Are we purely material beings or do we have souls?

Scientism is a phoney word and I reject its use and command that it be gone.

Well there is if we consider the universe is a very big place...the existence of life certainly here on Earth certainly proves the existence of life but really nothing past that.

Do you speculate that there will be life on other planets or Moons?

So any day now godism will win? I will mark this time in my calander next week to check.

Oh and a new word ...materialist...I have a new one as well...realist... it simply means one who is a realist but it is not designed to detract from theist although accidentally it does.

But please provide a link to the bebunking, I must have missed it...I have become too focused upon the stupidity of this word scientism.

But if you have something scientific I am always interested..science is just so wonderful you just want more and more..

I suppose that is how it is for antirealists..they want more and more god but there is only one holy book per faith it seems.
You can see why folk like Ray Comfort sells books..and funny thing is you can bet many christians, for example as I reference Ray Comfort, would not have read their good book cover to cover..I mean if you did what are the chances you would remain an antirealist.

I can see what you are driving at but scientism is not a real thing..it's more like a straw man invented by..well I guess those creationists bent in discrediting science...but to help out ..you may be focusing upon scientific journalists who certainly muddy the water somewhat in various areas. I hope you read past the headlines and address the papers. Further science is entirely reliable and also not resistant to change if a better model is presented..that is why it has no competition from religion.. religion gets stuck with some nonsense, like that whale story, or slave ownership and management, and can't change..that is such a problem, but not for science ...godism is stuck with its thousands of years old dogma and the poor antirealists have to constantly come up with new excuses (actually they are tired old excuses) like free will or gods plan rather than address the gapping holes in the story. But making up stuff won't help.

The soul..it's made up..it goes back at least to Eygiptian times but it is no more than a popular myth..now given how long the story has been running you could think the antirealist could by now have something to support this ancient myth..science isn't the problem..the antirealist has one problem and one problem only..no evidence for any single claim they make. The antirealist could have science on side in a blink ..offer testable evidence ..stop wasting time inventing words to show the pain and just come up with the goods..so simple..has anyone ever thought to just come up with the goods?

I won't use a mirror as they promote vanity and pride.

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry

Another link please

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which we all knew you lack

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope you don't think my new words "godism" and "antirealist" are bullshit words..If they can make up words I think I should be allowed..so I win my two new words beat their one new word...

When sailing did you ever see someone who had been inside a whale for three days?
Alex

 

Love it

Not so sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I looked at myself in a mirror once...I was there for hours and if ever there was a case for intelligent design ....

Mirrors should be only used for astronomy.

Alex

 

And for sussing out vampires at your party

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What about.. godismitists ....antirealisticans.

Alex

 

We will lose old mate for introducing made up stuff...he disappears when we lower the discussion to three levels higher than it deserves.
Alex

 

No just no

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes it does! When a person's brain dies, his mind dies with it. Unless you can present evidence that the "mind" is not a product of the brain and somehow survives in another state, you have no claim for dismissal of the overwhelming evidence that the "mind" is an evolutionary product of emergent complexity and sophistication in the specialized neural networks of living bio-organisms.

That some experiment fails to prove something, does not suggest anything except that the experiment failed. It by no means suggests that the hypothesis of the mind as the emergent self-referential, decision making consciousness level of self-awareness (level 3) in the brain is wrong.

What medium capable of processing conscious observation can replace the current hypothesis with a more compelling argument? You take the conscious part of the brain out of the equation and your body becomes in a vegetative state and must be artificially kept alive. Your body can be modified to function independent of consciousness, but your brain and therefore your mind cannot exist independent of your body, despite Descartes...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Care to link this "debunked" experiment by Libet ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

 

I found this at another forum

bubblify - put yourself in a isolated bubble

Bubblified - someone unable to extract themselves from their isolated bubble

Fits a few here

Taking a copy to the new word thread

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bare assertion that life is a process, straw man that that bare assertion has anything to do with my logic, another bare assertion, devoid of any justification whatsoever, followed immediately by yet another. Yawn.

Not my claim:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/09/free-will-bereitschaftspotential/597736/
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/was-famous-old-evidence-against-free-will-just-debunked/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...xperiment-proved-that-free-will-doesnt-exist/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/libet-and-free-will-revisited
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180312115359.htm
...

Although I have criticized the Libet experiments for nigh on a decade for mistaking random, insignificant choices (where the mind basically turns to its own random number generator, the preceding potentials measured) as opposed to the experiment actually examining choices that people actually care about and definitely feel they have agency in.

Hopefully you weren't one of those who tried to hang an argument against free will on Libet. That would be embarrassing.

Yeah, dogmatic people often to simply reject things that are inconveniently evident.

Why would life need to prove anything about elsewhere it the universe, and why should I care, either way, about life on other solar bodies?

It's sad that you see things as a zero sum game.

See my above reply to Michael.

Scientism doesn't discredit science at all. It discredits those who misuse and overstate science in favor of their own biases and ideology. Not just science journalists, but many on science forums, and even some scientists themselves. People who make claims that are baseless, other than their faith that science will, one day, vindicate them. It's a degree of faith I don't possess, even in God.

It's a silly notion that religion was ever in competition with science, as science was initially a natural offshoot of the belief that God made the world consistent and orderly enough that man could comprehend it (natural philosophy). So much so that lots of early science was discovered by priests and the devout. The methodology of science is reliable and self-correcting, but it is implemented by flawed people, subject to their own biases and self-serving motives. Part of accepting nature as it is includes accepting human nature is not ideal.

The bit if the Bible you mention are simply an artifact of your own presentism, ignoring the realities of a completely different time, culture, and mores.

Lots of bare assertions, but no justification. Yawn.
As I've explained elsewhere, evidence of somethings would actually nullify free will.

 

Such as

 

So true.
Nice replies you present. It is a pleasure to read your stuff, however I am going off the air so can't engage today.
Keep up the good work.
Alex

 

So what changes your thinking ?

 

Nothing purely material , elements ( in the periodic table ) leads to Life , of any kind .

Inotherwords ; the periodic table does not live .

 

Nonsense. The elements [all except H and some He] were synthesised in stellar evolution....and Supernova explosions with regards to the top heavy elements. All life is composed of some of those elements. Or as the great Carl Sagan said, "we were all born in the belly of stars"

Did any fool say it did?

 

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes physical entities that have biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from those that do not, either because such functions have ceased (they have died), or because they never had such functions and are classified as inanimate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All hail the process

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!