The human soul is just a concept and doesn't exist

RRRREeeeee

Reincarnational progress...

Caveman

What sort of evidence would you accept?

They think it don't be like dis, but it do.

...

First, you have to explain why it doesn't exist.

consciousness is only complex chemistry

Tto complex for even cience too explain therefoe =soul

i rest my case

Define consciousness and how is consciousness synonymous with having a soul.

>implying concepts don't exist

Burden of proof is on you

this thread
>prove me wrong
>no you prove the opposite
>no u
>no u

neat

"Theory" in terms of science is still fact. Albert Einstein's "Theory" of Relativity is still fact.

You must live in a world 99.9% Ginger.

>makes a claim, makes no attempt to explain it.
learn how to structure an argument tardfish

You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.

1.- Your senses give you testimony that creatures with trascendent movement are as they act.
2.- Human act extrinsically dependant on the matter, but not intrinsically. Therefore, you need to see the matter of a tree to know the tree, but you don't need the matter of the tree to think about it's concept.
2.- If humans act instrisically independant of the matter, then they are instrinsically independant of the matter.

That part which is not instrinsically dependant of the matter in the human, we call it soul.

There, I've proved you wrong.

Also: Any concept, by being a concept, exists. There is a concept of a flying pig, and it does exists, even when the creature flying pig does not exists in reality. Therefore, saying "is just a concept" and "doesn't exist" is a fallacy.

explain DMT

Correction:

Reincarnational progress...

Caveman -> Barbarians -> Fundamentalist -> Republican -> Centrist -> Democrat -> Liberal -> Godlike...

So, for all purposes and effects, there is a soul, it's existence has been proven, and it was made on Cred Forums

/thread.

how about all of you faggots read a book and maybe watch a movie or something? maybe read some hobbes and/or aristotel or plato or dostoyevski or whatever and then talk about souls and shit
also
needs more pooper

>observable, physical evidence for evolution
>lack of any kind of proof for something not physically observable in the first place
Basically comparable

oh yeah neck beard? what are these chemicals and how do they interact? don't rehash statements you heard from the amazing athiest

"a claim asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof" you asserted a claim, prove it faggot

Have you faggots ever heard of something called burden of proof? If no one said souls existed it wouldn't be implied that they do like it's implied that the sun exists or even extrapolated information like gravity

see

True but if nobody stated "souls exist" it would not be thought that they do based on any information we can see or study. Therefore, the claim that they DO exist is the one that requires evidence to prove, not that they do not.

>still haven't given any evidence on why souls don't exist
how's the 8th grade going? your evil christian parents pray at dinner again?

And don't talk about information you don't understand while trying to sound superior. If I don't understand atomic theory that's not a leg up for me over you, it would just make me uneducated and it wouldn't be your job to explain it, it'd be mine to research and discover for myself. So in this case, it's not his problem you don't understand, it doesn't make the information false, just means you don't get it.

i'm not one of the ultra religious gay fockers that argue evolution but i think religion and science should be separate discussions entirely. If you watch dawkins debating a creationist it's almost equally as retarded as watching o'reily debate some random atheist. It's a completely different subject. Only an idiot or an absolute genius would contradict the current scientific paradigms (for completely different reasons ofc). However, just as religion has absolutely no place in scientific questions, so science has no place in religion. The problem is that religion today is obscured by idiots and their own pathetic personal problems. Religion is above all a philosophy. Originally a philosophy which respects the separation of sciences in order to acquire knowledge in all departments. Not only respects that separation but deems it absolutely critical that these departments are divided. Today you have semi-literate imbeciles triggering the subject for view time. Also I'm drunk
suck my dick

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

Okay, we get it, you're 12 years old and have sex with Jesus every day
Look bud, if I say "prove there's NOT giant dildos on Jupiter!" Is it your job to prove me wrong? No it's not because I'm still making the statement that there is giant dildos on Jupiter. So it's still your burden of proof, faggot

I think he means a consciousness that survives after death

>680 ▶
> (You)
ok srz don't kill me i'm deleting my Cred Forums premium account sorry sorry pls

You cannot find the concept of something on the human mind. Every concept is unique, for unique is the mind where it exist. And every creature are as they do, so if humans create concepts and they are as they do, humans have a trascendent, not-material part: The soul.

I really don't understand why are you disregarding this arguments, maybe I am dreaming and replying and nobody actually sees it.

>science
>facts

lol

>used therefor
>evading questions
>not providing proof for his arguments
>takes 9" black cock on the daily
>>>/reddit/

Yes, this argument goes far enough to state that.

It has been proven that there is a consciousness that allow you to think: Creates concepts and allows you to reach truth beyond material existence.

Nobody will ever prove what happens after death, but that there is something, is a given after you understand the trascendent and inmanent movements of the human being.

so.... the brain?

>Therefore, saying "is just a concept" and "doesn't exist" is a fallacy.
It's not a fallacy at all you're just being the giant autist that you are. If you weren't one it would probably have occurred to you that "doesn't exist" was not referring to the concept.

Your whole post is garbage anyway. Quite ironic to see you use the word fallacy after that paralogism.

you made the claim souls don't exist, and yet you still haven't given proof, if you're going to go against a common heald belief have proof to back you up

...

I was stating the fallacy on that reasoning, and with an effect: You can think on the concept and the very idea of it, it's prof enough.

I do like how you disregarded my arguments with pure insults, and no counterargument at all. Just in case, yes, I know that is because you are not capable of it.

If OP makes an assumption that soul-theory can be questioned he can't argue that it's not provable in the first place. Otherwise his own argument becomes irrelevant.

>will you die tomorrow user
>I don't think I will
>HA you can't prove that you won't

There's no point in this kind of a argumentation.

What do you mean by concepts though?

>but that there is something, is a given after you understand the trascendent and inmanent movements of the human being.
>i is the illuminated

You have been visited by Trips Fairy! A rare treat. Please enjoy this token for your impressive roll! Congratulations, user.

Also, fun fact, all fairies are souless sociopaths.

>I was stating the fallacy on that reasoning, and with an effect: You can think on the concept and the very idea of it, it's prof enough.
There is no reasoning behind his sentence you monkey, stop trying so hard on Cred Forums when you have such low reading comprehension skill.

I asked the previous guy what he thinks concepts are, so what do you think?

Concept: The idea of an entity that involves the existence and essence of all the particular beings of said entity.

For instance: Think of an elephant. You have an idea of the elephant which is unique and different to all the other concepts that other humans have. You don't need to see the elephant in order to think about it. The same way, you can think about concepts of things that don't have material existence. And can also be used to reach truths that are not evident, such as: (a) Socrates is a man (b) All men eventually die. Conc: Socrates will die.

No ilumination at all, it's just observable by the effects of the actions of creatures on the real world. If humans are actually capable of trascendence in their thinking, they are trascendent. There is something in the human being that does not depend on the matter in which is substained, and that part will remain after death because death is esentially a physical event, not inmaterial.

I'm very sorry user, your trolling skills are really low.

The reasoning was already made on a previous post, by the way. You cannot deny an evident reality, such as "Creatures are as they act", the same way you cannot deny that "A whole is always bigger than the parts that compose it", or "You cannot be and not be on the same time and under the same circunstances". All evident facts, that need no prof.

see
Forgot to add: The idea of the elephant on your mind can be applied to all the actual elephants in the world. That's another part of the essence of the concept: Exists beyond the actual material entity, and can be applied to all the examples of that entity.

so am I talking to you or your brain?

I love that silence that follows the terrible crush on your mind, when you realize you cannot comprehend what someone says.

/thread.