West,

Good one.

We, or at least our atoms, return to the Sun [or the next generation of the solar system]in about five billion years.

Donnie,

Thank you.

I wouldn't really advocate using SSRIs on Religionists. But, these substances would seem to mitigate obsessive behaviour [other uses too]. Referencing was partially for Philo's [of Alexandia?] benefit. He/She seems to have read significant Church authorities, I was merely counter-balancing. Regarding Philo, there appears to be some commitment to [localised] scholarship, herein, might find broader readings interesting and challenging to prespectives.

Busy in the non-cyber world. More soon.

West you are truly ignorant of what is defined as the soul. All living things make an imprint of their life upon the Earth. The soul is not a thing to be viewed by a microscope; it is the you that is expressed through your body. Obviously you never knew the love of your mother, or listened to the instruction she gave you. These are evidence she was alive - that was her soul. Please show us the evidence that such love and instruction existed and we will believe at least she had a soul. Obviously you prefer to believe you are not more than a collection of biological functions - but so is a compost heap. The soul is the real person expressed not the chemical analysis of bodily functions. Your soul demonstrates some emotive anger and hatred of those you dissagree with. Please try to dispell that evidence and I will believe you do not have a soul after all.

Philo without sounding like we are chasing each other through the threads I can only remind you.

Your assertion that a soul exists is based on your preferences to what you want to believe and your preferences alone. You made your soul up. Yes you confuse the background noise of your mind with a supernatural being. Let us time travel to 2500 years ago when the Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife. The soul as far as they were concerned was an epitath. They resisted the greek concept of body worship which deified heroes and thus gave them immortality (salvation) right up until a century before the alleged christ. Some Jews still dont indulge in body deification or ever lasting life , ressurection , heaven belief.

I put it to you Philo that you judge nature through the coloured glasses of superstition thats why life seems meaningless to you and you can not fathom a psychological connection between people unless there is nonsensical goblins or gods involved. I even turn the tables and suggest you diminish the importance of life as believing you are an arbitrary creation of a god makes you a mere toy akin to a robot.

"I think it is important to differentiate between the institutions that man puts in place and the underlying motive that they serve and judge them exclusively." - Donnie

-- Agree. God, Church, Catholicism [and its offshoots] are separate constructs. Motives, govenments, familial instruction, ambitions and politics are moderators.

The idea that one can't put God [or the soul, Sells] under a microscope is the tail wagging the dog [i.e. the belief/results determining the propositions.]

"I do not believe a motive for greater (potentially spritual) awareness and/or existance is irrational."

-- Nor do I, abeit, I might substitute "ill-defined" in lieu of "greater". Mechanical science keeps us tethered to the nineteenth century and very physical realities.

Freud held that his Ego, Superego and Id would at some future [to him] day be explained by brain science [neurology]. In this way, Freud presented a metaphor.

If we are to have a physical[real]- metaphysical [mystical] metaphor for a period of time, I guess that is okay. But, given the current state of knowledge, we need to be mature enough to recognise the model as, just that, a metaphor.

In the twentieth century, notions of clearly defined realities have been called into question; e.g., superpostioning of states in QM, phase space and smudging of the spacetime preceding Plank Time. In these cases, the metaphor coalesces on the loci of physical realities and metaphysical realities, wherein the " meta" [beyond]realities are non-mystical, rather, these meta-realities [and elsewhere realities] are components of a larger system, now not well understood.

Regrettably, we may never sufficiently understand. Perhaps, the evidence tail has gone cold and is beyond the reach of forensic reach, or, we are simply not smart enough to understand. In the latter cases, I posit, we should be honest enough to accept an incomplete model than invent mystical [godlike] explanations [Keiran's Teddy]

Sells and Philo,

If in the first case, one accepts that the existence/non-existence of god cannot be categorically proved: Why not venture to a second case, the study of, the known theocrasia in history? Here, we can map godheads in the same way, as we do elements on the periodic table [as mentioned before.]. The exercise would be at least be informative and support firmer propositions than pure speculation.

If myths [even identified by you] do not have godheads, creation stories, gods' views on war and morality, priesthoods, temples/churches, epiphanies and sacrafices, then, it would seem that Christianity does not belong in the myth set:

Herein, the null hypothesis for the substantiality of the Christian religionist posit is that the theocrasia of myths and Christianity are highly similar. Else put, if the hull hypothesis is confirmed, the substantiality of the Christian religionist posit is deemed questionable and should be reformulated

--Anyone out there?

Perhaps, it is just that everyone is busy. But I think we have a few loose ends here, while, awaiting the next Amazing Adventures of Peter Sellick. Or is we have all agreed to disagree?

Peter writes about once each month. It would better, if he wrote once a quarter but engaged the Forum. A little too aloof, methinks. [which, of course, is his priviledge, right and, importantly, character]. I am sure he has a contribution to make. Debate is better than proclaimation.