Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[tabzer]

Still doesn't belong in this thread.
It's about as off-topic as can be without spouting random meme-based phrases ad infinitum.
State here, church that way. gestures outside

I didn't bring it up.

There is no reason to think I or anyone else has a soul.

Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.

 

[Lacius]

Let's get one thing Crystal clear. I harbor no hard feelings or ill will to anyone in this thread.

The hostility coming from you guys is very apparent, which is strange coming from a group pretending to be standing for what is right.

When you stop being civil, you have lost your argument. Although I never actually saw a start to any civility in this thread... well, except for the glimpse @Lacius provided. At least he half assed it.

Still, thank you all. I really mean it too. We are blessed to be able to have these conversations, right or wrong.

At the end of day, these politicians are as crooked a group of politicians. I hope we can all agree on that.

The "all politicians are crooked" platitude is an intellectually lazy one that comes from people, generally those who are nonconfrontational, who want as many people to like them as possible and also don't want to dedicate the thought and research necessary to discern who is/isn't actually crooked.

In reality, while there are crooked politicians for sure, there are many who are not.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I didn't bring it up.



Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.

By some definitions of the word "soul," sure. However, as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, that's not the definition I used, it should have been obvious to anyone from the context of the post I was responding to that it wasn't the definition I was using, and anything other than a response to the definition I was using is an irrelevant semantic argument that I have no interest in participating in.

 

[smf]

Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.

Nobody has an immortal soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Etymology

We just hang on to a romanticized idea of how normies brains reacts to society.

People like Trump though has nothing of the sort.

 

[tabzer]

By some definitions of the word "soul," sure. However, as I mentioned in one of my recent posts, that's not the definition I used,

Lol. What "definition" are you going by?

Nobody has an immortal soul.

That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet. But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?

 

[Lacius]

I didn't bring it up.



Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a soul.

Nobody has an immortal soul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Etymology

We just hang on to a romanticized idea of how normies brains reacts to society.

People like Trump though has nothing of the sort.

I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Lol. What "definition" are you going by?



That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet. But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?

I gave a thorough definition no more than half an hour ago.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Lol. What "definition" are you going by?



That we are certain of, or aware of, as of yet. But maybe this Jesus was adopted by aliens who have the technology?

The time to believe in the soul is the time we have evidence for it. That was exactly my point when this mess of a conversation started.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I gave a thorough definition no more than half an hour ago.

Yeah, I have a feeling they're just spouting random words to try to derail this.
Speaking of which, let's not let them derail this any longer- no more bullshit soul talk. Trump bad, Biden good.

 

[tabzer]

I actually laughed aloud when I actually checked the etymology of the word soul, from the old English sáwol, which means immortal. I don't think @tabzer knows what etymology is.

Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person. I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which sáwol was transfixed into a new word.

 

[smf]

Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person. I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which sáwol was transfixed into a new word.

'Soul', one the other hand, comes from Old English sáwol, originally meaning 'coming from or belonging to the sea or lake' (perhaps symbolic of our psyche or unconscious)

Are you saying you belong in a lake? I'm not sure that Etymologically speaking, everyone has or is a "belong in a lake"

 

[Plasmaster09]

Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person. I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which sáwol was transfixed into a new word.

*a-hem*
No. More. Bullshit. Soul. Talk.
This is not a theology thread.
"Can we get back to politics, please? Yo."

'Soul', one the other hand, comes from Old English sáwol, originally meaning 'coming from or belonging to the sea or lake' (perhaps symbolic of our psyche or unconscious)

Yeah, he has no clue what he's saying. (Or what "transfixed" means, for that matter.)
But let's not derail things any longer.

 

[Lacius]

Immortal principle of man, which is not restrained to a singular person. I was referring to the Hebraic origin, through which sáwol was transfixed into a new word.

Regardless, my previous points about you turning this into a semantic arguement still stand. This is also wildly off-topic. Make a relevant thread and tag me in it or send me a PM if you want to continue the conversation about souls, but you should know I'm unlikely to participate if you're just going to redefine the word from how I and most of the world use it.

 

[tabzer]

Regardless, my previous points about you turning this into a semantic arguement still stand. This is also wildly off-topic.

No, and No. It doesn't relate to the title directly, but it relates directly to the conversation and the proclamation you made. It's still an interesting phenomenon how you have come to lean on non-existing definition of a word to support your antagonism. It seems to parallel the way you use other words, like "evidence" and "unsubstantiated".

Also...

If someone makes an unsubstantiated claim, and even they are unaware of evidence for that claim, then it's idiotic to believe that claim, and it was idiotic to believe that claim the whole time before evidence later became available. Being right in hindsight doesn't make the belief before the evidence any less idiotic. For example, if I were to believe right now that many parts of our government are controlled by reptilian humanoids, you'd likely agree with me that is an absurd claim, and it would be idiotic to believe it. However, if 50 years from now, reptilian humanoid aliens made first contact with humans and admitted to placing undercover operatives in our government, does that mean the claim was less idiotic back in 2021? The answer is no. A broken clock is right twice a day, and the fact that it's right twice a day does not mean it's a working clock.

A broken clock is right twice a day because it asserts a possibility that will eventually happen at some point. There is no logical parallel to your story, unless it is an inevitability that what you mentioned will come to pass.

"Unsubstantiated" is based on your estimation, and not objective. If someone knows something that you do not, it makes them smarter than you--relative to the subject. It's only idiotic for you to believe what they say, unless you had that substance of a reason to believe what they may say.

 

[Lacius]

No, and No.

Yes and yes.

It doesn't relate to the title directly, but it relates directly to the conversation and the proclamation you made.

First, I wasn't the one who brought up the soul. I was responding to someone saying they would pray for my soul. Second, the conversation about souls is off-topic in this thread, whether you think so or not. Off-topic asides are fine, but your obsession with having a semantic argument when it's completely irrelevant to anything I said is causing the topic to spin out of control. Get back on topic, go to or make a thread with the topic of religious nonsense, or send me a PM. I'm not talking about it here anymore. I've already explained exactly what I mean when I say "soul," and it doesn't matter now if you call it "soul" or "glibglob."

It's still an interesting phenomenon how you have come to lean on non-existing definition of a word to support your antagonism.

My usage of the word comports with how it's popularly used, the etymology of the word demonstrates this, and I'm uninterested in discussing watered down definitions as though they have anything to do with my original comments.

It seems to parallel the way you use other words, like "evidence" and "unsubstantiated".

My usage of these words comports with how they're popularly used.

A broken clock is right twice a day because it asserts a possibility that will eventually happen at some point. There is no logical parallel to your story, unless it is an inevitability that what you mentioned will come to pass.

You seem to have missed the point of the clock analogy, so I will explain. If X has no explanatory power, but X happens to right by chance instead of through explanatory power, that does not mean X ever had any explanatory power. X is the broken clock in the analogy, and X is also the person making an unsubstantiated claim. Being right about something by chance and in hindsight does not make the thing a reasonable belief before the evidence presents itself. You are arguing against very basic epistemology, so you're not going to win this one dude. Like, what I'm saying here isn't considered to be controversial. I don't think I've ever met anyone who disagrees with this.

If I believe it's going to be a long winter solely because of what happened on Groundhog Day, and it does end up being a long winter, that doesn't mean my belief wasn't idiotic. The time to believe something is when it's logically sound to do so, and a belief in the absence of evidence is idiotic, regardless of whether or not we find out down the road that the belief comports with objective reality.

"Unsubstantiated" is based on your estimation, and not objective.

Whether or not something is logically sound is objective, not subjective. Whether or not a claim is substantiated is not merely a matter of opinion. If someone says X is substantiated and someone else says X is unsubstantiated, one of them is wrong.

If someone knows something that you do not, it makes them smarter than you--relative to the subject.

Sure, but the time to believe the claim the person who is more knowledgeable than me on the topic is making is when there's evidence for what that person is claiming. Anything else would be an argument from authority logical fallacy.

It's only idiotic for you to believe what they say, unless you had that substance of a reason to believe what they may say.

It's idiotic to accept any claims without sound reason or evidence to accept that claim is true.

 

[tabzer]

Yeah, he has no clue what he's saying. (Or what "transfixed" means, for that matter.)

The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute. The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.

 

[Lacius]

The way I used the word "transfixed" was poetically astute. The fact that you two are caught on the old english instead of the hebrew supports that.

Frankly, I don't fucking care about the Hebrew etymology of the word "soul" with regard to this conversation, and nor should you. It's wholly irrelevant, and you don't seem to realize this. The word "soul" in modern day English has baggage. My use comports with the way the word "soul" is popularly used. The way I use it is that it's the intangible part of a human being that lives on after death. That's literally how 100% of the Christians I've ever met use it, and I was responding to someone saying they would pray for my soul. This is literally how 100% of the people who have ever sincerely said to me or anyone around me "I will pray for you" use the word "soul." You are embarrassing yourself.

There is no evidence the soul, as described above, exists.

 

[tthousand]

There seem to be two types of people in the this. Those who know it all, and those who are willing to question.

As for arguing with the know it alls, I might as well turn on CNN and try and talk with the TV. I'll get fed the same line of propaganda, but at least it will come from someone who is pretending to be rational.

And BTW, these blocks and blocks of texts that you guys have to make to prove your points... actions speak louder than words. The truth will speak for itself. Keep it short and sweet

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

And one more thing... for you guys preaching what should and should not be posted in this thread, try leading by example. Don't applaud the shit show one day and then start to cry when you don't get your way. I mean, that is what the demorats in office would do, but you are not them.

 

[Lacius]

There seem to be two types of people in the this. Those who know it all, and those who are willing to question.

You've confused skepticism for "knowing it all." In reality, your conspiratorial thinking is not skepticism, so don't pretend to be a skeptic who is "just questioning."

that is what the demorats in office would do

Show me.

 

[tthousand]

You've confused skepticism for "knowing it all." In reality, your conspiratorial thinking is not skepticism, so don't pretend to be a skeptic who is "just questioning."

Show me.

You already know it all, why would I waste my time with you?

"The truth it out there"

 

[Lacius]

You already know it all, why would I waste my time with you?

"The truth it out there"

If you are going to make ridiculous claims and then cowardly run away without demonstrating them because it's too difficult to do so, don't bother making the ridiculous claim in the first place. The end result is the same.

 

[tthousand]

If you are going to make ridiculous claims and then cowardly run away without demonstrating them because it's too difficult to do so, don't bother making the ridiculous claim in the first place. The end result is the same.

I'm not running. I just see no point in arguing with a brick wall.

As for you thinking I owe you anything, that's your first mistake.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh yeah, are you guys moderators? No... I did not think so. I am a moderator and admin and several sites, and we do not take kind to back seat moderators. Know your role, and know why you are not cut out to be one of us.

 

[Lacius]

As for you thinking I owe you anything, that's your first mistake.

You don't owe me anything personally. However, if you are going to make a claim, you have a burden of proof. If your goal isn't to look like a buffoon, you owe a demonstration of your claim.

It makes no difference to me if you're a buffoon or not.

Oh yeah, are you guys moderators? No... I did not think so. I am a moderator and admin and several sites, and we do not take kind to back seat moderators. Know your role, and know why you are not cut out to be one of us.

You don't know what backseat moderating is apparently, since nothing I did had to do with moderation, so forgive me if I don't believe you've moderated anything in your life.

In other words, acknowledging something is off-topic is not backseat moderating.