you hold the position that there is no such thing as spirit, soul, or God. this is not easily refuted by a single sentence, wouldn't you agree? you'd probably expect me to use scholarly articles and historical evidence or scientific facts to maintain my position, at least that's what I would hope for in a legitimate discussion.

I used the first 3 chapters of a book that lays out external arguments based on philosophical, observational, scientific, universal, natural, and social points to support the claim that there is a God and a soul and a spirit.

you lazily responded that its spam rather than even bothering to present your case or counter any of the points within the text.

I'll give you one more chance to make your case with external evidences that there is irrefutably no such thing as a soul. Plato and Socrates have much larger bodies of work that have been substantiated and corroborated by those who have come after them. let's see your refutation that there is no soul and knowledge can't be acquired by merely thinking.

This post was edited by Giannis on Jun 12 2020 03:38pm

How in the world did you get on the subject of God and souls? If I was interested in discussing that I wouldn't be in the science forum

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 12 2020 04:25pm

you implied that knowledge cannot be attained by the spirit, therefore it is reasonable to conclude that you also maintain those positions. further evidenced by your responses in this thread.

now that I've called you out and asked for external proofs that there is no such thing as spirit, you've dodged and hidden behind semantic arguments.

don't reply again unless you are going to substantiate your claim that there is no such thing as spirit.

This post was edited by Giannis on Jun 12 2020 04:45pm

It isn't my job to disprove anything, it's the job of the person claiming the spirit exists to prove it. Regardless, the spirit as you are claiming isn't the same spirit that Plato or Socrates believed in. They believed (or more speciifcally Plato believed) in an "essentialness" that everything had a piece of. There was an "essence of desk" in every desk, "essence of rabbit" in every rabbit, etc. etc. and the spirit was the "essence of knowledge" that they were gaining knowledge from through thought.

Science is not done through "the spirit", it is specifically a method of experimentation, explanation, and refinement. The idea that you can just think about the world and come to knowledge about it without examining the world itself is antithetical to the scientific method.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 12 2020 04:47pm

it is your job to prove the position you hold; especially when you are calling out others as "dishonest" which presupposes that your position is truth

I've laid out arguments that you have refused to read in order to prove my position. you have yet to read them, or refute them with your own counterpoints

you've lazily dismissed them and dodged any attempt at being intellectually honest

I never took the position that the spirit doesn't exist, and I didn't call you dishonest because you disagree with me. I called you dishonest because your response was to copy and paste multiple thousands of words instead of making an argument yourself.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 12 2020 05:12pm

I’m making the argument that you can attain knowledge by the spirit and purely by observation of the universe. I’ve laid out my external arguments contained within the text above. If you choose to believe it is dishonest because it is too much to read or because it is not my own work, then you are the one who is intellectually dishonest and lazy. It’s not my problem that your position is so weak that you still choose to deflect and refuse to support it.

Okay, so you would have no problem if I just copied and pasted 10 chapters from Dawkins and expected you to refute it? And if you didn't want to I would be perfectly justified in calling you intellectually dishonest?

If you want to bring articles to the table to establish your position I will read them, whether or not you copy and paste them in this thread is up to you. I copied and edited the text into this thread to make it more accessible. Cite a source, cite a book, cite a scholarly article. Do something to establish your point instead of trying to pass off your position as acknowledged facts when it isn’t.

The only position I have taken in this entire thread is that Plato and Socrates did not follow science which is not controversial since the scientific method wasnt established until the 16th century at the earliest.

I did not take a position on the spirit or on God or on Souls, but I did dismiss your copy and paste because I'm not interested in talking about god spirit or souls

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 12 2020 06:42pm