How does one come to believe something?

[ScottA]

I've asked you plainly to share whatever knowledge that you think you have....that's me "stepping up".

You don't have to believe in germs for me to explain germs to you. You don't have to believe in climate change for me to explain it to you....belief isn't a prerequisite for knowledge.

If you can't share it....You don't have any.

You are going in circles (we have done this time and time again).

I repeat: Under these circumstances, you cannot say "I (you) can't share it...You don't have any."

First of all, I have indeed "shared" what I "know" - but you refused it (repeatedly). On the contrary, I have NOT shared what I "think." But I am sure you actually mean, "I can't demonstrate, prove, or otherwise provide what is mine, so that it can be considered, tested, and determined whether it is valid." And, I repeat: No, that is not how it works.

Here (again) is how it works: God draws you to Himself (if He chooses to), you respond in a way acceptable to Him, and then you are personally invited into His confidence.

If "god" drew me to himself....he didn't try very hard. I've invited him to my house every thanksgiving and he never shows.

You don't get to do the inviting - He does (and has).

 

[ScottA]

Authority, that is what it comes down to for some people.

So we have to "be the one(s) making adjustments." We have to to "re-state our questions"... in a way acceptable to the authority. We "must respond in a way that is acceptable".
We must quietly sit back, accept that truth of what we are told, repeat what we are given.

Questioning is defiance. Doubt is rejection. Discussion is mocking. And not only do we dare to question, doubt, discuss with a human being... no, by doing that we defy, reject, mock GOD HIMSELF!

The other side though is doing fine. There is nothing to change, nothing to apologize for. Every question is answered, every explanation perfect... and where it isn't, there is a perfect reason for that.
Every voice that is raised against this source of knowledge is simply wrong.


You really should stop digging, Scott. What you are presenting with each of your posts isn't a position of knowledge or wisdom. It isn't a position of mercy.
It is a position of weakness, desparation and condescension.

Most of what you said is correct - except your conclusion, which is simply a convenient point of conjecture - meaning, you know nothing of the sort.

Everything you said, could also be said of the future... So, then, according to your assessment, is the future "weak, desperate, and condescending?" Don't be ridiculous.

Why can't you just accept that there are those who may know something that you don't? - That...we could talk about.

 

[Freodin]

Most of what you said is correct - except your conclusion, which is simply a convenient point of conjecture - meaning, you know nothing of the sort.

Everything you said, could also be said of the future... So, then, according to your assessment, is the future "weak, desperate, and condescending?" Don't be ridiculous.

"The future" isn't here on this board trying to tell me something while not being able to tell me something. You are not "the future".

Why can't you just accept that there are those who may know something that you don't? - That...we could talk about.

Oh, there are a lot of people who know something that I don't.
But there are some slight differences between (most of) them and you.

See, once I studied to be a teacher. I think I can safely say that I know something that many other people do not know. I like to tell people what I know. And I know something about how to do that.

I might not be a very experienced teacher. I might not even be a good teacher. But I know (can you accept that?) that if I were just to assert my state of "knowledge", demanded that my students acceped what I tell them "because I know", were completely unable to demonstrate my knowledge... and then do everything to blame them for not accepting my claims... then I would be weak, desperate and condescending.

 

[Freodin]

Here (again) is how it works: God draws you to Himself (if He chooses to), you respond in a way acceptable to Him, and then you are personally invited into His confidence.

How would you "respond in a way acceptable to him"... if you cannot identify the source of the draw, or any draw at all?

So that is unlikely to be "how it works".

You don't get to do the inviting - He does (and has).

Oh, he has! So you have direct knowledge about the actions of God now also?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That was a good answer -

The issue here revolves around etiological implications. Description of reality is one thing, and ascribing implications another. When you say mind is a movement of (caused by) matter, and claim that you are merely describing reality, what you are actually doing is ascribing a causal relationship between materiality and mind... Living brain flesh, in this case, being the cause of mind... And if that is your view, then you cannot avoid material reductionism, whether or not you consider yourself to be advocating the view...

"Implications" are of no consequence to my description of reality. I only seek to be as accurate as possible. If you want to call it material reductionism...then so be it. As long as it's accurate, I see no need to avoid it.

Mind moves in materiality through connective tissues, eg through the brain and its neurological connectives to the rest of the body. You think that the mind IS that movement, if I am understanding you right - Whereas I think that the mind HAS that movement.

It would seem that in your description of the mind...it's independent of the brain. There's no evidence for that...so it's an inaccurate description of reality.

Ask yourself, why does that description of the mind appeal to me personally...even though it contradicts reality?

With gunshot wounds to the brain, part or all of the material acquisition of the mind in the memory of the brain is destroyed, and the material movement of the mind in the body is degraded or eliminated... So we look at a person with such a wound, and they are speaking gibberish, perhaps, and we say: "Her mind is gone..." And such words are correct - Her mind is no longer in evidence in her body... And through recovery, a very different person may emerge... Having, perhaps, very different thoughts...

Far more frequently, the damage cannot be undone and the mind remains impaired.

Such is the power of the life-force of the soul in a brain-damaged body for recovery... The same life-force that causes a scab to form on a wound and the flesh under it to heal... The mind that you know, the thinking of the mind directed toward material events in the percepts and precepts and concepts and their memories in the brain, this mind is pretty much brain-bound, and it dies with the brain at death... It is the condition of man in this fallen world...

As for man, his days are as the grass...
As a flower of the field, so shall he blossom forth...
And when the wind has passed over it...
Then it shall be gone...
And no longer will it know the place thereof...

Hence, you see, the absence of mental connectedness you observe in gunshot victims is just that, a loss of mental connectedness - You can see the same thing often in old age as the body is slowly disintegrating around the person growing old... Welcome to this very fallen world of good and evil...

It really depends on how well the person ages. If your point is that organic material dies...you're not exactly blowing anyone's hair back with your wisdom here.

The mind created by the body dies...

Sure.

The mind that creates the bodily mind lives on...

Sometimes parents outlive their children if that's what you mean.

It might appeal to YOUR emotional needs...

Lol and what emotional need would that be?

Soul is the life-force of the body... And in man, it is created in the image of God...

So god looks like a man? That would be odd. When does this soul enter the body? 6 months? Before that it would be rather difficult for a body to sustain itself...so it must have no soul? What if your life is sustained by machines? Like a pace maker? Has the soul left the body at that point?

Or would you rather just admit that your notion of a soul makes little to zero sense?

I have no sense of humor about either abortion or rape...
Neither torture nor murder nor any evil or lie...

Do you REALLY have humor about abortions and rape???

Depends on how good the joke is.

Perhaps...



It was a summation in my understanding - A fair one I should think...



Your enjoyment is my enjoyment!



You forgot??

I think you confused my descriptions of the mind and the soul. I'm not really concerned about it though since it seems you're really just here to preach.

Do you know anyone who can do that...??

No.

The intellect, which is what you understand as mind, can never fully know the mind that uses it...

Yeah pretty much.

YOU are greater than your thought processes and the ideas centered around your conception of self that you understand and mis-understand as your self...

Only by my actions.

True and accurate and comprehensive self-knowledge is a rare thing...

Non-existent I would say.

So rare, you see, that we almost agree...

And without it, how can we know others?

You can't...not entirely.

The Greek Biblical term for person, btw, is hypostasis...
It means "that which is standing beneath"...
It is ultimately understood as an irreducible Mystery...
Mysteries are entered by the Faith...
They are not reducible to human reasonings...

Well we know a lot more than the ancient Greeks.

You, for instance, are entered into the mystery of life...
You will enter into the mystery of death before too many years pass...
You can describe both...
You can understand neither...

Aristotle wrote: "Philosophy begins with wonder..."

Do you have awe filled wonder?

Admittedly no...not often....but then again I've lived a lot and learned much.

Rape and abortion is not for the faint of heart...

I think you'd be amazed at what the mind is capable of being accustomed to.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are going in circles (we have done this time and time again).

I repeat: Under these circumstances, you cannot say "I (you) can't share it...You don't have any."

Not only can I say it Scott...I am saying it.

First of all, I have indeed "shared" what I "know" - but you refused it (repeatedly).

Admittedly, I don't remember this. In the spirit of understanding...why don't you share it again. I promise not to ask for any evidence as long as you promise not to pretend that you have any. Deal?

Here (again) is how it works: God draws you to Himself (if He chooses to), you respond in a way acceptable to Him, and then you are personally invited into His confidence.
You don't get to do the inviting - He does (and has).

No offense...but that's a garbage way of spreading information. Imagine if I wanted to have a party, but all my invitations were "secret" invitations that you can only find if you already believe the party exists. Lol how many people do you think would show up? Clearly my point wasn't to have everyone invited...just those with a lot of spare time on their hands.

I would like to imagine that if a god existed, and he wanted to tell me something, he simply would show up and tell me. He's god after all...how difficult could it be?

 

[Freodin]

No offense...but that's a garbage way of spreading information. Imagine if I wanted to have a party, but all my invitations were "secret" invitations that you can only find if you already believe the party exists. Lol how many people do you think would show up? Clearly my point wasn't to have everyone invited...just those with a lot of spare time on their hands.

Sorry, I think that this is not a very good analogy.
Here, you could say that your "invitations" were inquiries about a person's... position... on parties, or on you.
Drop a hint, ask a question: "Hey, a nice cold beer with happy people... that would be the right thing on such a fine evening, don't you think?"
And then, when the person reactions "in a way acceptable" to you, you could invite them to your party.

I would like to imagine that if a god existed, and he wanted to tell me something, he simply would show up and tell me. He's god after all...how difficult could it be?

Yes, that is the real problem. To keep within your analogy - and my adaption: here we have a wannabe lackey of an asserted party giver telling you: "colourless green ideas sleep furiously"... who then gets upset that you don't take that as an invitation to a party.

If God existed, he could do better.

 

[ScottA]

"The future" isn't here on this board trying to tell me something while not being able to tell me something. You are not "the future".

I am the future...and the past...and the present. And you would do well to listen...so you can be too.

Oh, there are a lot of people who know something that I don't.
But there are some slight differences between (most of) them and you.

See, once I studied to be a teacher. I think I can safely say that I know something that many other people do not know. I like to tell people what I know. And I know something about how to do that.

I might not be a very experienced teacher. I might not even be a good teacher. But I know (can you accept that?) that if I were just to assert my state of "knowledge", demanded that my students acceped what I tell them "because I know", were completely unable to demonstrate my knowledge... and then do everything to blame them for not accepting my claims... then I would be weak, desperate and condescending.

That would be a good comparison...except the two are not comparable.

We are talking about something completely different than everything you know. So, while we might even take a similar approach to teaching, there is a point that that approach will fail. Now, as a teacher, I am sure you have resorted to such comments, as: "Take my word for it", "Because I said so", "You had to be there", or "You'll get your chance"...all born out of the very real need to go beyond the realm of the student's ability to relate to the subject matter. Well...this subject...is infinitely more beyond. This is the greatest mystery of all time. And, of course, you should realize that if it were not...we would not be having this conversation.

So...are you willing to adjust your thinking to meet the needs of the subject matter - to "take my word for it", to seriously consider "because I said so", "to go where you have to be", "to take a chance??

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I think that this is not a very good analogy.
Here, you could say that your "invitations" were inquiries about a person's... position... on parties, or on you.
Drop a hint, ask a question: "Hey, a nice cold beer with happy people... that would be the right thing on such a fine evening, don't you think?"
And then, when the person reactions "in a way acceptable" to you, you could invite them to your party.

Lol I wasn't even thinking about anything that obvious...

More like if every third letter of every sign on your drive to work spelled out "party at my place tonight *wink wink* you know who"

Then we just leave it up to everyone to figure it out.

Yes, that is the real problem. To keep within your analogy - and my adaption: here we have a wannabe lackey of an asserted party giver telling you: "colourless green ideas sleep furiously"... who then gets upset that you don't take that as an invitation to a party.

If God existed, he could do better.

If he can't do better...he's lesser than I. I can at least convey ideas and concepts to people.

 

[quatona]

We are talking about something completely different than everything you know. So, while we might even take a similar approach to teaching, there is a point that that approach will fail. Now, as a teacher, I am sure you have resorted to such comments, as: "Take my word for it", "Because I said so", "You had to be there", or "You'll get your chance"...all born out of the very real need to go beyond the realm of the student's ability to relate to the subject matter.

No, definitely not.
Now, sometimes I have the feeling students take my word for it (and sometimes that´s quite comfortable for a teacher), but that´s likely to be the case because they have chosen me for their teacher because they have experienced my expertise on the matter on other occasions.
You, Sir, haven´t demonstrated any such expertise - you merely keep appealing to your own expertise.

 

[Freodin]

I am the future...and the past...and the present. And you would do well to listen...so you can be too.

What could I answer to an assertion like that, without you seeing it as "mocking"?
This is what I aimed at earlier, when I talked about communication as a two way system.
You said: "At that point, one must give and the other receive..."
But it is still a two way system. The receiving side isn't passive. It is still an active part in the conversation. The "giving" side has to take that into consideration... to adjust his "sending" to how it will be "received" on the other side.

Here: when you already know that you are talking to people who have no reasons to accept your claims, you should be aware that such baseless pretentious statements like "I am the future" will not be received well.

That would be a good comparison...except the two are not comparable.

We are talking about something completely different than everything you know. So, while we might even take a similar approach to teaching, there is a point that that approach will fail. Now, as a teacher, I am sure you have resorted to such comments, as: "Take my word for it", "Because I said so", "You had to be there", or "You'll get your chance"...all born out of the very real need to go beyond the realm of the student's ability to relate to the subject matter. Well...this subject...is infinitely more beyond. This is the greatest mystery of all time. And, of course, you should realize that if it were not...we would not be having this conversation.

And not only do you not even try to understand your opposite... you aren't even listening to what we say.
"Now, as a teacher, I am sure you have resorted to such comments, as: "Take my word for it", "Because I said so", "You had to be there", or "You'll get your chance"...all born out of the very real need to go beyond the realm of the student's ability to relate to the subject matter.
You are sure I did that... just after I said:"...if I were just to assert my state of "knowledge", demanded that my students acceped what I tell them "because I know", were completely unable to demonstrate my knowledge [...] then I would be weak, desperate and condescending."

A teacher tries to make his student understand, not repeat soundbites. A good teacher knows how to present his "knowledge" so that the student can relate. A really good teacher knows how to motivate his student, even when the student is reluctent to learn.

A good teacher never blames the student for not learning, for not understanding. A good teacher blames himself for not being effective enough in teaching.

So...are you willing to adjust your thinking to meet the needs of the subject matter - to "take my word for it", to seriously consider "because I said so", "to go where you have to be", "to take a chance??

A "subject matter" that needs to resort to authoritarian blind faith isn't worthy of being seriously considered.
You are willing to discard each and every conflicting view based on your "knowledge". So accept that others do the same.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am the future...and the past...and the present.

This is an example of what is commonly called a 'deepity', giving the impression of profundity while being entirely hollow and content-free.

 

[bhsmte]

This is an example of what is commonly called a 'deepity', giving the impression of profundity while being entirely hollow and content-free.

Delusions of grandeur apply as well.

 

[ScottA]

No, definitely not.
Now, sometimes I have the feeling students take my word for it (and sometimes that´s quite comfortable for a teacher), but that´s likely to be the case because they have chosen me for their teacher because they have experienced my expertise on the matter on other occasions.
You, Sir, haven´t demonstrated any such expertise - you merely keep appealing to your own expertise.

Perhaps your teaching experience has never ran deep enough for your students to have any need to rely on you completely...which means the analogy doesn't work for you - and wasn't even said to you.

As for demonstrations - if you do not recognize that I speak the words of eternal life - that life is not in you, nor are my words for you. If you don't like that - you - and only you, can change that. But if you will not change, that is a choice - I have changed, and now do not change any more.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps your teaching experience has never ran deep enough for your students to have any need to rely on you completely...which means the analogy doesn't work for you - and wasn't even said to you.

As for demonstrations - if you do not recognize that I speak the words of eternal life - that life is not in you, nor are my words for you. If you don't like that - you - and only you, can change that. But if you will not change, that is a choice - I have changed, and now do not change any more.

What some recognize, is you write a lot of words, make a lot of claims and can't back them up with anything except; because you say so.

 

[ScottA]

What could I answer to an assertion like that, without you seeing it as "mocking"?
This is what I aimed at earlier, when I talked about communication as a two way system.
You said: "At that point, one must give and the other receive..."
But it is still a two way system. The receiving side isn't passive. It is still an active part in the conversation. The "giving" side has to take that into consideration... to adjust his "sending" to how it will be "received" on the other side.

Here: when you already know that you are talking to people who have no reasons to accept your claims, you should be aware that such baseless pretentious statements like "I am the future" will not be received well.

I only have time now for addressing one point at this time:

Sorry, but the reason that you feel you are talking to a wall...is because you are. We can indeed have a conversation as two equal travelers on the way. But when we reach the wall (the Rock of salvation) I am immovable, a part of the Rock. At which point, things are no longer a discussion. Do you not know that this is the nature of Truth? And if you have any intention of seeking truth - why does it surprise you that I would speak this way?

So, then, should Truth be untrue, so that it is received by those who do not know truth? No - I will not. Perhaps you have read of Him who lowered Himself for just such a purpose - but that time has past, and will not come again. Come or stay - you must choose.

 

[quatona]

Perhaps your teaching experience has never ran deep enough for your students to have any need to rely on you completely

Last I checked I am not in need to rely on you of all completely (not even at all).

 

[Arsenios]

Gut feelings are not evidence.

I was referring to first-hand knowledge, and not a "gut-feeling"...

Encountering God WITHIN you is a first-hand encounter...

Let me add it is ONLY a first-hand encounter...

Because:

ONLY GOD can give it...

The evidence of its reality is found in the change of the lives that have had it...

So let me address the real issue here: Are you totally discounting first-hand evidence?

Two seconds thought will force your answer: NO...

And what you are insisting upon is SHARED first-hand evidence...

Hence your restriction to scientific method by observation and logical analysis...

For instance, there is a large body of scientists who have faith in evolution as accounting for the variety of species of life found on earth, and because all these scientists believe in it, we can say that all life forms evolved from some single original life form from a distant and invisible past... As a result, most non-Christian folks believe in evolution... Just as most Christians believe in God as having created all the species...

What I submit to you is that both beliefs lack any material proof except in secondary features... eg No scientist has ever established a repeatable scientific procedure that can cause any species to evolve into a "higher" one, and neither has any Christian done the same in proving Creation by God... Scientists will point to logical progression of life forms according to, say, complexity, and Creationists will point out these same facts as indicating "intelligent design" inherent in the structures themselves...

The arguing goes on ad nauseum without resolution, each side convinced of its rectitude...

Both relying on first hand evidence...

And just as
there is a community of scientific believers in evolution,
so also
is there a community of faith believers in the providence of God...

The witness of each is legion...

And the only conclusion an "objective observer" can draw is that the issues is not resolvable rationally...

The history of mankind is over 90% faith oriented...
And it is less than 10% atheistically science based...

So that the "social metaphysics", eg the insistence on the social verification that scientific proof entails, argues against science and in favor of some form of supra-natural mysticism across mankind's history...

Yet first-hand evidence is the basis for all knowledge...
There is no substitute for first hand experience...
It trumps socially concurred evidence in non-material knowledge...
Because these are all also but first hand evidencings...

If you run to people for your first hand knowledge of God...
You will find neither...
You will only find people...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

"Implications" are of no consequence to my description of reality. I only seek to be as accurate as possible. If you want to call it material reductionism...then so be it. As long as it's accurate, I see no need to avoid it.

Well, that constitutes a nose-high prom-queen stage left exit from the drama [or comedy or farce, ymmv] where philosophy is presented and taken seriously...

It would seem that in your description of the mind...it's independent of the brain. There's no evidence for that...so it's an inaccurate description of reality.

Error is the evidence... If mind is a product of materiality and determined by it, then it cannot err, because it cannot think otherwise than it does, because biological materiality determines its content... And YOU do NOT, because YOU, on this view, are a product of your material existence...

Ask yourself, why does that description of the mind appeal to me personally...even though it contradicts reality?

The truth is that knowledge is not automatic, but requires effort to attain... And courage... And perseverance... And all manner of other virtues... And the exercise of effort is an act of will that is not materially determined, but is self-determined, albiet often in material crisis...

Far more frequently, the damage cannot be undone and the mind remains impaired.

It remains materially impaired...

It really depends on how well the person ages. If your point is that organic material dies...you're not exactly blowing anyone's hair back with your wisdom here.

Thank-you - You got my point...

Lol and what emotional need would that be?

It would be yours, and not mine...

And you are asking ME???

So God looks like a man?

He became man and walked this earth... While still being God...
This is a strange Faith, you see...

That would be odd.

SCORE!!!

When does this soul enter the body?

Conception...

6 months?

Sperm meets egg - They hold hands...

Before that it would be rather difficult for a body to sustain itself...

The body NEVER sustains itself... Without the soul, it neither develops into into a zygote nor a fetus nor a newborn nor a child nor a teen nor an adult... Nor does it even maintain itself...

What if your life is sustained by machines? Like a pace maker? Has the soul left the body at that point?

Hardly - There are a lot of corpses with pacemakers...

Or would you rather just admit that your notion of a soul makes little to zero sense?

You are the one denying that the body has a life-force that keeps it alive and causes its development...

Depends on how good the joke is.

Jokes about rapists and the progeny they implant in women's bodies are not funny to me...

Yet you said that they are the ones you know...

I think you confused my descriptions of the mind and the soul.

Oh I've done worse... It was the self that I was recalling you describe - Pretty much a mess as I recall - Not the soul - That had not come up yet, and not the mind, which you said: "You ARE your mind..." But you denied that you are your self, which you described as something of which the mind has concepts, which are true or false, but is something pretty messed up, where nobody truly knows their self...

I'm not really concerned about it though since it seems you're really just here to preach.

Second such accusation, when I respond to a question you ask, and in that response, which entails radically differing presuppositions, you accuse me of preaching...

sigh...
Oh well...
What IS a Girl to DO???

You can't...not entirely.

The entire Christian Reality Quest is about self-knowledge...
It is only acquired in radical self-denial...
The ascent that ensues in not human..

Well we know a lot more than the ancient Greeks.

We also know a lot less...

I think you'd be amazed at what the mind is capable of being accustomed to.

I think you would be amazed at my lack of amazement...

The inscription at the entry to the Oracle at Delphi read:

GNOTHI S'AUTON

KNOW THEE THY SELF

It is a start...
Without which one can know but little,
According to the knowledge one has of one's self...
Because...
ALL knowing is first-hand...

eg It is the SELF that KNOWS...
So that without knowing the SELF...
One cannot have knowledge of other...

Think logical anteriority...

We understand others according to our own self-understanding...

How can it be other?

Arsenios

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, that constitutes a nose-high prom-queen stage left exit from the drama [or comedy or farce, ymmv] where philosophy is presented and taken seriously...

Why?

Error is the evidence... If mind is a product of materiality and determined by it,

This part...

then it cannot err

Doesn't lead to this part in any way I can imagine. Why would the fact that your mind is created by material things mean that it cannot be wrong?

You're literally surrounded by countless examples of machines that malfunction, break down, and fail. Why would your brain be any different?

More specifically, we've got scientific evidence of this happening. Do you have any idea, for example, how badly stress will distort your perceptions?

The truth is that knowledge is not automatic, but requires effort to attain...

Ok.

And courage...

Eh...not really.

And perseverance...

Sometimes.

And all manner of other virtues...

No...not at all.

And the exercise of effort is an act of will that is not materially determined, but is self-determined, albiet often in material crisis...

Actually, we can measure how fast your willpower breaks down under the right circumstances. The problem is that willpower is a frontal lobe effort...which is less developed than the rest of your primitive monkey brain. The majority of your brain looks for easy answers, quick fixes, desire-seeking behaviors...and your "willpower" is something that you will run out of.

It remains materially impaired...

Which directly determines how impaired the mind is.

It would be yours, and not mine...

And you are asking ME???

It was your suggestion that my concept of the mind/self appeals to my emotional needs. Now you're claiming that you have no idea what emotional needs you're suggesting are being appealed to?

I'll just disregard that comment as without merit then.

He became man and walked this earth... While still being God...
This is a strange Faith, you see...

Actually it's a direct contradiction. You're familiar with the law of non-contradiction...which was he? God or man? To say one can be both is to suggest we're all gods...and none of us.

Conception...

Clearly, your "life sustaining force" doesn't exist at conception. Countless miscarriages can attest to that.

Rethink your answer

Sperm meets egg - They hold hands...

You've got a grave misunderstanding of sperm and eggs.

The body NEVER sustains itself... Without the soul, it neither develops into into a zygote nor a fetus nor a newborn nor a child nor a teen nor an adult... Nor does it even maintain itself...

Baseless. Do you have any reason to believe this?

Hardly - There are a lot of corpses with pacemakers...

Indeed, but I didn't claim a pacemaker was a "life-sustaining force" did I? I simply claimed that without the pacemaker they would die...and if they have a supposed "soul" why doesn't it sustain their life? For that matter, why do we need food? Water? Air? Your soul doesn't appear to sustain anything except your belief in the fanciful.

You are the one denying that the body has a life-force that keeps it alive and causes its development...

I'm denying that it has a soul. How the body stays alive and develops is actually well understood. There's no magic or mysticism or souls in the process anywhere.

Jokes about rapists and the progeny they implant in women's bodies are not funny to me...

Yet you said that they are the ones you know...

I know some jokes about Jesus if you'd prefer...want me to pm you?

Oh I've done worse... It was the self that I was recalling you describe - Pretty much a mess as I recall - Not the soul - That had not come up yet, and not the mind, which you said: "You ARE your mind..." But you denied that you are your self, which you described as something of which the mind has concepts, which are true or false, but is something pretty messed up, where nobody truly knows their self...

That's a rather messy understanding...but it looks like you've got most of the major points.

Second such accusation, when I respond to a question you ask, and in that response, which entails radically differing presuppositions, you accuse me of preaching...
sigh...
Oh well...
What IS a Girl to DO???

You're a girl?

When you preached I accused you of preaching. If you don't want to be accused of preaching...don't preach.

The entire Christian Reality Quest is about self-knowledge...
It is only acquired in radical self-denial...
The ascent that ensues in not human..

This would be an example of preaching.

I don't care about what being a christian means to you. I don't care about how it makes you feel or what you think it reveals. Its a fabrication to me...no more real than Hinduism or Buddhism or Shinto is to you.

If you want to discuss reality...then we have a place to begin. If you want to preach, I just skip over your words...until I get to something real.

We also know a lot less...

I disagree.

I think you would be amazed at my lack of amazement...

Arsenios

What happened to that awe filled wonder you were going on about? You sound particularly more jaded when you stop preaching...which is your real self? The self-aggrandizing preacher sputtering on about the same mythical stories of her forefathers? Or the jaded know-it-all who dismisses evidence of anything that disproves her beliefs?

I'm sure my mind can find a way to meld the two into a somewhat accurate picture of your self.