23
   

Can An Atheist Have A Soul?

 
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:01 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
The question in your thread title doesn't seem to coincide with your OP. You have quite a few ideas rolling around up there, and it seems as though you kind of just blurted them all out at once.

If possible, can you more clearly explain what it is you want to discuss?
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:08 pm
Just to be clear I am not saying that indeterminacy creates freewill directly. I am saying that awareness creates indeterminacy. The freewill of any given awareness or soul creates probabilities within any given reality. Since there are many souls willpower competing with these probabilities we will have to all battle for any given actuality.

If I try to convince others I have a soul and you try to convince them that there is no soul then only two outcomes are possible for any given person. They find your arguments more convincing or mine more so.

Of course the dynamics change if other persons who agree with you enter the debate now awareness energy is doubled against me so the probabilities against my view proliferate. But no matter how you measure the probabilities in my favor or against me the outcome of any individuals choice to keep believing in a soul or keep denying the possibility,the outcome is unpredictable. Behaviorism like religion relies on a cult like mentality to achieve predictable results.

Because we have freewill we are able to break with the cult of determinism. When a person does this their behavior becomes unpredictable and therefor free. But as an individual I have values and desires in common with many other people so knowing the rules of society I will often conform to behaviors favored by consensus. This gives many the perception of me as being determined and subject to the rules of behaviorism.

To the extent I hold values in common with most people or desire similar things I will appear to be with no freewill. But I can break this illusion at any time by exerting my will over my desires or changing the values I choose to accept in order to live a happy life. The illusion created thus is that of determinism not freewill. And I can break the illusion anytime I want simply by choosing to observe reality with different filters then consensus. Of course to truly be free I must eliminate all filters.

This is what is known as enlightenment. But filters are like sunglasses. If you want to see reality as it is it depends how often you decide to take them on or off. Most never even think of taking them off because to them the light is blinding. To me it is the only way in which I can truly see.
0 Replies
 
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:26 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

The question in your thread title doesn't seem to coincide with your OP. You have quite a few ideas rolling around up there, and it seems as though you kind of just blurted them all out at once.

If possible, can you more clearly explain what it is you want to discuss?


Yes in answering objections to my ideas I think I have opened up a lot of different discussions. My original post wasn't "Can any one prove the soul doesn't exist?" It also wasn't "Can science find any basis for the soul? "

I feel that I can make better arguments for the soul than a theist could for God. I find that most atheist seem to find the strength in arguments for the soul no better then the arguments for a God.

Since I demonstratively exist and I am aware not like a thermostat monitoring and adjusting to temperature by some mechanical feedback system, but actually self aware I think I have a much stronger point to start off with then a theist does arguing for a God.

I am starting of with something that is already accepted to exist. I am adding qualities that a materialist doesn't like and then I am forced to defend them scientifically. I don't mind doing this even though I think science only deals with the known.

Theist have nothing to start with yet atheist will rarely even have to use science to debate them because most theological arguments are based on faith and abstract concepts of absolutes.

Yet atheist seem to reject the idea of having a soul with no more respect for the strength of the arguments then they have for theist arguments for God.

I say arguments for God are obviously weaker than arguments for the soul because I do not have to resort to arguments of faith or abstract or the absolute.

Yet atheist tend to treat both arguments with the same weight.

My question is not why do atheist reject both God and the soul but why cant they discriminate between the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments and see that the arguments for the soul are stronger even if they are not necessarily provable.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:27 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
spiritual anrkst wrote:

To me once you proved one supernatural phenomena you proved them all.


As a matter of interest, does this imply that one bona-fide instance of mind-to-mind transmission (a.k.a. telepathy, thought transference) would amount to such a proof?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:30 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

think both generic and neurological determinism

Oops. I mean 'genetic'.
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 04:33 pm
I have to admit: I don't think QM has anything to do with the soul. I try to not cross my QM with my philosophy, as they're both esoteric and difficult to understand disciplines. Further, QM models matter at a small scale. "Soul", from what I can tell, models what we view about ourselves. I... really don't get how QM maps to philosophy, unless we're discussing the philosophy of science.

Btw: Copenhagen, FTW.
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:03 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley wrote:

I have to admit: I don't think QM has anything to do with the soul. I try to not cross my QM with my philosophy, as they're both esoteric and difficult to understand disciplines. Further, QM models matter at a small scale. "Soul", from what I can tell, models what we view about ourselves. I... really don't get how QM maps to philosophy, unless we're discussing the philosophy of science.

Btw: Copenhagen, FTW.


QM doesn't just model matter on a small scale it also models behavior of energy such as in the double slit experiment. To me what we view about ourselves is just an ego or persona and this is what psychology studies. I do not believe that I am my personality or ego. I believe that I am my soul or the awareness underneath the personality. I believe that like light awareness is another form of energy. I think this energy is measured by quantum physics by the observer and the uncertainty principle is caused by feedback between the observer and his own awareness.

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
The physicist Werner Heisenberg developed the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which says that when measuring the physical state of a quantum system there's a fundamental limit to the amount of precision that can be achieved.

For example, the more precisely you measure the momentum of a particle the less precise your measurement of its position. Again, in Heisenberg's interpretation this wasn't just a measurement error or technological limitation, but an actual physical limit.

This physical limit is imposed on our universe so that the observer isn't rejected out of our reality like someone who becomes too lucid in a dream and wakes up.
0 Replies
 
Huxley
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 05:22 pm
Allright, so:


QM describes soul, because soul is energy, and QM describes the behavior of energy.
Soul is a philosophical topic.
Therefore, QM maps to philosophy through soul (defined as energy).

Is this what you're saying?
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:05 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

spiritual anrkst wrote:

To me once you proved one supernatural phenomena you proved them all.


As a matter of interest, does this imply that one bona-fide instance of mind-to-mind transmission (a.k.a. telepathy, thought transference) would amount to such a proof?


You have to understand that I no longer believe in the supernatural. I think maybe Quantum Physics may eventually replace Metaphysics or atleast become a major branch of Metaphysics. Then we might have to start discussing the Metanatural *L*

I know that I am an Empath. To me this is just another sense. It is not supernatural. I think the word supernatural was a word invented to denote another universe where the laws of physics do not apply but are replaced with principles of magic imposed by God or Gods.

I do believe that there is more than one universe just not one that doesn't have to obey physical laws. I used to talk about the Multiverse on my webpages when I first got on the internet right about when the internet was starting. Of course now science is starting to catch up to me and take the many worlds theory seriously. Eventually science will catch up and accept Quantum Consciousness. Even now I can feel the time is coming near and quantum consciousness is right around the corner. But science deals with the known. Science is very slow in hypothesizing about the unknown unless they can create a bomb with it.

Einsteins theory of relativity would never been accepted if it hadn't been our governments desire for the atom bomb. So if it wasn't for man's desire to kill each other better we probably wouldn't even have quantum physics. It is all about desire and greed for power.

Science makes fun of ESP but that didn't stop our government from creating secret projects in remote viewing. Extra Sensory Perception isn't science unless you can use it to spy on people.

Science hasn't discovered the soul because it isn't very useful in governments desire to control the masses.

It is all about filters. Most women desire tall men with lots of money. So I will find tons of profiles on dating services asking why they cant find an intelligent sensitive guy who won't treat them bad. And I have to say to myself it is because they don't actually look for guys like me. This is why in the real world of dating I get the same results. I meet women who want a guy with certain mental qualities and someone they can trust but they look right past me. When a 6 foot guy walks by they see him. They engage him etc . I am invisible. Lately women have been seeing me and flirting etc. But again once I take it past flirting they decide they want someone with money or desires money. So the end result is they will keep asking why they cant find a good guy?

The answer is because they are not really looking for that. They are looking for the superficial first then once they have a few candidates that turn them on and can protect and provide they assess them for the other traits and are surprised each time when the traits are not there. If they find any traits at all that even appear a little spiritual then they settle.

Me I am no better. A lot of times women I find completely unattractive will approach me. Women 10 years older than me or more . Women that are more than 100lbs over what I weigh. So many women I find unattractive approach me that I begin to tune them out. I do not see them. So overcompensate I have been known to chase women much younger than me or chase women just for their hot bodies. There are plenty of women that are average in looks that are not hot to me or repulsive to me but because of the types of women that are usually attracted to me I would overcompensate by not even looking.This is how bias works.

You only see what you want to see. Scientist get funding from government. If the government could gain power or build bigger bombs by funding scientific study of the soul then we would have research about the soul. But not only would the government not gain power if any evidence was found for the soul but they might very well lose all the power they have.

The government is not threatened by religions idea of the soul because not only is it not scientific but it is a concept of the soul based on theology. Since theology teaches determinism there is no threat to their power. Buddhism doesn't teach there is a God so since most people who believe in the soul also believe in God very few will be attracted to Buddhism. So Buddhism is not a threat.

Plus as a Buddhist I have found the most accepted forms of Buddhism do not teach there is a soul either. They teach the not self. When most Buddhist describe the process of reincarnation it sounds like a description of DNA and Genetics. Karma is just another genetic code that determines personality tendencies. Where in real genetics the parents would determine genetic traits in Buddhism our karma would provide the traits by some kind of quantum transference of energies.

But these are only patterns like a radio transmission the music is transmitted not the musician. That is most Buddhist I know are nihilist about the soul just as are Atheist and Christians. Christians are nihilist because they believe that when you die you cease to exist but God remembers what you are like and after judgment day will create a new world and if he likes you he will create another human and give them your memories.

Atheist believe that your brain creates an Artificial Intelligence that can not run without the brain. Buddhist believe that karma patterns create similarities in people that are alive based on a blueprint of the dead. They believe this because they interpret emptiness as no-self and no-self as no soul. This isn't what Buddhism teaches but is what most Buddhist believe. Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Why do Christians agree with Atheist ? Why do scientist agree with Buddhist?


Because this is Hell. In Hell those in power do not want you to be free. Your freedom threatens their power. So no matter what you believe or don't believe those in power will discourage the idea of a freewilled soul in any way they can in any belief system they can influence. This is why in Existentialism
Sartre not only argues that man is condemned to be free but that Hell is other people.
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:22 pm
@Huxley,
Huxley wrote:

Allright, so:


QM describes soul, because soul is energy, and QM describes the behavior of energy.
Soul is a philosophical topic.
Therefore, QM maps to philosophy through soul (defined as energy).

Is this what you're saying?


Yes but more importantly that my basis is for even beginning this investigation is the hard problem of consciousness. I am saying that the hard problem of consciousness and the problems of measurement in Quantum Physics are one and the same problem .

I am also saying that even if I am wrong that this is a much stronger basis for argument then theologians give for God.

Yet atheist seem to treat my argument with no more respect than they do with the theologian arguing from abstract principles of perfection or the absolute.

Wrong or not I contend my arguments are way stronger. And if I lose I do not have to resort to Jesus died for you or you are going to Hell if you don't agree with me. In fact I contend those types of arguments are not only weak like Pascal's Wager but are immoral to make.

On the other hand the argument for freewill is actually the basis for any form or morality worth having.

So my argument is both ontologically and morally superior to the theological argument for God.

My original question that started this thread was why can't most atheist see this?

I want atheist to acknowledge the superiority of my argument to Theology God arguments before they attempt to demolish my argument.

In this thread I wasn't trying to convince anyone the soul exist just that the probability is stronger then that for an Angry Invisible Man in The Sky.

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy ****! "

George Carlin
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:27 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
Quote:
Einsteins theory of relativity would never been accepted if it hadn't been our governments desire for the atom bomb


I am sorry but I think this is a completely false idea. I have recently read Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson - I recommend it. First the General, and some years later the Special, Theories of Relativity were completed by Einstein as a young man. The General theory was published in science journals, and straightaway recognized as one of the most important scientific theories ever discovered. As it happens, during the 1920's, Einstein was approached by a young physicist who believed that the theory could be used to create a new class of weapon. Einstein simply refused to believe it. Einstein wasn't asked to assist in the US war effort until the end of WWII - but in the end he played a very minor role in the development of nuclear weapons. It is of course true that this program could not have developed without Einstein's work, but the time between the publication of the General Theory and the Atom Bomb project was almost 40 years. Furthermore, and I am not defending the arms industry, or warfare, I do believe the US developed the bomb for defensive reasons, and if Hitler had got there first, the consequences would have been unthinkable.

As regards the rest of your post, quantum consciousness, multiuniverses, the soul, Buddhism, DNA and the rest of it, I have some advice. Slow down!As I see it, the point of Buddhist meditation it is to overcome your internal obstacles, develop peace of mind, learn loving-kindness and learn to be able to help others. These things are far more important that speculative theories about multiverses. Remember the wise Zen saying: 'I chop wood, I draw water: how marvellous, how mysterious!'. I think that is a good attitude to work towards.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:01 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
spiritual anrkst wrote:

I would like to hear from atheist that reject all forms of spiritual ideas. Most Atheist I encounter are very comfortable debating or disproving Judaic-Christian mythology as well as Muslim belief etc I do not belong to any religion or have any theological beliefs myself.

So to make my question clear I want to know what philosophical reasoning leads most atheist to reject all spirituality even when the spiritual ideas presented are stripped of religion or theology? If atheist applied the same type of reasoning to quantum physics that they typically apply to the idea of a soul or reincarnation the exploration of physics beyond Newton would come to a screeching halt.

In fact quantum physics seems to point to awareness (The Observer) as the cause behind random events overthrowing determinism much to the chagrin of atheist and theological determinist alike. Most atheist like predetermined behaviorism just as theologians like predetermined design to prove their God concepts. And for the same reason. So that those in power can dominate the sheep who give up their freewill to appease the psychology of "the norm" so as to fit in or to appease the church they belong to that they are obedient so they can get the benefit of the group.

So my question remains why reject all metaphysical questions relating to spiritual ideas just because religion is obviously blind and misguided? Why agree to be an unquestioning cog in the behaviorist machine to avoid being one of the religious sheep? What is wrong with replacing Descartes meditations on "I think therefor I am" With "I am aware therefor I have freewill"? For me I can doubt that I think.

Maybe thoughts simply occur because my brain is wired for language. My brain could be generating random words and I am simply rejecting what I have been programmed to believe by society as nonsensical or non adaptive etc and accepting the thoughts that my brain generates randomly that seem to benefit me... as my own... not because I created these thoughts... but simply because this has been the type of thinking that has benefited me in the past.

This would explain consensus or conformist thinking such as religious thinking when the benefits of "belonging" outweigh the disadvantages of nonsensical reasoning. So I can doubt that I think. And I can believe thoughts just "happen" to me no different than me tuning into a radio station over other stations because that type of music appeals to me. My thoughts are not me. I have experienced a sense of self without any thoughts occurring whatsoever but I have never had any experience where I had no awareness.

I can not blame this on my senses receiving input. Even in sensory deprivation there is awareness. Sometimes I am awake before my body wakes. I can not sense my body at all yet I exist and I am aware. So if I am not my thoughts and I am not my senses and I am not my body...then I must be my awareness because there is nothing left for me to be unless I do not exist at all.

But if that were the case then somebody must be imagining me. Unless you are a nihilist or solipsist you must admit that my argument that the only thing I can not doubt if my awareness and from my awareness I can infer that I exist. If observation creates reality then quantum physics can be used to prove together with the premise that I am my awareness to prove that I not only exist but that I am free in a way that is relevant to the argument for freewill. This does not prove I have a soul but I moves the question out of the domain of pure speculation.

This does not automatically open the door for religion or religious concepts of God. Yet the atheist will argue against the soul usually without even considering the points I just made because religion has all but demanded that the soul can only be discussed in a religious context. Why do atheist give them this? Why do atheist just give religion this power so that if an atheist were ever to decide on any basis that maybe they did have a soul they would have to convert by default to some nonsensical faith or religion? Do I need to choose between accepting an invisible man in the sky that controls me like a puppet or being the end result of a chemical bath of my brain? Isn't this the fallacy of the false alternative?


I'm an atheist and I do have soul

the soul of Humanity

the Human Spirit
0 Replies
 
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:15 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Einsteins theory of relativity would never been accepted if it hadn't been our governments desire for the atom bomb


I am sorry but I think this is a completely false idea. I have recently read Einstein: His Life and Universe, by Walter Isaacson - I recommend it. First the General, and some years later the Special, Theories of Relativity were completed by Einstein as a young man. The General theory was published in science journals, and straightaway recognized as one of the most important scientific theories ever discovered. As it happens, during the 1920's, Einstein was approached by a young physicist who believed that the theory could be used to create a new class of weapon. Einstein simply refused to believe it. Einstein wasn't asked to assist in the US war effort until the end of WWII - but in the end he played a very minor role in the development of nuclear weapons. It is of course true that this program could not have developed without Einstein's work, but the time between the publication of the General Theory and the Atom Bomb project was almost 40 years. Furthermore, and I am not defending the arms industry, or warfare, I do believe the US developed the bomb for defensive reasons, and if Hitler had got there first, the consequences would have been unthinkable.

As regards the rest of your post, quantum consciousness, multiuniverses, the soul, Buddhism, DNA and the rest of it, I have some advice. Slow down!As I see it, the point of Buddhist meditation it is to overcome your internal obstacles, develop peace of mind, learn loving-kindness and learn to be able to help others. These things are far more important that speculative theories about multiverses. Remember the wise Zen saying: 'I chop wood, I draw water: how marvellous, how mysterious!'. I think that is a good attitude to work towards.


Interesting response. To me there is no conflict. when hungry eat. When bored philosophize. I was just having fun with DNA and the Multiverse even though I'm not as prolific as Douglas Adams I meant my questions in the same spirit. I meant the question of a soul in the spirit of Socrates. My intent was simply to question the nihilistic assumptions our society encourages.

Getting back to Zen
My question is
Why is a mouse when it spins?
And the answer is MU

For those who don't study Zen

MU
http://int.kateigaho.com/jan04/zen-mu.html
When discussing Zen Buddhism, one often encounters the character for emptiness, mu, in expressions such as "no self," "no ego," "no holiness," and "no permanence." It is through the actual experience of mu — which means transcending affirmation and negation, being and nonbeing — that satori or spiritual awakening occurs and one can finally come to realize the essential spirit of Zen. Gaining some intellectual understanding is merely a first step in knowing about Zen; to enter into and deepen that understanding, one must experience mu for oneself.

Or an understanding resonating more with Socrates
http://www.csarven.ca/mu
MU
" A simple, yet, an useful answer to any question (i.e., in Zen, philosophy) that is difficult to answer. Once the answer 'mu' is given the question has been unasked. It leaves the question in void and it is up for the questioner to reflect upon themselves. One does not become enlightened by asking and answering the greatest questions, therefore, earthly methods of wisdom is merely unnecessary. It is the experience that mu offers that one should seek in their life. An individual cannot truly move forward while carrying their previous knowledge. One must let go of what they know and open themselves to infinite possibilities in this universe. This offers an opportunity for the individual to reflect, grow, and strengthen ones mind, body and soul."
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 11:38 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
well I gotta say this spiritual anrkst, you're full of surprises!

Quote:
It is through the actual experience of mu — which means transcending affirmation and negation, being and nonbeing — that satori or spiritual awakening occurs and one can finally come to realize the essential spirit of Zen. Gaining some intellectual understanding is merely a first step in knowing about Zen; to enter into and deepen that understanding, one must experience mu for oneself.


that is the perspective that is of interest to me in all this.
0 Replies
 
year2027
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 08:53 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
God first

thanks spiritual anrkst

What does having soul have anything to do with God Image because the soul is in Blood?

Lev 17:11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

otherwise soul and spirit are not the same

soul life is in blood

spirit life is the image of God or illusion we know is real

with love and a holy kiss Roy
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 10:56 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
"I would like to hear from atheist that reject all forms of spiritual ideas"

That would be me, but it is not so much reject because I don't like them or hate the idea of it. It's not so much a rejection as it is a lack of confirmation that what people say on one end is actually reality on the other. Many times what is considered spiritual is so vague and so unspecific that practically anything can be call spiritual. When it comes right down to it, you could make anything seem spiritual because the concept itself is so incredibly vague. This leaves the door wide open for people to manipulate others with some sort of spiritual "training" or "guidance" but it is nothing more than a scam to make money.

"If atheist applied the same type of reasoning to quantum physics that they typically apply to the idea of a soul or reincarnation the exploration of physics beyond Newton would come to a screeching halt."

Seriously? As a person who actually enjoys quantum physics I find this incredibly funny because the theories in quantum physics actually are useful and can be used to make predictions. Quantum electro dynamics is the most broadly encompassing field that explains practically 98% of the workings of the world and the universe. Sure I won't deny that the theories themselves and how they are worked out is incredibly crazy if not borderline absurdity, bu the key difference between spirituality and quantum physics is that one can actually be used to make predictions and the other is just a huge vague guess. As soon as spirituality can be utilized outside the norm of stealing peoples money and selling false hopes, then we might be able to consider that it has something useful to provide humanity.

"So my question remains why reject all metaphysical questions relating to spiritual ideas just because religion is obviously blind and misguided?"

Once again, no actual science based person outright rejects spiritual concepts or ideas simply because they may or may not have some religious affiliation. It does not work that way and anyone who tries to claim that is their reasoning, is probably the furthest away from being scientific that you can get. There is no rejection, what you are trying to call rejection is actually a result to the lack of substantial evidences to support spiritual ideas. Huge claims are made and seldom are they ever backed up.

The rest of your talk is more focused on your existence and I get the impression that you are caught up in your existence that you can't fathom you being absolutely nothing after this life ends. Your brain refuses to accept it or acknowledge it, so you jump to some other notion to probably ease your brain. However; your brain activity is what makes you arise in the first place, there in fact really is no you that is a substantial entity that has any sort of static existence. Face it, you are a chemical meat bag that will one day become cold and lifeless and you'll never have another thought again but you won't even be aware that you are not thinking either, so what are you so worried about?

But to actually give you some credit and not actually brush off the topic that easy, I'll entertain the idea of a soul for a moment.

There are some huge problems with the concept of the soul first off. Some simple questions about it:

First off, what exactly do you mean by soul? It is something that can move around, talk, does it need rest, does it have emotions, does it feel pain/pleasure, ect?

What powers the soul? How does it get it's energy to maintain itself? If it does not require any input of energy to maintaining doing what it does, then how does it function? Absolutely NOTHING in this existence can function without some kind of energy input. If the soul needs energy where does it get it and how is it used?

What does the soul look like? It is some kind of mirror image of yourself? Does it wear clothes, have hair? Does it have tattoos and birthmarks? Does it have limbs or missing limbs? Or is it just some blob of light that floats around where ever souls go?

These are some pretty basic questions that do require being answered for the conversation about the soul to even be taken slightly serious. Otherwise the concept itself gets left vague just like the concept of spirituality gets left vague. If you can't answer them because you do not know, then what is it exactly do you know that gives you the first impression that there is even a soul to begin with if you can't identify any of it's properties or traits?
0 Replies
 
Owen phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2010 07:26 am
@spiritual anrkst,
imho,
The 'world' consists of two different kinds of entities, concrete and abstract.
Concrete entities are composed of space-time-mass-energy.
Abstract entities are constructions of mind: fictional entities, language, numbers, etc.

There is no use or value in the concept of 'spiritual entities'.

We can show the existence of concrete entities by the methods of science...empirical truth.
e.g. Water is wet implies water exists, and wetness exists.
We can show the existence of abstract things by the methods of logic
...tautologous truth.
e.g. 2+1=3, implies 2 exists, and 1 exists, and 3 exists, etc..

There is no method of 'showing' the existence of spiritual things at all,
...so, why would it be 'logical' to grant existence to things which cannot
be 'shown to be the case'.

Because.. the Soul is an (assumed) spiritual entity, and we cannot show its existence, ..we should not believe in such nonsense.

Magic, godly things, etc, etc,..do not exist!
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2010 08:44 am
@jeeprs,
Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church, he devised a new style of religiosity which was extremely individualistic and highly puritanical.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is a common mistake, confusing Luther and Calvin. Calvin was puritanical.
Luther was not at all. His theology was basically Catholic. Liturgically, vestments, symbols, sacred art. He honored the Virgin Mary and so the saints as models for Christian living. In private life Luther loved beer, food and couples should have sex twice a week, people should marry when they entered puperty.
Luther wanted to reform the Catholic Church, which much of the Lutheran Church in Scandinavia and USA is today.
Luther remained fundamentally a Catholic his whole life. Luther was an ordained Catholic priest, and Augustinian friar, a professor of Catholic theology.
Calvin was a lawyer, never ordained and led an ascetic life.
0 Replies
 
year2027
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2010 12:40 pm
God first

thanks everybody

does the soul live and can an Atheist prove it?

yes because understanding of soul is what what makes animal alive

we breath in oxygen because travels in our blood we live

science can prove that take in oxygen to live and its in our blood

now spiritual life can be seen it is refection that we cannot see

love is something we cannot see but know its there

the love in a pair of animals

the love that the Atheist person has is the same has the Christian has

but no one can prove it is

science can see and prove the reactions of love but they not prove love itself

with love and a holy kiss Roy
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Dec, 2010 12:46 pm
You are an addle-pated twit. Apart from that, i'm sure you're a nice guy.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/23/2019 at 05:40:44