Being pleased with a result doesn't necessitate me wishing the result.
If forewarned, then yes it does. Sorry CS, but I can't believe that you are completely neutral to the existence or non-existence of the soul. You seem to want it to be real.
The point was that if something seems to be real to someone, then that is enough reason for them to believe that it is real.
No matter how stupid or ignorant they might be? No matter how little evidence they might have? Really?
What makes you think the soul has to be objective? That suggest that it exists in the physical world; maybe it exists somewhere else.
Even if the should resides in a spiritual realm (a meaningless phrase in my opinion) that still doesn't make it subjective. It either exists or it does not. That makes it an objective reality or non-reality.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Granny writes:
Based on that logic, it was sensible for the Yorkshire Ripper to murder women, because his belief that God had told him to kill no doubt seemed sensible to him.
Correct, if his judgment was sound then he was sensible. You can be sound, but be incorrect. In other words, you can be sensibly wrong.
I think we call that
reductio ad absurdum. Any system wherein the Yorkshire Ripper can be described as sensible is a debased and valueless system. He wasn't sensible, he was an insane scumbag. His judgement was very far from sound, but, I am sorry to say, based on just as firm a foundation as your belief in a soul, i.e. a comforting idea in the mind and nothing more.
I say that most people do believe in the soul, not to argue from popularity, but to show that there is not an absense of ANY corroborating evidence.
I feel it, most people feel it, we might be on to something.
How do you know that what you are describing as "soul" is the same as these others? Anyway, a shared delusion is still a delusion.
We don't believe in the soul for no reason whatsoever. People can "see" them.
Really? What does it "look" like? What colour is it? Is it warm or cold? What does it smell like? If you are unable to honestly answer these kinds of questions, then you ought to consider that you cannot sense the soul in any meaningful way; it is simply an idea, nothing more.
No, it is not the exact same. I, personally, don't have any reason to believe in those things like I do for the soul.
Perhaps someone else does. Plenty of loonies believe in fairies for instance. The only difference is that you value your vague notions above the vague notions of others.
But to confidently believe that it does not exist because you are assuming that your lack of evidevce is enough is no more sensible than my position.
You are correct that I am making an assumption, but I do not see this as a problem, so long as I am open to contrary evidence.
Of course, you are likely making the same assumption as well with regards to Shiva, Baldur, Anubis, etc. People from other religions were/are just as convinced as you that their non-evidential beliefs are reliable. Are you an Anubis agnostic? Or do you simply assume that he's not real. It is more parsimonious and thus more logical to assume that the myriad of such entities are fiction until such time as there is supporting evidence. I do not expect you to accept this however, since this same logic neatly does away with your own fictional deity of choice.
Mutate and Survive
™ Version 4.2