Raithere,
All people just want to be happy. And they seek happiness as good as they can.
If you had completed your religious quest and have developed your own philosophical stance, then you wouldn't engage in these discussions, as you would simply have no need to do so. People don't engage into activities they have no need for; often though, needs are satified via compensations and redirections, so it isn't always clear which need a person is trying to satisfy. And this isn't a question of honesty, but of clarity.
"Honestly, this thread has been like talking to the television. Which I find upsetting because if I was looking for that I'd be watching television instead of earnestly attempting to convey my thoughts to other people which requires some effort."
Why do you persist then? Insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. If you don't want to watch television, but find yourself watching television, then why do you keep watching it?
"By all means, if someone wants to simply state that they don't know what a soul is or how it might interact with the world but they believe in souls anyway, go right ahead. But no one here has done that. They keep asserting that Boris's argument is invalid and then refuse to discuss why."
For one, they are discussing.
For two, I don't think all things can be meaningfully discussed -- but this is a general problem of language and cognition, and a problem of axioms.
To me, it is an axiom that the soul exists ... and I don't go into discussing this.
"Apparently, for instance, no one can tell me what a soul is because no one knows."
You are playing daft, you know this?
I could start explaining to you what "verb mood" is in grammar, for example, and the discussion would be neverending, unless you simply accepted that verb mood exists.
"So Jan, ellion, et al aren't arguing from any actual position, they just don't want to address the points that Boris brought. Jan even has the temerity to ask me to provide his argument for him."
Uh. Many atheists like to argue that there is no soul, while they have no working definition of a soul. This is the whole problem of their position.
How can one say something doesn't exist, when one doesn't even know what it is that one is talking about?!
So no wonder that theists ask them to provide their definition of a soul -- but then atheists fire back that providing the definition of the soul is the theist's job. No. It was the atheists who started the argument. They should know what they are talking about.
"But I expect people to be honest in return or at least do me the courtesy of not pretending to commit to a discussion when they're doing anything but."
One cannot have a discussion with people who refuse to at least temporarily accept stated terms and definitions.
A discussion is like a ladder: once you've climbed it, you don't need it anymore. Or like a bridge: once you've crossed it, you don't need it anymore. Ladders and bridges are meant to come from one place to another, just like discussions are meant to come from one understanding to another.
But so many people like to cling to the ladders and bridges, never to move from them. No wonder we can't talk then.
Thinking is not the aim. Thinking is just a means to an end.
"This forum has generated some of the best discussions regarding religion I have ever come across. But people need to be willing to commit to the discussion and not go off wailing or plugging their ears and yelling, "wrong, wrong, wrong" when they come across something they don't like."
EVERYONE responds with dislike when they come across something they don't like. It is how things work, for most living beings. You are no different, neither am I.
According to you, people should embrace and devote themselves to things they don't like? Your argument is tired and bogus.
