I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, intuition, vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one require having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left ‘love’ off of the list too.
On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
