Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We know. However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many theists do.
I will believe something when I am presented with empirical evidence for its existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is no empirical evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a thing. You have faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. You have faith that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is not a faith based stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start out with faith, and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not implicitly proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no soul, there is no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we can't have faith in it. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is no > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims the > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > Ian > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis no > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > before many times, just because you have not detected something is not > evidence that it does not exist. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
