Goodness atheists and religious people

[JJ]

I suppose Buddhists are atheists aren't they?  And what about Pagans?  Are they atheists in the sense that they revere the Universe and not a god?

[Jan]

I'm sorry Jan, but I don't recognise the Bible you describe there.
The Bible I am familar with tells the history of God's relationship with mankind. It tells the story of how God prepared humanity from the disaster of Original Sin to its redemption by Christs death on the cross and His Resurrection. In short it tells the story of the Salvation of humanity.
Here is a link to a course of study on Salvation History.
http://www.newcreation.org.au/courses/sh/127SalvationHistory.pdf

Surely you are aware of how the bible came to be though Saundy (Council of Nicea and all that)?

Finally, I think you will find Jan (iirc) that most Christians are fully aware that the Bible is a library of documents that were written over a period of up to 1000 years (though probably nearer 600).  It is usually something that is introduced in Sunday school groups early in the piece.

I know Andy - I went to a Christian Sunday School - I also taught at Sunday School for a period of time. Still though we have Christians that aren't truly aware of what the bible is or how it came to be.

[Jan]

As for the comment that 'evidence isn't found in a book' which someone else made, that isn't strictly true.  Dickens' novels are used as part of the evidence about what Victorian England was like.  Not exclusively, but in part.  Likewise, with the Bible; there are other sources of evidence such as archaeology but the Bible is a useful resource. 

Evidence may be written/recorded about in a book or witness statement or texts  Andy - but the evidence is usually taken/observed from another source.

[Martin]

TBH, from my experience Andy, I think that, if there are pople who seek eternal  reward they will be more likely to be Christians than Atheists ...

so you disregard Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Pagans, etc.     or do they fit in the 'Atheist' category for you 

Uh! What is it about 'more likely to be Christians than Atheists' that you don't understand Andy?  Yes they may well be also more likely to be people of other faiths, but they are still more likely to be Chrsitians than Atheiests.  Since we're on a site which identifies itself as Christian, I used the example of Christians. 

I think the difference for me between Christians and the other religious groups I've mentioned above is that only one of these faiths doesn't require someone to act in such a way (the giving of alms, the earning of karma, etc) in order to achieve 'salvation'.

There's very little difference, Andy,  it's a splitting of hairs really.  Firstly, there are parts of the Bible that are pretty clear that works are required to make faith work - faith without works is dead,  secondly there are parts of the Bible that indicate that the criterion by which people will be saved or not is works - the sheep and the goats.  I know that Evangelicals like to big up these supposed differences between Christianity and other religions, but in reality they often preach very similar things.

[Martin]

On the subject of what constitutes evidence, I'd say this.

A dictionary definition of the word evidence might read (I took these from dictionary.com):
 
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. 

I daresay those who wish to count the Bible as evidence would major on number 3, the use of the word in a legal sense, where the testimony of people is an important factor in establishing the facts of a case.   Testimony may still be counted as evidence even if it is not in itself a complete proof so long as the reasons to believe it are strong, so it would usually have to be coroborrated.  The testimony of say 1000 people seeing the same event is stronger than that of one person.

However, and it's a big HOWEVER, it would only really be considered evidence if there was no good reason to suppose that the 1000 people were either duped, or lying, or had some other motivation for saying what they said. For instance, if 1000 witnesses each testified that a black defendent had been observed breaking into a shop in the southern states of America, we might count that as evidence, until it was revealed that each of the witnesses was white and a member of the Klu Klux Klan! Then it would imediately cease to be evidence for a conviction (it should really be considered evidence against a conviction).

Which brings us to the use of a religious book as evidence.  We might say that the fact that there are a number of writers of the New Testament where, say, each gospel writer gives an account of Jesus' life, constitutes evidence from a number of sources that Jesus existed, performed miracles etc.  Such evidence would be stronger, if three of those observing the events were not drawing from a prior document, but were recounting the events independently, in their own words. Such evidence would be stronger if those writing didn't have any motive to paint Jesus as a miracle worker, or if the accounts were intended to be simple observations, rather than obviously having a religious agenda to preach.

If our books of the Bible were simple accounts of observations by people who just wanted to record the facts,  without any religious or other motivation, then they would be evidence for historical fact. 

But what was actually being asked about in this case, wasn't historical fact.  What was being asked was whether there exists a part of us called a soul.  For this sort of question the Bible simply isn't evidence at all. Yes of course, since it was a religious idea of the time, we find the soul being referred to in the Bible.   But even in those days the soul was not a happening, it was not something observable or witnessable. Even in those days it was conjecture, a concept, an idea, a hypothesis.  So the testimony of those people who referred to 'the soul' then, holds no more evidence of its existence than the testimony of those people who refer to it these days.

Neither then nor now is there ANY real evidence for the soul's existence.  That's not to say that the soul cannot possibly exist, but it is enough to say that someone's firm belief in its existence is based upon something other than evidence.

[Boudi]

I do like that Martin, and if any of finds its way into my December service could I just point out that I said it all ages ago...oh yes.....

[Jan]

Regarding the existence of the soul - if the soul did not exist then surely we would be zombies!    perhaps some of us are 

[Martin]

No, not true.  The fact that we are not zombies (which don't exist btw) is evidence of life and intelligence, its evidence of a brain and a functioning living body, but it's no evidence of a consciousness which goes on after the brain and body have died!

Actually I think you must have known that.  It's such an obvious point.

[Jan]

Since when  'because you haven't seen something' does that prove that it doesn't or cannot exist??

Medicine: Zombies: Do They Exist? - Yes, says a Harvard scientist, who offers an explanation

And what is life exactly? Life can and does exist without a brain (plant life ... amoeba ..etc etc) - life existing without a brain.

Actually - we perceive this world with just our 5 (sometimes 6) senses - some things might be just out of the reach of the 5. and I have learnt that what is obvious to some might not be so obvious to others 

[Martin]

Since when  'because you haven't seen something' does that prove that it doesn't or cannot exist??

I am simply offering my opinion that zombies don't exist, and the article you post only serves to confirm that opinion.  It says:

At least 15 individuals who had been branded zombies by terrified peasants turned out to be victims of epilepsy, mental retardation, insanity or alcoholism. The case of Clairvius Narcisse, however, gave Douyon good evidence. Medical records showed he was declared dead in 1962 at Albert Schweitzer Hospital, an American-run institution in Deschapelles. Yet more than 200 people recognized him after his reappearance.

The best explanation, Douyon believed, was that Narcisse had been poisoned in such a way that his vital signs could not be detected.

In other words, though the headline of the article superficially seems to support the view that people who have been killed come back to a stupified life as a zombie, the article is suggesting that these people had not been killed, but poisoned in such a way as to make them appear as if they had died.

All of which points to the action of chemicals on the brain and offers not a shred of evidence as to the existence of something called the soul which lives on in a conscious existence after the brain and body are gone. 

Life can and does exist without a brain (plant life ... amoeba ..etc etc) - life existing without a brain.

 

Indeed, but none of these exist without the support of the physical, chemical reactions which support them.  The fact that life exists without a brain offers not a shred of evidence to support the existence of something we might call 'the soul'.

Actually - we perceive this world with just our 5 (sometimes 6) senses - some things might be just out of the reach of the 5. and I have learnt that what is obvious to some might not be so obvious to others 

Yes that's true, there may be many things we don't know about, and some people may be able to detectt things that others can't but, there is no good evidence for that.  There have been many, many, attempts to prove under scientific conditions, that people have special powers.  Not one has been able to do so.  The more times such experiments fail to prove what those taking part in them say they can prove, the more these failures contribute evidence against the existence of supernatural power. (in other words, every time the claims of those, like you Jan, who support the idea of supernatural power are shown to be poorly founded, the more it becomes apparent that some people will make such claims saying that they are well founded, when in fact they are not).

You keep on posting articles which, on examination, don't provide the evidence you say they do.  In doing so, you expose the fact, to anybody looking objectively, that your view is highly subjective and doesn't offer real evidence.

As I say, there is not a shred of evidence supplied by any scientific observation that such a thing as the soul exists.   If the soul could be shown to exist by scientific study, it would be all over the press.  It isn't.

[Jan]

[Martin]

well actually you came out with an outright statement of 'which don't exist btw' - rather than saying in your opinion they don't exist. There is a difference see.[ evidence/quote]

Not much of one.  Everything that anyone posts is their opinion, unless they can show concrete evidence from another source - it should have been obvious that a small aside such as (btw zombies don't exist) was oinion, since it is impossible to disprove their existence, though not impossible to show that there is no good evidence to believe in their existence! 

The article actually gives an account of a case of where chemicals/poisons affected the body which meant the vital signs/lifesigns  could not be detected. One might go as far to  describe this state as being soul less.

Colloquially you might use that phrase, but its use would not imply the existence of a soul.   Quite the opposite in fact.

[Jan]

well actually you came out with an outright statement of 'which don't exist btw' - rather than saying in your opinion they don't exist. There is a difference see.

Not much of one.  Everything that anyone posts is their opinion, unless they can show concrete evidence from another source - it should have been obvious that a small aside such as (btw zombies don't exist) was oinion, since it is impossible to disprove their existence, though not impossible to show that there is no good evidence to believe in their existence! 

Not necessarily Martin. That is why people  use the term 'in my opinion' (or 'oinion' even   ) so that it is clear it is their opinion and not necessarily an absolute statement of fact.

The article actually gives an account of a case of where chemicals/poisons affected the body which meant the vital signs/lifesigns  could not be detected. One might go as far to  describe this state as being soul less.

Colloquially you might use that phrase, but its use would not imply the existence of a soul.   Quite the opposite in fact.

The lack of awareness of a presence  of a soul perhaps in that instance, rather than outright non existence.

[Martin]

Not necessarily Martin. That is why people  use the term 'in my opinion' (or 'oinion' even   ) so that it is clear it is their opinion and not necessarily an absolute statement of fact.

People sometimes use the words 'in my opinion', when they are expressing something which should be understood to be their opinion, but it is very common for people to express an opinion, expecting it to be understood as such.  Since you contested it, I have been at pains to point out that this small aside was my opinion, but it seems that the lengths I've gone to have done little to stop your point scoring.  I can only assume that you're choosing that to try to point score on because you actually can't point score on the substance of the argument!

The lack of awareness of a presence  of a soul perhaps in that instance, rather than outright non existence.

As I keep saying, there is no good evidence for the existence of the soul or for zombies.  No more evidence than for the existence of hippogryphs.  The evidence that hallucinogenic substances and poisons are used to fool people into believing in the existence of zombies, isn't evidence of their existence - it shows that those who claim they do exist need to fake their existence to perpetuate the myth.

If someone uses a word like 'soulless' to describe a state of detachment induced by drugs, this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a soul (a part of us that remains in some way conscious after the death and complete destruction of the body).  All the use of the word 'soulless' shows is that the concept of a soul exists in human culture.  It can give no evidence as to the truth behind such a concept.  Another example might be the use of the term 'elven featured' which might be used to describe someone's face - it doesn't mean that elves actually exist, it just means that there is a commonly held understanding of what a fictional character, an elf, would look like.

Surely all this is bleedin' obvious?

[Jan]

People sometimes use the words 'in my opinion', when they are expressing something which should be understood to be their opinion, but it is very common for people to express an opinion, expecting it to be understood as such.  Since you contested it, I have been at pains to point out that this small aside was my opinion, but it seems that the lengths I've gone to have done little to stop your point scoring.  I can only assume that you're choosing that to try to point score on because you actually can't point score on the substance of the argument!

point scoring - no not really Martin. Just looking for clarity. It was your opinion and not an absolute fact. We should be clear on that. Just to point out that I don't need to 'point score'    - but I usually enjoy the discussion as long as we can all remain polite with one another.

As I keep saying, there is no good evidence for the existence of the soul or for zombies.  No more evidence than for the existence of hippogryphs.  The evidence that hallucinogenic substances and poisons are used to fool people into believing in the existence of zombies, isn't evidence of their existence - it shows that those who claim they do exist need to fake their existence to perpetuate the myth.

Well you see for me (and many many others) there is amazing evidence for the existence of the soul - because of personal proof (messages/info/evidence/validation  from deceased loved ones)  and also the accounts of others. NDE's also give accounts of situations of when consciousness is existing outside the body

Near Death Experience - Blind woman SEES while OUT OF BODY


and the reincarnation thing (interesting linky below)
Scientific Evidence for Reincarnation by Dr Ian Stevenson

(by the way - my opening comment about the Zombies was actually meant to be a bit of humour - Shaun of the Dead is soooo funny  )

If someone uses a word like 'soulless' to describe a state of detachment induced by drugs, this has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of a soul (a part of us that remains in some way conscious after the death and complete destruction of the body).  All the use of the word 'soulless' shows is that the concept of a soul exists in human culture.  It can give no evidence as to the truth behind such a concept.  Another example might be the use of the term 'elven featured' which might be used to describe someone's face - it doesn't mean that elves actually exist, it just means that there is a commonly held understanding of what a fictional character, an elf, would look like.

Surely all this is bleedin' obvious?

some do believe elves exist - some claim to have seen them maybe. I haven't seen any elves myself, but I have to remain open to the possibility they do (on another vibrational frequency that we are unable to perceive perhaps). There is so much out there that we still don't know of. For example, our understanding was that nothing with mass could travel faster than light. Now though (OPERA) - there is uncertainty as neutrinos seem to be able to travel faster - and if this is the case it does have some remarkable repercussions for us.