Materialist Manifesto. It is a fact that there is no soul.

[wutangnomo]

Blah blah blah

I researched girls in college. I am qualified to speak on that subject.

LMAO! Jersey, don't forget you researched boys as well. lol

Here it is hon,

Oh boy, he called you hon Mastardo. Better fasten up that belt and don't let go!

 

[biteme]

Bullshit!!! I know I've got soul. I gave someone 5, on the backside, and in the hole, just the other day. They told me I've got soul. So obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Get your facts straight.

 

[biteme]

Your thoughts/feelings feel a certain way in so much as they affect your judgments of them. Your judgments become your beliefs/perceptions that you thought/felt said thoughts/feelings. These beliefs/perceptions affect your other thoughts/feelings (and any related beliefs/perceptions), as well as your behaviors and speech. In general, beliefs/perceptions that you exist independently of your brain demonstrate very little, excepting the fact that you hold said beliefs/perceptions and had thoughts/feelings leading to said beliefs/perceptions.

Neurological research has continuously found physical explanations for psychological phenomena. Thoughts/feelings and beliefs/perceptions, according to computational theory, could be implemented by a silicon robot as well as a biological human. These robots would seem to have thoughts/feelings in the same way that other humans seem to have them.

There would be reasons to suppose that these robots do not feel and only seem to feel, but these reasons would only be ‘correct’ in quite subjective and/or illusive realms: an individual’s beliefs/perceptions, a mythological faith, a piece of propaganda, and other realms with assumptions about the mind. In these realms, mystical explanations of the mind are indeed often ‘correct’ while material explanations are 'incorrect'.

The 'self' is very useful folk concept dependent on the physical world that may or may not be correct or consistent. So are many other ideas in religion and morality.

Knowledge is by default a non-absolute folk concept with the following general properties. When an explanation can be shown to be non-causative due to a more demonstrable and correct explanation, the original explanation is generally deemed incorrect. Science has become a more correct explanation of the existence of the 'self' and of the universe itself, than the idea of a soul and a god. The concept of a soul and a god are both incorrect, unless we include faith and assumption in our concept of knowledge.

It is popular to claim that science is flawed, and that this purported fact means that there is a god ("intelligent designer") and there is a soul. This is just anthropic bias. Even if our scientific models of physics and evolution are quite flawed (they are not), we are still left with the problem of our existence and with no reason to suppose that there is a soul and that there is a god without assumption.

There is no god, there is no soul. Get over it bitches.

Well I have to admit. I read this and just laughed to myself.

 

[NJjuice22]

well shit, if some tool on elitefitness named "mastardo" says there is no god or soul..it must be true.

 

[CFZB]

Bullshit!!! I know I've got soul. I gave someone 5, on the backside, and in the hole, just the other day. They told me I've got soul. So obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Get your facts straight.

LOL....

You Beat Me to The Funny Soul Comment.

 

[Mastardo]

Here it is hon, Your premise is flawed because you incorrectly surmise that if you are able to demonstrate a natural physical cause that can explain the phenomena of reason and emotions that you have disproved the possibility of a Creator, thats just silly. The two are not mutually exclusive (ie: the presence of one does not negate the other) So for example someone could argue in retort that this is the manner in which the Creator endowed us with these abillities.

Science is no where close to reasonably explaining the origin of life, matter, and a myriad of other complex riddles that at the current time have no demonstrable answers. It is all a question of faith. Your faith that some day science will find answers to these riddles that dont involve a supernatural origin, and the faith of others that a Creator was involved in creation.

I wont argue back and forth over the unprovable. You will retort that science will someday find a credible explanation, and thta may well be true. But until that day your point of view is no more substantive or supportable than those of the other side.

Your "arrogance" is unbecoming an actual scholar. Frankly son being the product of a Jesuit education I can tell you without fear of lying that I have met dozens (in just my limited experience) of Jesuit scholars, many of whom held multiple doctorates in ever field of knowledge, all of whom could run intellectual circles around you. Your certainty is nothing more than the byproduct of ignorance. The same charge you so easily use to label those with whom you disagree.

Thanks honey.

You seem to view science as a competing religious institution. My claim was not that science would ever have all of the answers. Instead, my claim was that science has already explained the self, and that the scientific explanation of the universe was entirely more explanatory than the monotheistic ones.

This is not a claim of certainty. You can look at my definition of knowledge and see that knowledge is a maleable concept, but generally includes the causative properties stated therein. According to this definition of knowledge, and because of scientific explanations alluded to, it is a fact that there is no god or soul. If you include faith in the concept of knowledge, then many things can be fact. I don't dispute faith.

Actually, you are the one demanding certainty while my claim does not provide it. I do, however, provide a very binary yes/no answer that may seem arrogant. I am simply using the concept of knowledge without anthropic bias.

Because religion is such a touchy subject, people generally treat religious ideas in a unique fashion. This makes sense in many ways, but is also an example of anthropic bias. Treated with the same objectivity as a study on... corn stalks... the answer would seem more obvious.

 

[jackangel]

weak.

 

[rushx79]

"the scientific explanation of the universe was entirely more explanatory than the monotheistic ones."

 

[Mastardo]

Bullshit!!! I know I've got soul. I gave someone 5, on the backside, and in the hole, just the other day. They told me I've got soul. So obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Get your facts straight.

You've got soul bro. You've got soul.

 

[Mr. dB]

Consciousness, and therefore the "soul", is just an organic brain function.