Christianity sees anything that causes pleasure as bad. Remember H L Mencken's definition of Puritanism?

"The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. "

Christians consider humans as living souls, and that the body, soul, and spirit, constitute the whole human organism.  The soul doesn't seperate from the body until death.  For now, the soul and body aspects of human being's are woven together.

Not all of us.  I believe what David said, "You will make known to me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; In Your right hand there are pleasures forever." - Psalms 16:11

Both deludedgod and I are excellent readers.  We know what you said.  Apparently, you did not comprehend that deludedgod wants you to explain the mechanism by which the soul and body are"woven together."  Weaving is a physical action, and if the spirit is not physical, this is a stolen concept.

You have clarified nothing.  You've used a word which refers to the physical to explain something that is supposedly not physical.

How?

I thought masturbation was a sin? 

Dear Hamby,

I don't know how to use the quote function very well.  Maybe you can show.

Yours:  "Apparently, you did not comprehend that deludedgod wants you to explain the mechanism by which the soul and body are"woven together." 

Ok, if thats what he meant by "material causal process and object," then you're right, I didn't comprehend that.

So do you want me to explain how God weaves the body and soul together?  Or explain God? 

I can't do either, but I thought maybe the soul and body being together and not seperate, had some bearing on your train of thought about drugs, the body, and  the soul.

Matt said:  "I thought masturbation was a sin?" 

Nice.  But that was quoted from the NASB, I think the other translations render it better; "At" your right hand, et cetera.

But good one, regardless.

"According to Christians, humans have a soul, which is a spiritual entity that transcends the human body.  While we have a brain that controls our body, the "essence" of our being is totally removed from our body.  The body is just a vessel for us to inhabit during our tenure on planet earth." ~ Hamby

    Yeah, 'Linguistic wishing well of Babel' !  Funny words , Soul, Transcends. ??? Umm, I was dead for an eternity , now I am "alive" , in my body, to then be of the next transition "dead", the afterlife as ALL always transcends, as all is a transition of eternal movement.

Wow words , love/ hate/ prelife/afterlife , then the babel linguistics gets even worse. Words like soul, god, heaven , hell, angels, devils, material, immaterial, etc. Volumes of philosophy .... I think thermodynamics is a best gawed summary yet, and so I say "oneness" for the purpose of communication, then I get crucified over words. 

LOL RRS , Go Go Communication .... Fix "Communication Breakdown" .... drives me insane .... , me god, LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiL1sjGIcew

Me too ....

An interesting discussion. It brought to mind a question I'll have to remember to ask theists when in debate with them: Can a soul change?

In lieu of an actual argument from Pineapple, (imagine that) I'm going to address an impediment to critical thinking -- namely, the hidden premise.

It's relatively easy for most people to recognize appeals to emotion, but we must consider that an appeal to emotion, in and of itself, is not necessarily wrong.  Sometimes, people use emotion to reinforce perfectly good arguments.   There's nothing inherently wrong with reinforcing logic with emotion.  Supposing that you, gentle reader, are an atheist bent on ridding the country of theist nonsense, do you often get inspired when something makes you particularly mad?  Emotion is a good motivator, and is not inherently wrong in an opinion piece.

Having said that, emotion also tends to cloud judgment.  In fact, I have made what I believe to be particularly strong arguments that emotion's main evolutionary function is exactly that -- getting humans to do things they might not otherwise do with only reasoned thought.  Bearing this in mind, we need to be vigilant when presented with any appeal to emotion, especially if we agree with the argument being presented.

Let's look at Cpt pineapple's post and see if we can find some hidden premises:

So, what's the point here?  It seems obvious that the good Captain doesn't approve of alcohol or cocaine, right?  Well, maybe so, but let's see what these sentences actually say... or more importantly, what they don't.

First, "Why wouldn't we want other people to destroy themselves?"  This isn't a premise, but there are hidden premises in it.  It's just an appeal to emotion, and it assumes that we will accept hidden premises as true.  (Remember, a premise is a statement.  This is a question, and doesn't actually propose anything directly!)

Premise: Drugs and alcohol destroy people

Premise: Condoning drug and alcohol use is equal to wanting other people to destroy themselves

Premise: Drug and alcohol use are equivalent.

This last premise is a really sneaky one.  Notice that my OP was about alcohol and drugs.  Clearly, alcohol is also a drug, but I separated the two in the OP.  I didn't really explain why I separated the two, but isn't it interesting that the two are joined here?  The government separates alcohol and drugs.  Why?  There are unanswered questions.  Should alcohol and drugs be considered differently?  If so, why?  If they are considered separately, do the properties by which we delineate the differences lead logically to separate judgments regarding their use?

I asked a very pointed question in the OP, which, if considered objectively, leads to a lot more pointed questions.  Unfortunately, responses like the Captains only serve to reinforce the boundaries that I was questioning to begin with.  With no actual content at all, she has emotionally appealed to us to automatically assume the correctness of these three premises!  Clever readers will notice that my OP left this trap open to illustrate just how many assumptions people make when thinking about drugs and alcohol.

Premise: Condoning alcohol = condoning drunk driving

Premise: Condoning drunk driving = allowing people to die

Premise: People who drink will necessarily drive, -or- condoning drinking will increase the prevalence of drunk driving

Premise: Taking cocaine = promoting violence

Premise: Teenagers drinking on weekends = breaking shit and hurting themselves

Ok... so we've unearthed lots of hidden premises.  The first thing that a good critical thinker would do at this point would be to examine each premise for validity and external truth.  Consider the premise, condoning alcohol is the same as condoning drunk driving.  All we have to do is ask ourselves if it's possible to condone drinking alcohol while simultaneously opposing driving drunk.  This is simply answered.  In fact, I'm a great example.  I love alcohol.  Unabashedly.  I also have an almost religious objection to driving drunk.  After a close call at a checkpoint nearly a decade ago, I have been adamant in my determination never to drive after drinking.  I always walk, get a designated driver, call a cab, or take a bus after drinking.  Always.  I always encourage my friends to do the same.  It's easy to tell that I am opposed to drinking and driving, and in favor of drinking.

So, this unspoken premise is clearly false.  Condoning drinking is not the same as condoning drinking and driving.

However, if I may presume to speak for the Captain, she might well object that her unspoken premise is NOT that condoning drinking is the same as condoning drinking and driving.  She might point out that regardless of how we feel about the matter, in practice, allowing drinking is condoning drinking and driving because there are people who are not opposed to drinking and driving.

If any of you have watched me argue with Cpt in the past, you'll recognize a pattern here.  She will say something with an unspoken premise, and refuse to state her exact premise.  Then, when her implied premise is refuted, she will claim that it was not, in fact, her implied premise.  (She will also not tell you exactly what her implied premise really is...)  Once this cycle has started, it can go on indefinitely.  You can refute points you think she's making for days, and you'll never score an actual debate win because there's never been a clear elucidation of premises.

Politicians are very good at this. They say things with relatively clear implications, and people who want to agree will tend to agree.  Those who oppose the implications will object, only to be chided for not understanding the "subtlety" of the argument, or some other such rebuke.  (In all fairness, I doubt that Cpt_Pineapple is trying to trick or trap anyone.  I think she just has a strong emotional feeling about this, and hasn't figured out how to put it into an argument.  There's a lesson here.  If you feel very strongly but can't explain it logically, you probably need to do some more thinking before you commit to your own viewpoint as true.  It might be just emotions, not objective truth.)

To finish up, I'm going to show you how dangerous hidden premises really are.  Not only is it possible for them to be lurking in the argument, it's possible that hidden premises have their own hidden premises!

Premise: Condoning drug and alcohol use is equal to wanting other people to destroy themselves

Remember, don't stop looking just because you've found a hidden premise.  Every premise can contain hidden premises.  Until you find something that is clearly articulated and strongly supported, keep digging.  Anyway, hidden in this premise is the premise that using drugs or alcohol is equal to destroying oneself.  Hidden in that is the premise that destroying oneself is necessarily a bad thing.  Hidden in that premise is a weak definition!  What, exactly, does it mean to destroy oneself?

So, out of this one premise, we've got a lot of unsupported assertions which we'd certainly need to hash out if we were going to consider the question objectively.  Drugs and alcohol are a really great example of how appeals to emotion work.  Most people have some kind of strong feeling about it.  After all, most everyone knows someone who was affected by a drunk driving accident, and most everyone knows someone who's had a drug or alcohol abuse problem.  When things are this close to home, we often feel like something needs to be decided now! 

A sense of urgency is one of the best tools used by salesmen around the world.  Unfortunately, it's also been the downfall of impulse shoppers everywhere.  No matter how strongly we feel that a problem is really important right now, that is no justification for accepting a conclusion based on weak argument.

Now that I've dissected Pineapple's little rant, let's make a couple more observations.  Do you see any inherent assumptions made by the Pineapple that are not explicitly stated in my OP?  Does it seem to you that Pineapple believes I am advocating condoning drugs and alcohol?  If it does seem that way to you, take a minute and reread my OP.  Clearly, I'm questioning a widely held belief about the "badness" of drugs, and I certainly used some cheeky language that indicates my amusement at the argument, but did I state a conclusion about how we ought to condone drugs and alcohol?

A careful reading of my post will demonstrate that it was not an argument.  It was a debate topic.  To adapt Monty Python, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.  It isn't the questioning of another person's argument.

Ok... I will own up to a little trick in debate.  I used some leading language, and my position is relatively clear from the OP.  I do think that alcohol is just fine, and I don't have any problem with marijuana, although for my life I can't figure out what is so great about it.  However, notice that I didn't use my opinion on the matter as an actual argument?  Go back and read my post one more time.  Can you see now how clear it is that I have no conclusion?  I asked questions, and implied my own beliefs.  Nothing more.  My own beliefs are not part of my questions.  They're just asides.  Even so, notice that Pineapple ran with what she "thought" my conclusion was, and tailored her response to questions I didn't ask?  Be careful not to argue against something that hasn't been proposed.  That's a neat trick in debate, actually... lead people into arguing against your personal opinion instead of your stated premises or questions.  Clever, no?

I never mentioned condoning alcohol or drugs.  I asked why they're bad.  Now, suppose Pineapple had answered my OP thusly:

Had she said this, there most certainly would be some discussion necessary.  Many of these premises are questionable and contain their own hidden premises.  However, notice how much easier it is to spot the gaps in the argument when its stated directly, and not hidden within a snarky emotional response?

That's the whole point.  Don't let yourself be distracted by the snark.  I almost let myself do that, and allowed myself to respond with my own snarky little comment that didn't add anything to the discussion.  On further reflection, I'm glad I let my intellect prevail, and took the time to expose her lack of argument for exactly what it is.  Would that more people would do this regularly.

I often notice the same red herring from smokers when it's pointed out that public smoking bans are good because of the harm from secondhand smoke. They often say something along the lines of then alcohol should be banned due to drinking and driving. The problem is that drinking is not equivalent to drinking and driving, while smoking around nonsmokers is in and of itself harmful to nonsmokers. Someone can drink themselves to death and as long as they don't drive or do anything else that could cause harm by itself or when combined with drinking and nobody else will be harmed.

I would say anything that harms non-participants that doesn't have a benefit to everyone that outweighs said harm should be banned. Cigarette smoking has no benefit. Obviously cars, factories, etc do, unless you want to live like the Amish. Our society could continue with almost no noticible change if tobacco was suddenly eliminated, while eliminating industry or cars would change it to the point of unrecognizability. Of course there should still be laws limiting the ammount of polution cars/industry cause as much as feasible.

And, of course I was only talking about in public, not an outlawing of tobacco altogether.

I don't consider giving the individual pleasure to be a valid reason to keep something legal if it causes harm to others - by that logic we should allow rape - yes it harms the victims, but it gives the rapist pleasure. I don't want to play word games with defining every little thing. Obviously, we can't make a mathematical formula for what should and shouldn't be allowed - that's why we have an entire system of legislatures.

You're right Hamby, that was an emotional response. In fact when I read your reply, I almost typed another emotional rant. And when I saw the other booze topic I wanted to go on yet another.

Maybe I should just stay out of the topic.

I disagree, actually.

Nearly everything you say, no matter how well-defined and tip-toey your words are, is going to have subtext and 'hidden premises'. Even something as simple and well-defined as a mathematical formula contains the 'hidden premise' that math is an accurate system.

IMHO, this train of thought gives theists all the ammunition they could ever hope for:

Me: There is no evidence in the geological column for a massive global flood.

YEC: lol hidden premizez! science don work!

ME: ... *sigh*

Word games are abominational perversions of language. In order to communicate and explore, because we aren't telepathic or omniscient, certain degrees of reasonable assumption always have to be made. Using this natural deficiency in the human condition to accuse your opponent of fallacious reasoning rather than addressing their argument is lazy at best (I note a lot of linguists use this tactic to 'win' an argument), and defeats the whole purpose of discourse and deduction at worst.

Interesting. You'll fix our lack of belief in God by not being able to explain him.

This is a terrific question, IMHO. If God existed, he certainly could fix my lack of belief. In fact, it would be rather easy for a deity of his power to do so - and, if we also assume he loves me, he'd want to do that wouldn't he? I mean, I sure wouldn't want to burn in Hell forever if such a place existed, so why wouldn't a God who knows that and loves me let me know that he's here watching?

I agree, if God existed and IF He loved you, He would fix your unbelief.

Well, okay; so you're saying that he must not love me, then. Before we carry this further - the God you have put your faith into is Yahweh, the Christian deity, correct?

Dear Kevin,

I do not know how to use the quote function very well, so excuse me.

Yours:  "...According to the belief that you prescribe to, God is infinitely perfect in love; if he didn't love me, that would be rather petty for a supreme being, and it would falsify this premise."

If God does not love you, it does not falsify the premise.  I'm sure you have read the Bible, or the buybull as you guys put it.  And according to our fairy tails, God loves whom He chooses to love.  Being infinite in love does not necessarily mean it must be made manifest towards everyone.  If this were the case, that would mean He must love Lucifer, which is not the case.  However, there is debate over how God loves. 

In Reformed Theology, some Theologians opt for the position that God has selective love, or different levels of love, but nevertheless, loves everyone.  The perfect love, of course would be for Him to reveal Himself to humans, and save them from His wrath to come.  The other love (which I don't believe to be genuine love), would be that those whom God has opted to pass by, and leave in their sins, are given material provisions for their short stay on earth.  (I do understand that you believe the sun, breath, and food, are all natural amenities that are not provided to you by a creator God.) 

Yours:  "He can't just have 'opted' to do nothing because he doesn't love me because, remember, that falsifies the premise of his all-loving quality."

This is a common objection to Christianity.  "If God is all loving, how can He put people in hell," or, "If God is all loving, how come He doesn't reveal Himself to me"? 

God has not opted to do nothing, He does something with everything, and everyone.  Everyone has purpose, and whether that purpose be for God to manifest His love to you, or whether that purpose be for God to continue to blind you, and only manifest His wrath towards you, is all of His free choice.

"The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom." - Proverbs 16:4

Yours:  "If such a being existed, it would necessarily demonstrate itself to me so I wouldn't be condemned to Hell for my transgressions (...which is a further contradiction, but lets leave that aside for now)."

Yes, I understand the contradiction. 

Yours:  "So, what are we left to conclude?

That such a being does not exist, and cannot exist."

LOL.  Nice try.  But no one will ever prove that God does not exist.

Dear Bob,

Yours:  "Its not about "proof", it's about the relative weight of evidence, and there is negligible positive evidence."

I do agree that it's about evidence, but isn't a "relative weight of evidence" proof?   I'm sure I wont agree with what you have passed off as "negligible postive evidence."

Yours:  "All the justifications for belief in God are either arguments from ignorance, AKA 'God of the Gaps", or personal response to some 'spiritual' experience."

This statement is way to sweeping.  When I am posed with a difficult question, I will be the first to admit that I don't know.  At the same time, no one has it all figured out.  We just work with what we have.  

I do not argue for the existence of God.  The Bible never tells us to do that.  On the contrary, as you know, I believe that all humans are born with the knowledge that God exist.  For the most part, I just want atheist to have a clear conception of Christianity, and what the Bible teaches.  Whether you want to hate it, say it's not true, or rid the world of it, that is all your prerogative. 

Lastly, my belief in God is not based on some spiritual experience.  Christianity is not based on personal experience.  It's based on a body of evidence and truth.

Yours:  "Given the wide range of versions of 'God' conceived of by different individuals, and across different cultures, this only points to the fact that people are prone to have certain sorts of emotional experiences which are classed as 'spiritual'."

I beg to differ.  Given the wide range of version of 'God' is further proof that humans are inantely prone to believe there is a higher power.  There is probably not one atheist here who wasn't a Christian, Catholic, Muslim, et cetera, at one point, and changed paths somewhere along the line.  Everyone searches for purpose and meaning, because God has placed that inside everyone.

Yours:  "Given the propensities of the human mind to come to believe the most outrageous things about real-world things which can be clearly disproved, we'd need a lot more solid evidence than this to take seriously the whole 'higher power' thing."

I will grant it to you, that humans believe outrageous things.  Are you willing to exclude yourself from those who believe outrageous things? 

Concerning your last statement.  I'm sorry, but you will have to work with the same amount of evidence I have.  This is a tired debate, which is why I don't debate it.  If the things we can see are not enough for you, then I can't help you.

Yours:  "If choose to believe in God but reject UFO's, alien abductions, ghosts and fairies, you are being inconsistent and somewhat arbitrary, 'cause there is at least as much evidence and personal testimony for these and a host of totally whacko ideas as there is for any particular God."

Again, this is a very broad, and sweeping statment.  I don't reject those things in a sense, and let me explain.  If there is a spiritual realm, and if evil spirits are granted power to make humans delusional, then it would be possible for humans to have those "whacko" experiences.  Of course I don't believe in 'literal' UFO's, alien abductions, ghosts (the tv ones I think you're speaking of), and fairies, but again, if there was a spirit realm, and if evil spirits had the power to make humans conjecture those thoughts, I could understand why people think they literally experience those things.

My belief in God and rejection of those literal objects is not arbitrary.  Is your belief in science and rejection of God arbitrary?  Does science disprove the existence of a higher power?  My belief in God is based on the same evidence everyone else has to work with.  Call me irrational, but it actually does not take a behemoth amount of evidence for me to believe.   

That's fine, Matt.

Evidence?  Buddha laughed, Jesus wept, WTF ain't G-O-D ? Enough of this god dogma shit.     Think on the "NOW" the "ONE" the  "ETERNAL" .... shezzz .... yea, finally, science,  thermodynamics. So Godly !  

......................what evidence?