Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it is already found using what we already know.
and has been known for tens of thousands of years.
science doesn't find anything. it's been there all along and recognized all along.
And this is where the notion of weighed observations comes into play. And then a list of relative reliability. from most to least. I think putting a list of relative reliability for souls is like putting wildebeest in order of good looks tho.
Do you confidently believe that if scientists discover evidence of an immaterial soul that it will be explainable by the standard model (i.e. natural science)?
I get ya. We now have to talk about blind faith versus Only the list of facts faith. I don't know how to put only list of facts faith?
One example if "only fact faith" is when first they discovered homo naledi. They found them in a cave. At first they only had old and young in there. No other creatures or life. No signs of life or that they were living right there." So what do we have that is mostly young and old with no other life forms mixed in and no other sings of "living there"?
1) "only facts of based faith" (please, what word am I missing?) says only that. We found these things in a group. No other life and no sings of daily activity. Stop.
2) middle of the roader faith. Hey, it looks like a cemetery.
3) blind faith: Reaching to far ... they lived in there to hide from storms and when they left they cleaned out everything and those they found got left behind by accident and died there.
They are some choices we have.
this is also an example of different types of atheist. Like marc, trans, and learnme. They have very good ideas but will not put any facts in to see if they have any reliability. . And when facts are put in marc and trans just deny them, Learme just says he doesn't want to think out it. Other get the facts stopped from being presented.
My type of atheist says ... ok, it looks like a cemetery, I reserve the right to change my mind when new info is found.
Side note: in this case, I have to go back and see if they found any middle aged bones.
And this is where the notion of weighed observations comes into play. And then a list of relative reliability. from most to least. I think putting a list of relative reliability for souls is like putting wildebeest in order of good looks tho.
that's because you decline to engage and participate in the standard model, which is paths of religion and spirituality. it's like a person saying they want to learn to read, but rejects all books and printed matter. and then says reading is not reliable. because they decline to participate and engage in reading. it renders their evaluation unreliable. their method of assessment is unreliable.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-06-2021 at 05:53 AM..
that's because you decline to engage and participate in the standard model, which is paths of religion and spirituality. it's like a person saying they want to learn to read, but rejects all books and printed matter. and then says reading is not reliable. because they decline to participate and engage in reading. it renders their evaluation unreliable. their method of assessment is unreliable.
No, actually because I just don't see a soul as described in the big three.
I have presented three cases where I can say a soul works using the standard model. So I believe you are wrong when you say I refused to engage it.
No, actually because I just don't see a soul as described in the big three. I have presented three cases where I can say a soul works using the standard model. So I believe you are wrong when you say I refused to engage it.
a person who lacks literacy lacks "competence or knowledge in a specified area."
the specified area we are in is paths of religion and spirituality. and the topic is reincarnation and the soul.
when you describe what you mean by your "standard model," which is let's talk science and claim that is religion and spirituality and for tens of thousands of years it is just a big misunderstanding, the consensus is no, that is not what is being discussed. and no that does not belong in this forum. that's what i mean by literacy.
a person who lacks literacy lacks "competence or knowledge in a specified area."
the specified area we are in is paths of religion and spirituality. and the topic is reincarnation and the soul.
when you describe what you mean by your "standard model," which is let's talk science and claim that is religion and spirituality and for tens of thousands of years it is just a big misunderstanding, the consensus is no, that is not what is being discussed. and no that does not belong in this forum. that's what i mean by literacy.
a person who lacks literacy lacks "competence or knowledge in a specified area."
the specified area we are in is paths of religion and spirituality. and the topic is reincarnation and the soul.
when you describe what you mean by your "standard model," which is let's talk science and claim that is religion and spirituality and for tens of thousands of years it is just a big misunderstanding, the consensus is no, that is not what is being discussed. and no that does not belong in this forum. that's what i mean by literacy.
literacy in the actual topic being discussed.
well, I think most people understand that religion and spirituality based on some link to the best information we have is more reliable than that religion and spirituality base on what we knew 2000 years ago.
Everything else that is true. Education, transportation, time, health, math, everything. So why is 2000 year old beliefs even in the conversation as the most reliable beliefs we have?
I utterly disagree with about restricting reliable options. I think some atheist and theist rely on restricting information for some other reason than personal growth. I can't, with any integrity, tell somebody that is trudging through life 1/2 truths so I get my way.
well, I think most people understand that religion and spirituality based on some link to the best information we have is more reliable than that religion and spirituality base on what we knew 2000 years ago.
Everything else that is true. Education, transportation, time, health, math, everything. So why is 2000 year old beliefs even in the conversation as the most reliable beliefs we have? I utterly disagree with about restricting reliable options. I think some atheist and theist rely on restricting information for some other reason than personal growth. I can't, with any integrity, tell somebody that is trudging through life 1/2 truths so I get my way.
regarding bold above,
the best information we have that is most reliable regarding the soul and reincarnation
is (a) found in paths of religion and spirituality; and (b) accessed through individual participation and engagement.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
