Rank your religiousness II

[wufwugy]

The difference, of course, is that you don't really have FSM in your heart. No sane person does. We both know that the FSM is a concept created by pedantic anti-theists designed to make religion sound ridiculous. That's pretty cool, if you ask me. But it doesn't work against a person who is quite happy to mock religion, but is also willing to accept that maybe there is something more going on in a lifeform. Save it for the Christians and Muslims.

You did miss the point though. FSM or a notion of sanity isn't relevant. I could just as easily pick something that people believe that's clearly ridiculous. Like Xenu or a plethora of forgotten shamanistic gods and superstitions or anything. My point was in illustrating what anecdote really is and its worthlessness in the scope of objectivity

This subject never gets anywhere, because it's doesn't come down to fact or proof, it comes down to the strongest or most passionate argument. I'm running out of steam, if I'm honest. I'm not expecting to change anyone's opinion, nor do I expect anyone to change mine. So what's the point?

It does get places sometimes. Only a few decades have shown people throw off superstitions by enormous margins because of discussions like this.

[OngBonga]

It does get places sometimes. Only a few decades have shown people throw off superstitions by enormous margins because of discussions like this.

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

[wufwugy]

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

The bottom line on this subject is that epistemologically (which is what matters, the study of knowledge after all) there is no difference between an assertion like ghost or souls or Ra or that Oprah's minge can talk. This is because there is no difference in evidence. You claim soul belief due to experience, well some people claim ghost belief due to experience, and the statistical significance of the evidence is the same in both cases

Now, if there was some physical, empirical, observable, testable, repeatable evidence for the spirit world, then you would have a case. But without that, a spiritual assertion is no different than any other assertion with equal evidence, which is currently any random thing that anybody has professed to believe. Until the physical universe gives reason to believe that the non-physical is not make-believe, it is as irrational to assert the non-physical as the most irrational thing you can think of

On top of that, if anything non-physical was demonstrable, it would actually be physical. If souls existed, they would relate to physics and we would be able to find the footprint. Currently, the soul footprint is believed to be consciousness, as you've shown. However, we have not found one bit of reason to believe consciousness is a soul at all, but that it's just physical biology

The physical universe point shouldn't be missed. The non-physical or spiritual idea is itself a false idea. Every single thing that has ever been experienced by any existing thing is physical simply by merit of it having happened. Something being something is a determination of its physicalness because it couldn't be something to us if it wasn't physical

[boost]

This surprises me. The reason you won't ever shift me from my position is you cannot prove your position. It's not stubborness on my part, it's just that I cannot even begin to fathom how you know you are correct. I don't know I'm correct, which is precisely why I don't expect to change anyone else's opinion on the matter. I don't even consider believing in a soul to be superstition, it's not like I'm saying that I think ghosts exist and interract with humans. Even then, I wouldn't dismiss that outright, because doing so would smack of arrogance. You know, like I'm pretending to understand what no-one else does, like I'm smarter than everyone else.

We know shit. Anyone who has the answers is either insane or a liar.

Again, you keep wandering into the realm of abject skepticism. Go away if you insist on making us point this out every time you post. Or keep trolling, cuz thats what you're doing.

WRT the charge of arrogance... I mean, come on man, this is just low and childish. It is the same tactic that is used by creationist, climate change deniers, and all sorts of quacks that want to promote willful ignorance. Some people do know more than others... for the others this can be a big hit to the ego... but they can either lift themselves up and try to educate themselves further, or they can plug their ears and say, "LALALALALLA I don't know, and so if you claim to know, you are being arrogant! LALALALALALA!" If you want to be willfully ignorant, then fine, but go somewhere else; there is no rational discussion to be had with you.

[OngBonga]

WRT the charge of arrogance... I mean, come on man, this is just low and childish. It is the same tactic that is used by creationist, climate change deniers, and all sorts of quacks that want to promote willful ignorance.

Your tactic is "SHUT THE FUCK UP IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME."

Who's childish? I get the impression you're incapable of rational debate. It's your way or no way. Creationists will never accept they might be wrong. You seem to fit that description more than I. I am not promoting willful ignorance. I'm glad you took offense to my arrogance comment though, at least you're not too stupid to not know when you're being insulted.