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Do you honestly believe that Lestat has any intention of changing his already held stance that "Christianity is stupid and so are those brainless fools that believe it." </font>

Wow! Where did I ever get the reputation of being so hard core and immovable? On the contrary, I consider myself among the more permissable and softer toned non-believers here. I entertain anyone's opinions, which is exactly what I was trying to do here.

Will I be convinced otherwise? Not likely, but I'm genuinely interested in other people's opinions and rationale. And if someone ever did provide a logical argument contrary to my beliefs I would consider them. This is more than can be said for people like BluffThis.

[David Sklansky]

"it is a weak reasoner method of discrediting his "opponent""

What is wrong with this tactic? It is common in math proofs. If the opponent is on firm ground he can't be trapped.

[David Sklansky]

Of course the souls switch. This is a ridiculous question.