₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Deepsight,


All you have done is engage in Anonyism. You are asking questions to try and get the atheists to say "I dont know" after which you will insert a "soul of the gaps"

If the brain can not do this or explain this, therefore the soul. You have tried and failed with feelings and emotions in the brian. You have tried and failed with consciousness and now you are trying to use the the mind to create a a dilemma-
-"how do we think to use the brain when we use the brain to think in the first place?

The answer to the question or non-answer doesnt prove the soul.

mke a positive argument fron the soul, please

My friend, I have not participated in this thread until this page as you know. I am not here to argur with you about the soul's existence. I simply point out to you that every single word and sentence you yourself and others have used, shows clearly and evidently that the brain is an organ being used by a being. That being is what I understand the soul to be. You have repeatedly used the words - "My brain" - - - Whose brain please? That in itself is a proprietary phrase. It indicates ownership, just as when you say "my car". This means that you recognize that you are a being that owns a brain. You also said that "we use" the brain. This indicates use. If you use something, then you do stand apart from it as it's principal. This matter is glaringly simple.

Logicboy03: You are asking questions that do not help your position. It doesn prove the soul. I have clearly explained it. The mind/consciousness as a function of the brain
and the brain as an organ are separated but connected.

This is why you can reason to bypass your brain. I am colour blind because my eyes and brain can not process red/green properly. I have to use my mind (a function of the brain working with other parts of the body as a conscious whole) to bypass my pattern seeking brain to guess that whenever I see an odd shade of green/brown it is red.

It just gets funnier. You say that I can reason to bypass MY brain.

Shocking you do not see the wholesale concession in this.

Logicboy03: Deep Sight

The mind is not a being. Stop the lies. It is a function of the brain.

So why then are you a human being. What is the being in you, if you say the mind is not a being?

Ol boy, I no get your time.

Logicboy03: We have separate words for consciousness, mind and the brain. Dont we?

Don't run away from your own words. Its simple, come now - when you said that WE use OUR brains to form thoughts, that simply means that WE exist, and we use an ORGAN called a brain to form thoughts, no?

As such, you have already since acceded to our independent existence from our organ - the brain.

An inescapable contradiction son. For once, do live up to your username, Sir R.E.R.

Logicboy03: You have to understand that the brian is at the centre of our consciousness

The brain is at the centre of whose consciousness?

The word "mind" explains it, The brain is the organ while the mind is simply the result of brain working with the summation of other parts of the body.

And just why is the brain bothered to created a mind? What for?

Finally, at all events you therein admit that the "mind" is a non-physical result of the work of the brain. This means that you are saying that a physical thing, for its own purposes, creates non-physical beings called "minds". Interesting. We can rest on that.

mazaje: Your body. . . .





The body. . The brain controls the body. . .

Tell me one thing the soul control on its own. . .Thoughts, heart beat, muscular contraction, growth hormones. . .Name one thing the soul does. . .

Lol. As though the brain is not also an organ in same body.

Abeg.

Logicboy03: It would be like asking "who is Deepsight's hand working for?"


To write what you have just written, you hve used your brain to form thoughts

You are just killing yourself. Look at the bold again. You said that I have USED MY brain to form thoughts.

Case closed.

Logicboy03: Deep Sight,


Creating strawmen to try to argue that the brain is not responsible for our thoughts and emotion as an organ we have control over . . .

Look at the bold above, Logicboy.

As an organ that WHO has control over?

What person has control over this organ you call a brain?

Nuff said. You must see the point now. That statement in bold above, if you really can think, says it all.

Logicboy03: The brain is our organ

The bold.

Aha. Whose organ?

Where is that person that owns the organ?

Who is the organ working for?

For once, I implore you, think carefully on this.

mazaje: The brain is EVERYTHING, without it you can do NOTHING. . . .

The bold word above.

Without it, WHO can do nothing?

Who are you referring to?

Yes, the brain controls everything. ..It controls your heart beat,

The underlined above again.

Whose heart beat?

Does the brain have a heart?

Whose heart beat is it controlling?

And again. What is the motivation of this brain, in doing all these things and creating all these thoughts. All the thoughts of our lifetimes - family, love, career, ambition, charity, community, love, hatred, care, compassion, vengeance, acheivement, et al.

What is this little piece of grey matter sitting by itself inside our heads trying to acheive with all these things.

As far as the laws of survival and evolution go, such a little grey creature in your head need hardly be concerned with these things. If it was a matter of survival it would strictly seek to feed itself, like any other animal, period. The excesses are deleterious to its balance and existence.

Why is this little brain a creature by itself, that is independently concerned with all these things and doing and thinking all these things?

Does this make sense to you? Oh sorry, I forgot, there is no you. I should therefore ask if this makes sense to your brain?

Indeed the little phrase - "your brain", ends the discussion.

Whose brain? The brain's brain?

And what is the voice in your head? Your thoughts, which u hear in your inner ear and which no one else hears? Is there another ear that the brain has inside itself that it uses to hear your thoughts? To whom does it speak to? To the little brain back to it self? Or to a being?

mazaje: I can show you images of my brain inside my head. . .Can anony show us any evidence to show us any evidence that the soul exist on its own independent of the brain?. . .He says there is a soul that exist independent of the brain, he is the one making the claim, all we need is just a little evidence to back that claim up. . .

Do you realize that your position renders the brain as an independent self conscious creature which is controlling a mass around it called a man?

OP. . .looking at that write-up, you should also consider a side-career as a writer/ columnist.

Sir Logicboy R.E.R -

Here are the questions again.

1. What is a soul conceived as?

2. What is human placenta, and what is its function.

3. Is Consciousness equivalent to that which the soul is conceived as?

4. What is the exact relevance of a genetic imprint or DNA code to the constitution of a physical being

5. How do the foregoing questions support the notion advanced in the OP.

Answer these, and you will instantly recognize the very appropriate measure that you need to URGENTLY take in terms of revisiting all schools you attended and asking for a refund of your school fees. - Such a refund will go far in helpining you buy ice cream and chocolates - a vocation that your mind is more suited to than debate.

Further, if you are truly conscientious, you will also set up a foundation to have people donate money for Dawkins to pay damages to all the schools he attended, and to whoever funded his early education, as he will not do so, on account of the very weighty burden of congenital st.upidity that shadows him like a plague.

Logicboy03: Dont embarrass yourself. Trying to act like you made the same argument earlier?


lmao...


Arrogance, abuse and lies........this is what happens when you allow hate to consume you.

Like i said, it is inspired by congenital idiocy from brains shriveled by hunger over centuries, and can only be advanced by dimwitted bovine recidivists. Period.

If you read my questions at all, you would see why.

Go read them. Olodo.

Logicboy03: LOl.....you are now copying Davidylan's failed argument? You couldnt think on your own after 2 pages? Appeal to authority much?

What is the difference between a human placenta and a baby at conception? They are both living matter that can't survive outside of the mother.


Think boy, think!

Ol boy go back to the questions I laid out for tonstoner all the answers are there.

The thread is irredeemably da.ft, and could only be created by a red eyed rabbit.

Like i said, it is inspired by congenital idiocy from brains shriveled by hunger over centuries, and can only be advanced by dimwitted bovine recidivists. Period.

Logicboy03: lolz.....coming from Davidylan, a biologist that has done nothing significant in his field?

Are you acquainted with Davidylan?

Logicboy03: lol....come in Davidylan the troll to throw nonsense at anything atheist.


Dawkins was talking about a placenta and a baby in the womb. It was a discussion on both souls and abortion.


The woman was saying that you cant abort from conception because the baby has a soul and that is why dawkins used that analogy.





Anyways, you have always been a troll.

What gibberish, Sir Logicboy, R.E.R!

That is just a plain s.illy analogy for him to make.

For God's sake, what is human placenta?

There's your answer!

@ Logicboy, my dear and good gentleman friend, I have knighted you here -

https://www.nairaland.com/1159806/nairaland-title-conferment-ceremony-start

Following from this thread -

https://www.nairaland.com/1158516/anonys-soul-theory-destroyed-richard

Kneel, Logicboy (places sword on his left and right shoulders consecutively)

Now arise, Sir Logicboy, R.E.R

I hereby bestow logicboy with the special title of R.E.R.

Feel free to bestow titles on your favorite nairalanders.

wiegraf: Again, my only concern is with the part where you call people who celebrate him clots. And that's not exactly what you stated earlier. I believe you called people who think him intelligent as being unintelligent, more or else. But as you're having a laugh I may be assigning too much weight to your comments

As for the op, also again, he's a trained scientist looking for a physical basis to their beliefs. It's probably just the way he thinks. His having a poor understanding of how 'souls' work is understandable, as I'm not even sure if there's a proper definition for the word, is there? At least, not one a scientist would understand. Everyone who believes has his or her own nice 'true' definition for souls and how they work

And after actually reading it (ok, I lied a bit, I may not have been paying real attention), this was probably said to a pro-life campaigner. If her stance is built around fetus/placentas/whatever having souls, and by her definition (if that indeed is her definition, can't tell) consciousness is necessary for a soul to exist, then obviously anything without a brain cannot have a soul, no? So why would she be against abortion? It need not be for this reason he made that statement, but the point is context.

And now I should get to work

The OP is downright s.illy my friend, downright silly.

Anyway, by the time you saw me talking about red eyed rabbits you ought to have known i was enjoying myself.

What on earth is a red eyed rabbit? ? ? ?

davidylan: this is quite a daft thread tbh.

If i cut off a thumb, it will always be a genetic twin to me... does that make the thumb an individual?

Honestly o! ! ! !

I sincerely cannot believe how da.ft the thread is. And they have been expecting me to explain that to them? ? ? ? ? ?

Now this comes from a Dawkins that they regard as super-smart right? ? ? ? ?

I norr fit laff.

I do not wish to comment on the facts of this matter but it saddens me that Nigerians are so clueless as the very substantial weight their country carries in international matters.

wiegraf: I'm not concerned with most of this, I'm addressing your assertions about intelligence which are frankly, silly. My concentration atm is spread thin, but the reply to your post has this:



Heck, even if one argued that dawkins isn't even a brilliant scientist, just ok, that won't make your comments any less asinine, yes? And I won't even call it a result of arrogance, just some sort of sheer *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*.

You're welcome to your opinions though, of course

Lol. As regards my *insert terrible insults here* you are taking me far too seriously. I am having a laugh myself at some of the *insert terrible insults here* I am heaping on logicboy.

But this, o disciple, thou must take away from here: Richard Dawkins is a certified re.tard: this is a sacred truth which cannot be negotiated. Nor can it be avoided by all the laurels of all the universities in all the cities of the universe.

He has written some of the greatest gibberish to be written in the last two thousand years of human history, and is only celebrated by clots.

Now come and draw thee near: are you also telling me that you glean a sensible point in the OP?

Speak straight.

For I have prepared and lengthened mine whip unto thee, as hot coals on the backs of slaves shall it proceed and make thy back its dwelling place.

Now stand up and speak.

Logicboy03: There you have it! All insults and no substance.

Be gone, troll!

Maybe you missed it. As expected.

Please go and read the questions I gave the other poster. Period.

If after reading and answering those questions, you still don't get it, I promise, I'll break it down for you.

Logicboy03: First off, that was a real interview between Dawkins and a creationist.

Secondly, Dawkins made a simple and valid point that there is a brain rather than a soul. We say something that is unconscious doesnt have a soul but then consciousness is a product of the brain and not a soul.

I am surprised, or I should not be - that desperate red eyed cultists have failed - even after the few questions I put up there, to see how lamentably ridiculous the point in the OP is. No point at all, as conventional with persons who have made a habit of rejecting any iota of commonsense as a lifetime career.

Simple logic escapes people like you. Have you any evidence for a soul? What is the function of a soul?

I have no inclination to engage in such a discussion with a chair. The point you should focus on is the point made in the OP. Study it over-night, and eat some kolanuts as you do so. It might just dawn on you by dawn, what exactly you have done.

Lastly, you were refuted by the next comment on your link

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9186583

No I was not. Anybody can read the entire thread. I know of course that you are far to lazy, to go through the arguments made in all posts in the thread. You will doubtless prefer a day dream about the next ice cream or chocolate shop that you doubtless must be eager to visit in the morning.

turnstoner: Let's start with 1. and I assure you that this alone can take all day.

I wonder what your take on this is: that a scientist's definition of the soul is not quite the same as the average man-of-faith's. Dawkins probably does not believe in the existence of the soul!

That is very well noted and easily understood. However it would be contradictory in terms of this discussion: because what is being discussed is the idea of a soul as conceived by men of faith as you quite rightly pointed out. If the concept of "soul" being discussed was that conceived by scientists, there would be no discussion ab initio since as you noted, the scientist in the first place does not believe in any soul.

As such, it is obvious that the discussion is about "soul" as conceived by men of faith.

Now you answer my questions and we will proceed, if still necessary at that point.

wiegraf: Clap for yourself



What's a "bovine recidivists", and no one lives for centuries, that's just silly. Oh you mean his ancestors?
That asides, I read the op, thank you. So dawkins was literal, or materialistic, or whatever armchair philosophers call it. That now translates to not intelligent, hmm?

wiegraf: No, no, no. A scientist shouldn't think like a scientist

/sarcasm, as some people can't seem to tell

Look, I do not even know if and where Dawkins made such a statement or if this was a mere joke. I take the statement up simply on logicboy's advancement of it as some sort of refutation (even if comic or sarcastic) of the existence of the soul.

I have no idea if it is a joke, as you will see I mentioned that it must be, in one of my first posts on this thread.

But logicboy is clueless enough to imagine that which is contained in his OP to be a worthy argument against the existence of a soul.

At all events, I have previously expressed some of my trouble with Dawkin's reasoning in other respects cardinally on some of his arguments on the existence of God. I cannot begin to elucidate everything all over. Here -

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

turnstoner: I have looked at the op again and i can't understand which of these really got you going:

1. Lack of a brain or inability to be concious = lack of soul
2. baby's placenta is a genetic twin of the baby

The two statements are consistent with the current state of science.

Let us start here:

1. What is a soul conceived as?

2. What is human placenta, and what is its function.

3. Is Consciousness equivalent to that which the soul is conceived as?

4. What is the exact relevance of a genetic imprint or DNA code to the constitution of a physical being

5. How do the foregoing questions support the notion advanced in the OP.

Let me have your answers to these, and then we can discuss further if still necessary. In truth, your answers to 1 and 2 alone should show you my issue with this thread.

Many thanks.

wiegraf: He did tell, sort of, but his reasons are quite foo.lish

I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for a classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

Logicboy03: Did I ever do something that butthurted you in the past?

Even Anony/Frosbel dont have this hatred for me.

Ol boy i dont hate you at all, in fact you are a pleasantly comic distraction. I only point out to you the veritable idiocy of threads such as this - a thread that could only be made by a red eyed rabbit quivering in the shadow of weighty and unremovable stu.pidity.