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.
So why doesn't the soul remember when the person is still alive but has been injured? That's my biggest reason for thinking nothing personal of us could survive. Brain injury can even cause changes in personality. Whatever the soul is seems highly dependent on the brain. Also, I read something about thinking our stomachs are linked in some way and that's why people with anxiety disorders often have stomach issues as well.
This is where mystic and I diverge in our thinking. We are in a sea of information exchange like a sea of electrons in a metal. Think of it like a thought in your head, you reading: "a pink potato" for example. You had an image of that in your head for a moment. It is not real as an object but it was most certainty real as a thought. It didn't exist before in your head but then it did. You May forget it but the information is stored there. Till you die.
So "alive" formed you and you are defined but it when you are living. When you die, alive goes on but the you that is here isn't. The information that was is stored for however long. And the "memes" that were are repeated just as you were a repeat of the pieces (atoms) and memes before you.
I would not say foolish, ignorant is better. A 'brain in a vat' is a god substitute, and suffers from many of the logical and probability problems a first cause creator god does.
I say Foolish because I believe that he is playing the fool for the fun of it. He is smart enough to know that his arguments are rubbish and he uses them more to wind atheists up than because he believes them. I could be wrong as he has sworn that he thinks them valid, but I think that is a wind -up too.
I was talking to marc about intentionally telling an untruth. That's the part I am addressing.
You know I don't agree with mystic's end claim or the aware field. I was asking why intentionally telling untruths is a reasonable line line of logic in addressing where you don't agree with him.
The rest of your post is hyperbole. You self proclaimed reason for being here is stop religion. That seriously jades you lines of logic. I knew you defend marc. I was wondering how long it would take. He is exactly the type of person you target in the united states.
Wrong again, and again. I neither know nor care about where you disagree with Mystic, since neither of you talk any sense, and the only reason I made that post is because you cited me. If you hadn't mentioned my name as an attempt to endorse your footling views, I would have ignored it. Yet again, you start it and accuse us of starting it.
I say Foolish because I believe that he is playing the fool for the fun of it. He is smart enough to know that his arguments are rubbish and he uses them more to wind atheists up than because he believes them. I could be wrong as he has sworn that he thinks them valid, but I think that is a wind -up too.
OK, Goldie being foolish is different to the argument being possible but not probable.
Wrong again, and again. I neither know nor care about where you disagree with Mystic, since neither of you talk any sense, and the only reason I made that post is because you cited me. If you hadn't mentioned my name as an attempt to endorse your footling views, I would have ignored it. Yet again, you start it and accuse us of starting it.
No, you don't care. thats my very point. You are not here to discuss all kinds of beliefs in a religion and spirituality forum designed to talk about all beliefs. That's my very point.
Yeah, using the base science that we are on spacetime and formed from the mechanism demonstrated by QED is complete and utter nonsense and unscientific. I we just made it up out of the blue. Many theist tell us the same thing when we say science doesn't prove their type of god.
Wrong again, and again. I neither know nor care about where you disagree with Mystic, since neither of you talk any sense, and the only reason I made that post is because you cited me. If you hadn't mentioned my name as an attempt to endorse your footling views, I would have ignored it. Yet again, you start it and accuse us of starting it.
Arq, your lack of comprehension of Arach's or my posts does NOT mean they do not make any sense. It simply means you do not know enough to make sense of them.
mystic, he knows exactly what we are saying. He knows we are using real science to form our beliefs. He even knows that the more we talk the more valid we look. Thats why he had to stop talking. deny everything started to look stupid.
He doesn't care. He is not here to talk about beliefs and the evidence used ... he is here to deny beliefs and slow down religion.
If it was just about religion and spirtuality he would ended where you and I ended. and gld ended. none of us agree with each others beliefs really. so we say ...
"Ok, I see that, but I lack belief" in each others positions.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 01-02-2021 at 09:37 AM..
I think many believers believe what they do because they want it to be true - not because they think it is true.
As I am visiting a thread or two a little late in the game this morning, I find your comments early at the start that save me more than a bit of time bothering much further. Thanks!
Wrong again, and again. I neither know nor care about where you disagree with Mystic, since neither of you talk any sense, and the only reason I made that post is because you cited me. If you hadn't mentioned my name as an attempt to endorse your footling views, I would have ignored it. Yet again, you start it and accuse us of starting it.
Then when I jump to the end of the thread, I always seem to find you, AA and Mystic at it yet again!
This is where mystic and I diverge in our thinking. We are in a sea of information exchange like a sea of electrons in a metal. Think of it like a thought in your head, you reading: "a pink potato" for example. You had an image of that in your head for a moment. It is not real as an object but it was most certainty real as a thought. It didn't exist before in your head but then it did. You May forget it but the information is stored there. Till you die.
So "alive" formed you and you are defined but it when you are living. When you die, alive goes on but the you that is here isn't. The information that was is stored for however long. And the "memes" that were are repeated just as you were a repeat of the pieces (atoms) and memes before you.
That is consistent with what I see. What do you think about consciousness requiring a certain number of neural connections?
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.
