Comments on: Go materialism! http://www.speedkill.org/2007/06/27/1806/ Radioactive Toy Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:44:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Jeff http://www.speedkill.org/2007/06/27/1806/#comment-439163 Jeff Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:58:42 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/2007/06/27/1806/#comment-439163 So most people believe in a soul, but we're not really aware of what it is? <em>That</em> sounds like intellectual dishonesty. In any case, it's vague, but it's not that vague. The Catholic <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm" rel="nofollow">encyclopedia</a> doesn't seem to express much doubt about what the soul is. That NY Times article wouldn't make sense to most people if the definitions of soul could be as different from its usage of the word (which is the same as how I defined it) as you imply. If that definition wasn't common and important to a lot of people, the article wouldn't have been written. I'm not picking on Miller. That's a far more credible belief than what the article is discussing. I'm just saying it's not the definition of soul that most people would recognize. It would be more defensible to call his belief a belief in personality. You only get away with using a word that means something that's barely even related when the concept isn't required to have any link to the natural world. So most people believe in a soul, but we’re not really aware of what it is? That sounds like intellectual dishonesty.

In any case, it’s vague, but it’s not that vague. The Catholic encyclopedia doesn’t seem to express much doubt about what the soul is. That NY Times article wouldn’t make sense to most people if the definitions of soul could be as different from its usage of the word (which is the same as how I defined it) as you imply. If that definition wasn’t common and important to a lot of people, the article wouldn’t have been written.

I’m not picking on Miller. That’s a far more credible belief than what the article is discussing. I’m just saying it’s not the definition of soul that most people would recognize. It would be more defensible to call his belief a belief in personality. You only get away with using a word that means something that’s barely even related when the concept isn’t required to have any link to the natural world.

]]> By: colby natale http://www.speedkill.org/2007/06/27/1806/#comment-439152 colby natale Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:32:29 +0000 http://www.speedkill.org/2007/06/27/1806/#comment-439152 Common Jeff, you have to do better than this. Comparing the definition of murder to a soul is intellectually dishonest; we are fully aware of what murder is. The same is not true for souls in any way whatsoever, so it is very hard to even have a definition for them. Murder is a very concrete thing; we see it all the time. "Soul" is a very abstract word for a vague idea of an eternal essence, however we choose to look at it. Don't just pick on this guy and his decision since it is related to a realm you find laughable. Common Jeff, you have to do better than this. Comparing the definition of murder to a soul is intellectually dishonest; we are fully aware of what murder is. The same is not true for souls in any way whatsoever, so it is very hard to even have a definition for them. Murder is a very concrete thing; we see it all the time. “Soul” is a very abstract word for a vague idea of an eternal essence, however we choose to look at it. Don’t just pick on this guy and his decision since it is related to a realm you find laughable.

]]>