You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces.
How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.
You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.
I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position.
You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.
Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.
Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.
Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.
Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.
I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain.
As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.
Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied.
There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.
I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work.
I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose,
Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.
Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too?
You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again?
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Some people believe that they judge themselves during a life review.
Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Atheists don't believe any gods exist. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, an afterlife, souls, and a host of other things.
"Lol, watch this! I'm gonna put this bitchin' fruit out there, and then tell those jerks who don't even know right from wrong to not eat it. When they do, I'll totally fuck over their entire race from now until the end of time and blame them for it!" -- Genesis 3:2, Standard Slashdot Translation
The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge.
Science isn't the end of epistemology. The scope and limits of science are well known. Congratulations, you've not only failed basic science, you've turned it in to a religion.
Because science is Bayesian
Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, you're beyond help.
Slashdot Mirror
They repaired it, sure, but charged you $130 bucks.
Think about that: $130 to replace a CPU fan.
If a local shop charged a customer that much for that job, I'd recommend that people avoid them.
You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces.
How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.
You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.
I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position.
You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.
Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.
Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.
Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.
Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.
I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?
If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain.
As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.
Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied.
There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.
I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work.
I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.
My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose,
Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.
Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.
Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.
The Wiki article and definition is wrong?
No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too?
You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.
Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.
Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again?
I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.
Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.
Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.
Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
Some people believe that they judge themselves during a life review.
Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?
I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?
Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.
Okay...
Why do think that a belief in a soul, judgement, etc. require a belief in a god?
Also, what makes you think that I'm making a statement about my beliefs?
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
Atheists don't believe any gods exist. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, an afterlife, souls, and a host of other things.
No true scientist?
You've got that backward.
That's not what those words mean!
You sound like the guy who wrote FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition
Really, learning to code real things well takes a gift and at the very least several years of experience.
Go ahead and say whatever you need to believe to maintain your ego. You're only deluding yourself.
Here in reality, it's nothing special.
Well, it doesn't appear to have improved...
Randi's trick for disproving psychic phenomena is blind and double-blind testing.
Randi's trick is convincing you that that's what he does.
How he gets away with his nonsense when all his followers are (admittedly, self-described) skeptics is beyond me.
Speaking of ... why isn't he in jail? Why hasn't Pena been deported?
Yahweh, of course.
"Lol, watch this! I'm gonna put this bitchin' fruit out there, and then tell those jerks who don't even know right from wrong to not eat it. When they do, I'll totally fuck over their entire race from now until the end of time and blame them for it!"
-- Genesis 3:2, Standard Slashdot Translation
This was my point in the other discussion
Odd, as you make entirely different points in the other discussion. Perhaps you should review your old posts to see why you were (rightly) thrashed.
The part about psychology supports what I was saying completely.
I strongly disagree. You may want to clarify your position, as the article and your posts from the older thread appear to stand in contradiction.
Oh I see, Dawkins, a great evolutionary biologist, is a philistine. The evidence?
Evidence? How about any one of of his recent books written for a popular audience? That should be more than sufficient.
Science is not any single geometry, and so has no fundamental set of definitional axioms.
Are you sure about that? Hume would disagree with you ... along with every educated person.
those don't exhaust the space of possible science
If you think that the scope of science is unbounded, you're very much alone. The limits and scope of science have been well understood for centuries.
The scope of science is unlimited, and it is the only way of creating knowledge.
Science isn't the end of epistemology. The scope and limits of science are well known. Congratulations, you've not only failed basic science, you've turned it in to a religion.
Because science is Bayesian
Oh, you're one of those. Never mind, you're beyond help.
Science is the means by which we know what is true
Total fail. Science doesn't deal in truth. It wouldn't work if it did!
^^^ This, folks, is what happens when you get your education from internet discussion boards and not from a university. Take note.
Really? I'm not seeing the connection here. The closest thing is the bit in the article about psychology, but that contradicts you.
Of course, the author is just a columnist with no known scientific background. Take it for what it's worth.
I'm in the wrong business!
Okay, staring now, you can get certified in Fad Oriented Programming for just $500! It's always the hottest trend!
Similarly, 6% of men experience sexual assault seems on the high side
Have you considered that you may just be unattractive?