[RoundEarthisRound]

The necessity of His own maximally great nature.

Oh, I see, when asked direct questions you make shit up.

No, I am making a logical inference about God's nature from the modal ontological argument for God's existence. Look up Alvin Plantinga if you want to understand how that translates to my thinking about God.

It is greater to exist in an abstract sense than to not exist at all.

Simply having the idea of something existing doesn't correlate to it actually existing. I can imagine myself with the ability to shoot fire from my hands, but I don't actually have that ability, nor does any form of my persona exist anywhere in reality that has that ability.

Well obviously you couldn't think that and have it happen, but a soul can produce effects upon the body of the universe if it is contingent upon an abstract realm of it. Wiki mind-body dualism.

Souls don't exist.

There is scientific proof that they do exist and influence what we do. Brain scans from people asked to perform a task do not show a change in their brain activity when they do the task, such a registration of how far they would have to move their body to perform such a task. But obviously we do register such things. This suggests the existence of an immaterial thing that registers the details of a task and then uses our nervous system to perform it.

[Rushy]

There is scientific proof that they do exist and influence what we do. Brain scans from people asked to perform a task do not show a change in their brain activity when they do the task, such a registration of how far they would have to move their body to perform such a task. But obviously we do register such things. This suggests the existence of an immaterial thing that registers the details of a task and then uses our nervous system to perform it.

I urge you to show me this proof.

[RoundEarthisRound]

There is scientific proof that they do exist and influence what we do. Brain scans from people asked to perform a task do not show a change in their brain activity when they do the task, such a registration of how far they would have to move their body to perform such a task. But obviously we do register such things. This suggests the existence of an immaterial thing that registers the details of a task and then uses our nervous system to perform it.

I urge you to show me this proof.

[Rushy]

You're a gullible one, eh? Anyway, I said "scientific proof" not "whatever you can pull out of your ass."

[Blanko]

Anyway, I said "scientific proof"

No you didn't.

[RoundEarthisRound]

You're a gullible one, eh? Anyway, I said "scientific proof" not "whatever you can pull out of your ass."

You can't provide scientific "proof". Science does not "prove" anything. It assigns probability to certain events or notions about events. "Proofs" exist only in mathematics. I think my youtube vid provides evidence for the soul. The soul exists, it can be shown within a reasonable doubt to influence our behaviour.

[Rushy]

Anyway, I said "scientific proof"

No you didn't.

Prove it.

[Rushy]

You can't provide scientific "proof". Science does not "prove" anything. It assigns probability to certain events or notions about events. "Proofs" exist only in mathematics. I think my youtube vid provides evidence for the soul. The soul exists, it can be shown within a reasonable doubt to influence our behaviour.

Well, I better get to work on figuring out a way to control souls, then. My current plans are rather boring in comparison.

[Vindictus]

There is scientific proof that they do exist and influence what we do. Brain scans from people asked to perform a task do not show a change in their brain activity when they do the task, such a registration of how far they would have to move their body to perform such a task. But obviously we do register such things. This suggests the existence of an immaterial thing that registers the details of a task and then uses our nervous system to perform it.

I urge you to show me this proof.

Yeah, going to need more than a Youtube video as evidence that souls exist.

[Benjamin Franklin]

I understand this may be nit-picky, but "Atheist" isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion, if anything.

[Snupes]

You are right, atheism still isn't a religion.

[RoundEarthisRound]

I understand this may be nit-picky, but "Atheist" isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion, if anything.

A religion is a set of beliefs about reality. You don't have to believe in God to be religious. I think atheism entails a particular set of beliefs about reality and it therefore can be defined as a religion.

[Lemon]

I originally had None (Atheism) but I changed it for some reason. Sorry about that.

[Alchemist21]

What's the difference between Deist and Theist?

[Thork]

What's the difference between Deist and Theist?

They aren't spelt the same way.

[Alchemist21]

Never mind, I just found out.  That's really splitting hairs there (especially imo since I'm somewhat a mix of the two). :S

[Rama Set]

Never mind, I just found out.  That's really splitting hairs there (especially imo since I'm somewhat a mix of the two). :S

Its a pretty big deal actually.  Deism actually deals with scientific knowledge in a compatible way whereas theism is fucked.

[Rama Set]

You can't provide scientific "proof".

Then why did you say...

There is scientific proof that they do exist and influence what we do. Brain scans from people asked to perform a task do not show a change in their brain activity when they do the task, such a registration of how far they would have to move their body to perform such a task. But obviously we do register such things. This suggests the existence of an immaterial thing that registers the details of a task and then uses our nervous system to perform it.

Also, this sounds an awful lot like a "God of the Gaps" argument.

[Vindictus]

I understand this may be nit-picky, but "Atheist" isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion, if anything.

A religion is a set of beliefs about reality. You don't have to believe in God to be religious. I think atheism entails a particular set of beliefs about reality and it therefore can be defined as a religion.

Religions have holy texts, and a system of belief. Atheism has none of that, it's just the lack of belief in a God.

[Alchemist21]

I understand this may be nit-picky, but "Atheist" isn't a religion. It's the lack of a religion, if anything.

A religion is a set of beliefs about reality. You don't have to believe in God to be religious. I think atheism entails a particular set of beliefs about reality and it therefore can be defined as a religion.

Religions have holy texts, and a system of belief. Atheism has none of that, it's just the lack of belief in a God.

The God Delusion and the belief that gods are the product of man's imagination.

Atheism still isn't a religion though.