vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I agree, and he's also insufferably arrogant, but I don't find his 'method' as annoying as the 'split into bitesize bits' method practised by the likes of Arising UK. There is often no way of telling who they are adressing, or where the original post is. ...
But it's easy to follow the trail of the conversation back through the posts and it's obvious who is being addressed as I'm only ever talking to one person at a time and not an audience. Personally I find others habit of requoting the whole post every time a waste of space and an eyesore.
Is it because they can't write a complete paragraph, and need 'space to recover' between sentences?
Nope, it's because the person I'm responding to doesn't appear to understand what a paragraph is and just writes disconnected points in a lump.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I agree, and he's also insufferably arrogant, but I don't find his 'method' as annoying as the 'split into bitesize bits' method practised by the likes of Arising UK. There is often no way of telling who they are adressing, or where the original post is. ...
But it's easy to follow the trail of the conversation back through the posts and it's obvious who is being addressed as I'm only ever talking to one person at a time and not an audience. Personally I find others habit of requoting the whole post every time a waste of space and an eyesore.
Is it because they can't write a complete paragraph, and need 'space to recover' between sentences?
Nope, it's because the person I'm responding to doesn't appear to understand what a paragraph is and just writes disconnected points in a lump.
No, it often isn't because with your 'method' their username usually doesn't even show.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:No, it often isn't because with your 'method' their username usually doesn't even show.
It's on the first quote so it's superfluous to add to every succeeeding one as it would be very unconverntional to have a reply to two posters but if I did I'd name them in the quote.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 11:32 pm
Cake, unlike like souls, is not something so utterly obvious that we simply can't get along without it.
To anyone who doesn't know any better, it is utterly obvious that the Sun goes round the Earth. In fact, that would be a perfectly reasonable assumption to make in the absence of the relevant knowledge. Souls, on the other hand, do not even have an observable phenomenon to base a misinterpretation on; there is absolutely no reason to think they exist.
I suspect there are many people who find it harder to get along without cake than without a soul.
Henry is a benign imbecile though. He believes in infinite simplifying. And other than altering the subject in any thread, his learning curve is flat.
I like Henry Quirk, though. Just as much as I like my bedbugs, my pet tapeworm and my wonderful leper bacteria.
But I can understand why he sticks to his guns, with regard to his annoying and ignorant habits. I'm sure he'd agree with this: If we successfully convinced Henry to correct all his annoying habits, then there would be nothing left of him.
Is that a made up 'quote'? I can't find it. I don't recall calling Henry an imbecile.
Henry is a benign imbecile though. He believes in infinite simplifying. And other than altering the subject in any thread, his learning curve is flat.
I like Henry Quirk, though. Just as much as I like my bedbugs, my pet tapeworm and my wonderful leper bacteria.
But I can understand why he sticks to his guns, with regard to his annoying and ignorant habits. I'm sure he'd agree with this: If we successfully convinced Henry to correct all his annoying habits, then there would be nothing left of him.
Is that a made up 'quote'? I can't find it. I don't recall calling Henry an imbecile.
That is, unless you have no soul, in which case I'm not talking to anyone.
"I am a soul" and "The ship went down but forty souls were saved" , and "Poor soul! Her house was inundated" are examples of correct use of 'soul' as a synonym for 'living and feeling individual'.
Because there is a word is not a reason to presume that the referent is a supernatural fact.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 7:08 am
Souls, on the other hand, do not even have an observable phenomenon to base a misinterpretation on; there is absolutely no reason to think they exist.
Harbal wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 7:08 am
Souls, on the other hand, do not even have an observable phenomenon to base a misinterpretation on; there is absolutely no reason to think they exist.
Except that only a soul can say that.
No, Immanuel, a brain-mind plus body proper can say that.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 10:02 am
Because there is a word is not a reason to presume that the referent is a supernatural fact.
Nobody said it was. And nobody could say it was, unless there was a soul.
Souls are taken by many religionists to exist as supernatural entities. Few religionists would claim that souls are entities in time and place.
A brain-mind plus body proper can make claims and there is no need to propose some other agent, whether higher status like a Christian soul, or lower status like a possessing demon.
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 2:38 pm
A brain-mind plus body...[/qjote]
In order to get your claim off the ground, you've already presumed the existence of the mind (or soul, if you prefer). And only a mind (or soul) can make such a claim: bodies don't do it, because they can't make claims. Claims are immaterial realities; they're a concept. That doesn't mean claims aren't a "real" thing -- you just made one yourself -- but they are not material entities.
Your present problem, as with all mind-soul dismissers, is that you imagine that the material exhausts the real. Ironically, to do so, you have to use the mind.
