The older version of this was not allowing the Bible to be translated into anything but Latin. The word obfuscation comes to mind. "Good writing is clear thinking made visible" - Bill Wheeler. The process must begin with clear thinking.
It was a bit disappointing that he wouldn't define soul. Feser and others try to save the concept by appealing to Aristotle's hylomorphism, but there is absolutely no reason to think anything about a hylomorophism is immortal. Aristotle only thought the intellect (not the soul) was immortal because he didn't think it was tied to any organ. Aquinas made the same fundamental biological mistake (biology studies the form, i.e. the soul of living things). To make matters worse, Paul and Jesus seemed (hard to interpret at times) to teach a physical resurrection of the dead at the second coming. Nothing about the soul floating off to heaven when you die. They made that up later. The best example is from 1 Cor 15 , it explains why the resurrection of Jesus was important...it was the beginning of the general resurrection which was the first step of the coming Kingdom of God. That was 2000 years ago (and Paul thought he would live to see it).
I came here to talk philosophy, but it seems that too many apologists simply want to hide behind philosophy, not really talk about it.

If you actually attempt to discuss the issues he pretends to talk about, he responds with the same gibberish.

Yup. I´ve seen his schtick on other sites before. It can be quite amusing though, because his endeavour to write as pretentiously as is humanly possible sometimes leads to simply hilarious constructs like:
"Love's ceaseless reciprocity amid the unavoidably triune instantiates (at some ontological seam somewhere) in the Adamic vis-à-vis the Imago Dei."

If you actually attempt to discuss the issues he pretends to talk about, he responds with the same gibberish. Sad and annoying at the same time. Just fyi I don't think there is much moderation, here at least, anymore. It occurs at random sometimes.

I take it you are a fan of Feser...

Well, imagine you had a piece of software that takes random articles from Feser, David Bentley Hart or WLC, extracts random quotes from those articles, spices them up with poorly written juvenile taunts and pure gibberish (like "The very concept of one deflationary vector "informing" another deflationary vector is absurd") - and you have scbrownlhrm in a nutshell. I have honestly no idea why Christian mods tolerate his trolling, but they do.

are you claiming the mind is immaterial? let's just get to brass tacks please. soul-did-it? yes or no?

Do you show your work supporting the christian paradigm in that post of yours? reading your sentences reminds me of an elaborate dance of a bird with huge, colorful plumage. its distracting. just get to the point please.

"As for causations, plural, once again we need only allow reason to do her proper work."

You keep saying that. If you care about letting reason take its course, I think you should become an atheist skeptic. It's the honest position. "I don't know, let's find out."

Read some of Matt Dillahunty sometime. Or just watch his videos.

With exasperation, I will pre-empitvely amend "I don't know, let's find out" to "I don't know, let's TRY and find out." ;)

Catholic apologists are obsessed with the strategy of building atheist straw men to block the dialogue coming from the other end of the discussion. You're dogmatic, you're absolutist, you're claiming to know this for sure, etc. Thus I have to turn Matt's catchy saying into something more clunky.

"That the Christian’s paradigm happens to avoid such final eliminations of lucidity"

Where and how?

You claim to not say "god did it", and I hope that your reaction to my sarcastic offer of "God did it" means that you reject it where you see it. Do you prune the apologetics of others? Have you kept an eye on what goes on in your own house and told apologists to acknowledge what an explanation really is? There's a lot of "god did it" out there, you must be very busy if you do rein even some of it in.

and in fact, I don't like the term "god of the gaps" myself. I prefer the formal category: Argument from Ignorance. The failure of the opposition to account for something doesn't help you until you show your own work.

How do Catholic schools operate if this is the standard of the church built on reason?

"Students, which of you has a translation to the Voynich Manuscript?"

Say none of the students can offer an answer, except for the last one who is asked. Does he really have the answer? When should we give him the grade? Before or after he shows his work? Should we accept any answer he gives so long as he gives us something?

Challenging folks, not by offering “gap” arguments or “god” arguments, but by simply pushing them to follow their own means and ends and make a decision rather than a hedge is going to drive a few away from conversing given the inevitable price-tag of having to deny the undeniable.

You clearly don't understand why people might want to avoid talking to you. It has nothing to do with you forcing them to deny the undeniable. Although, if you think the non-theist must deny mind and self, then you are mistaken.

That reveals a lot about the OP’s main topic – being open to allowing a wide array of intellectual disciplines to inform one’s reason and subsequently follow such while avoiding absurdity and retaining lucidity.

I didn't find the OP to be particularly thought provoking and I don't think it is very relevant to your off topic polemic, but I'm willing to indulge things that are off topic.

The classic “internet
atheists” as it were are on occasion, not always, sort of quasi-open in that fashion.

Whatever. Repetitive word choice by the way.

The elimination of the Self, of the Mind may be needed, sure

Sure.

but that is such an extreme move driven by some sort of bizarre fear (or something) with such far-reaching problems (and in fact ends up insolvent)

Most atheists are not trying to eliminate self, so this is irrelevant.

Non-Theist who takes offense at being pushed on that point, at not allowing hedges (nor ad hominem…) to derail the point

Nobody is taking offense at being pushed on any point. We are taking offense at your arrogance and rudeness.

reveals the wisdom of the OP’s topic as it relates to closed minds and emotional commitments.

Did we even read the same OP?

The Non-Theist will have to bring
evidence of what is on the other side of losing our minds if he expects to have any intellectual right to claim reason and logic as being in his corner.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

Since we’re merely allowing reason and logic to do their proper work, a sort of eyes-wide-open approach to reality and in particular to the point under review,
the Non-Theist is not being given (in these comments) “gap” arguments nor “god” arguments

I don't on principle take issue with this.

but he is, quite simply being pushed to address his own paradigm's solution", as in reach, which carries us nto philosophically untenable, morally objectionable, and internally inconsistent nds given that the metaphysically irreducible means and ends which he is in need of are, simply, non-entity.

So you claim. You haven't done much work to show it though. If though, to shore up a theory of mind, you posit a deity, you are engaging in a god of the gaps argument, unless you can show that such a being is necessary under all theories of mind.
I do not have any problem with postulating a first cause deity. Occasionally, us atheists wonder if there might be a deist type God. The thing is that you do not just believe in a deist God. You believe in Yahweh-Jesus. A deity that simply does not exist regardless of what problems my theory of mind may or may not have.

edit: formatting

Lol!

Wow. Just Googled that the Upadana speaks of the material manifestation of Brahman... like a Jesus Christ????. Suffering yes.. The acceptance of it, or.....What are these religions saying here? Do we all have to work out our individual interpretations? And even in how other people 'seem' or 'actually' contradict themselves with respect to specific 'judgments'....And how the same idea can be expressed differently by different people, or 'institutional authorities', like in belief systems, or in literature, whatever...which explains why it happens to be of fundamental importance for me, to look for correlations, (not correspondences, or cause and effect) between ideas....
Edit: Hope you see this William. I'm exactly at 2300 comments!!! So please don't answer. it will be an ending. But they are different. Like just now an epiphany? Like This Hindu thing, is an explanation of why there is suffering which is entailed within the 'constitution of the universe' not within man's transgression, alone, although the laws of Karma, (therefore an impersonal? law) do operate within the 'continuity of cause and effect within consciousness' - human as well as within the external world. I did in my study, however, often find a confusion between these two aspects which are dualistic within the western paradigm... No in Buddhism you are almost in one and then the other, like a kind of inter-relationship (edit: that is without 'rationality' or even the belief in unity) (edit: i.e. Buddhism). I really would like to study it more, now that you have helped me get to this level. It's like with anything, you get one simple little extra bit of information of something, and the 'whole picture' changes. Thanks William....

Edit: And will you see this.. I immediately run into it just after writing this comment. Like another dual dualism, besides Heidegger's. But it take so much work to analyze the possibilities within these various what? your choice of word: paradigms? Or is that what they mean by being caught in a 'matrix'.....It's going to be hard for me to move from a Kant/Christian paradigm to examine these in full details. You almost have to 'live according to their structure' in order to understand them......so?????? (edit: they mention 'matrix meditation' which is possibly related to what I was attempting in my 'mindfulness', experiment to be aware of the interactions between my mind and ??? What was observed as producing an 'incoherence' trying to do it-- remember?) http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Matrix-of-Four-Postmo-by-Ethan-Indigo-Smith-Awareness_Consciousness_Matrix_Meditation-160120-109.html

Edit 2: No I'm not going to go there. I decided some time ago that Heidegger was no go because of the dualism..... The triad I believe is more 'dynamic'.....But I'd be willing to multiply it by 4....Then we'd be back to 12 again. Back to the twelve tribes, or the Pagan gods of the constellations????? Edit: 3: Yes. and in Hinduism and Buddhism there 'is' a problem of 'agency' (edit: or no 'real' agency, like.....after all karma is thought of as an 'impersonal' rule, and Brahma, is something special somehow, in relation to the other 3 Gods!!!! I 'believe' !!!!!).....