NationStates Jolt Archive

What is a soul? :confused:

your personality...your lifes experiences melted together to produce a unique you..thats your soul

It's a primitive explanation for where one's personality comes from.

It's a primitive explanation for where one's personality comes from.

-.- primitive explanation?, yeah whatever.

Your soul is from what i remember, your spiritual essence. That's what ascends to Heaven (or goes to hell), after judgement...depending on your religion works. The soul is you..., you'll obviously have the same experience...since it is you, regardless.

So to repeat, your soul is the spiritual part of your physical body.

It's the leather or rubber bit on the underside of your footwear.....


:D

Well, it could be your spiritual essence, the 'you' within your body. Alternatively, the soul. is an illusion created by the normal thought processes that leads you to believe that you are more than just this crude matter. Or it might just be an unfortunate miss-spelling of 'sole', and everyone's been getting all confused about feet. It's so hard to know.

In judaism/christianity there are two views. The old view was that a human being is an animated body. The soul, under that view, is the force that animates the body. The modern view is that a human being is not an animated body but is actually an embodied soul. Under the old view, you ARE your body + your soul. Under the modern view, you are a soul that inhabits a body. Both views of the soul and what constitutes a human being are intriguing and have their pros and cons. I enjoy studying things from both perspectives.

It's the leather or rubber bit on the underside of your footwear.....


:D


sweet. Someone gets it. :D

The soul is you, it is your personality, your essence, everything that makes you, you.

I do think that since humans have such advanced personalities, something has to happen with our essence when we die. I just cannot accept that we dissapear forever.

-.- primitive explanation?, yeah whatever.

Your soul is from what i remember, your spiritual essence. That's what ascends to Heaven (or goes to hell), after judgement...depending on your religion works. The soul is you..., you'll obviously have the same experience...since it is you, regardless.

So to repeat, your soul is the spiritual part of your physical body.
Yup primitive explination :p

Your soul is from what i remember, your spiritual essence. That's what ascends to Heaven (or goes to hell), after judgement...depending on your religion works. The soul is you..., you'll obviously have the same experience...since it is you, regardless.

So to repeat, your soul is the spiritual part of your physical body.

But what does that mean?
What is spiritual? What is a spiritual essence? What is heava? What is hell?


(I really, truely don't comprehend - your answer might just have been "your
flenx is your shazbot." :confused: )

Yup primitive explination :p

I'm going to regret saying this...but can you disprove a soul doesn't exist?

No, you can't! Thus it is a continual modern theory/fact.

The soul is the whole self, body and spirit together. The spirit or animus, is the life force that inhabits the body and gives the means to live and do whatever else it does. Think of the self like a computer. When it shuts down, nothing can work. But turn it back on, and the animus will juice up the body with bioelectrical energy that enables it to function. All animals have some intellectual capacity, but the animal Homo sapiens has the capacity for abstract thought, self-awareness, and vocal communication due to our higher evolutionary status. Energy is never destroyed, it just changes back and forth from energy to matter, and so the spirit continues in some form. I don't believe in some conscious afterlife the way some think of it though.

I'm going to regret saying this...but can you disprove a soul doesn't exist?

No, you can't! Thus it is a continual modern theory/fact.
oh I am ;)

Lets look at the word primitive


prim·i·tive Audio pronunciation of "primitive" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prm-tv)
adj.

1. Not derived from something else; primary or basic.
2.
1. Of or relating to an earliest or original stage or state; primeval.
2. Being little evolved from an early ancestral type.
3. Characterized by simplicity or crudity; unsophisticated: primitive weapons. See Synonyms at rude.
4. Anthropology. Of or relating to a nonindustrial, often tribal culture, especially one that is characterized by a low level of economic complexity: primitive societies.
5. Linguistics.
1. Serving as the basis for derived or inflected forms: Pick is the primitive word from which picket is derived.
2. Being a protolanguage: primitive Germanic.
6. Mathematics. An algebraic or geometric expression from which another expression is derived.
7. Relating or belonging to forces of nature; elemental: primitive passions.
8.
1. Of or created by an artist without formal training; simple or naive in style.
2. Of or relating to the work of an artist from a nonindustrial, often tribal culture, especially a culture that is characterized by a low level of economic complexity.
9. Of or relating to late medieval or pre-Renaissance European painters or sculptors.
10. Biology. Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage of development or evolution.

Fits 1
And in my personal opinion fits 3 as well
I not saying it is not nessisarly true but rather the explination of what it is is primitive (by 1 or 3)

oh I am ;)

Lets look at the word primitive


Fits 1
And in my personal opinion fits 3 as well
I not saying it is not nessisarly true but rather the explination of what it is is primitive (by 1 or 3)


Then i claim science to be primitive as well! After all, hasn't science also been used to explain the unexplained? ;) And it's just as old...

Then i claim science to be primitive as well! After all, hasn't science also been used to explain the unexplained? ;) And it's just as old...
You could claim that too :D though the method updates ... and science in of itself (atleast scientific learning) is updated when things are descovered (at least base of knoledge)

Dont know ehhh oh well

You could claim that too :D though the method updates ... and science in of itself (atleast scientific learning) is updated when things are descovered (at least base of knoledge)

Dont know ehhh oh well


Does that mean i disproved Science?! :eek:

Hurray! I told you Scientology..and Atheism was wrong! Now convert back your heathens!

.. This thread is dead isn't it?

Does that mean i disproved Science?! :eek:

Hurray! I told you Scientology..and Atheism was wrong! Now convert back your heathens!

.. This thread is dead isn't it?
Maybe ... I am sure someone will come on and argue about something we have said lol

Maybe ... I am sure someone will come on and argue about something we have said lol

Who cares, it'll either end up being an experienced debater joining in on the stupidity, or an Atheist newb, that didn't pick up on the sarcasm. :)
Or was i sarcastic? Mwahahahahah! :D

.. This thread is dead isn't it?

Only if you won't answer any of my questions. :(
I really want to know what you mean with all those words.

What is a soul? :confused:

According to the Bible, a body made of dust + the breath of God.

Only if you won't answer any of my questions. :(
I really want to know what you mean with all those words.


In hebrew it's called the Neshema... Basically it's the breath of G-d, I think my new statement will contradcit my old one...but meh.

Think of us as Golems... Our bodies are just the physical part, our Soul doesn;t start off with a personality, we create that as we go..but it's whats responsible for our life, and intelligence basically.

.. Keruvilia, knows better. :)

Breath of God, ineffable essence, animating power, memories - desires - emotions, that which lives after you die.

The explanations for supernatural words like this go on and on and on. This should clue people into a truth:

If you can not define a term in such a way as well informed people on the subject can come up with a common definition, there is probably a root cause for that inability.

In this case the soul is a tool utilized by your will to survive such that you can deal with the problem of finity.

Humans are terribly complex, but that doesn't mean you have supernatural properties.

Your mom.


OOOOHHH SHUT DOWN!

Your mom.


OOOOHHH SHUT DOWN!


Damn...he got bitch-slapped good.

Dude your momma is so fat! She needed 2 souls to reanimate her fat ass! oh! Truth hurts, don't it sonny?

According to the Bible, a body made of dust + the breath of God.
Breath of God
In hebrew it's called the Neshema... Basically it's the breath of G-d,

OK. So you're all agreeing it's "the breath of God"? What does that mean?

OK. So you're all agreeing it's "the breath of God"? What does that mean?

It means that G-d's breath is so horrid, he has the ability to wake the dead? ;)

Umm... it means that he gave us life to live it... i have no idea how to word this at all. I'll think up and post later.

The "soul" is chemo-electric reactions in the brain. Anyone who says anything else is fooling themselves.

I'm going to regret saying this...but can you disprove a soul doesn't exist?

No, you can't! Thus it is a continual modern theory/fact.
I can provide evidence that it doesn't.

1 Brain injuries can alter a person's personality and behavior. If the brain causes personality then it makes sense. If a spirit does, then why do changes in a piece of meat make any difference to it's function?

2 EEGs and other instruments used to image the brain can show which parts are active during different mental states. This only makes sense if the brain is in charge of all emotion and thought.

Does that mean i disproved Science?! :eek:

Hurray! I told you Scientology..and Atheism was wrong! Now convert back your heathens!

.. This thread is dead isn't it?
You know that scientology isn't science, right?

The "soul" is chemo-electric reactions in the brain. Anyone who says anything else is fooling themselves.

How do you know that Satan isn't possessing you to say those things? Think about that.... :D

Religion is fun! You can blame everything on Satan!...and France!> :D

OK. So you're all agreeing it's "the breath of God"? What does that mean?
And what did god breathe before there was air?

The soul is a convenient fiction by which some humans delude themselves about reality and mortality.

The "soul" is chemo-electric reactions in the brain. Anyone who says anything else is fooling themselves.
We have a winner!

I can provide evidence that it doesn't.

1 Brain injuries can alter a person's personality and behavior. If the brain causes personality then it makes sense. If a spirit does, then why do changes in a piece of meat make any difference to it's function?

2 EEGs and other instruments used to image the brain can show which parts are active during different mental states. This only makes sense if the brain is in charge of all emotion and thought.
Not to mention chemical reactions such as drugs or even diet can effect more then just "energy" levels ... can reduce frustration ... increase perceptiveness ... memory... decrease anger and so many other things ... how would this be so if it was not a phisical manifestation somehow

We have a winner!


So your telling me that some modern theory that can't prove itself...over-writes truths that have existed for thousands of years?! Now who's fooling themselves. :rolleyes:

How do you know that Satan isn't possessing you to say those things? Think about that.... :D
There's always the possibility. Hell, I'm blasphemous enough...

Religion is fun! You can blame everything on Satan!...and France!> :D
But only post-Roman France. The only thing you can blame on the Gauls is not getting unified enough to whoop some Roman ass.

Not to mention chemical reactions such as drugs or even diet can effect more then just "energy" levels ... can reduce frustration ... increase perceptiveness ... memory... decrease anger and so many other things ... how would this be so if it was not a phisical manifestation somehow

You must remember the Soul is what controls your intelligence, it would make some sense, that chemicals can affect it's physical part (the brain)

The breath of God is Nitrous Oxide. Everyone who's ever had gas and air can tell you that.

So your telling me that some modern theory that can't prove itself...over-writes truths that have existed for thousands of years?! Now who's fooling themselves. :rolleyes:
See his other post

(and not "truths" ... theory ... we have competing theory's)

You must remember the Soul is what controls your intelligence, it would make some sense, that chemicals can affect it's physical part (the brain)
Your intellegence can also be effected by drugs and other phisical manifestations including brain injury

See his other post

(and not "truths" ... theory ... we have competing theory's)

I only said truth, because he just claimed his to be the truth. Thus since he claims this theory to be true, and mines false, i am allowed to say my point as well.

So your telling me that some modern theory that can't prove itself...over-writes truths that have existed for thousands of years?! Now who's fooling themselves. :rolleyes:
The evidence against a soul supports the theory that the brain is responsible for thought and emotion.

So your telling me that some modern theory that can't prove itself...over-writes truths that have existed for thousands of years?! Now who's fooling themselves. :rolleyes:
By people who thought that neural fluid was actually seminal fluid, and that wasting said liquid was detrimental to the body? Yeah, actually I think I'll go with modern science.

Your intellegence can also be effected by drugs and other phisical manifestations including brain injury

True, doesn't mean that the brain is the soul though. It may be how the Soul controls the Body...but it is not it.

By people who thought that neural fluid was actually seminal fluid, and that wasting said liquid was detrimental to the body? Yeah, actually I think I'll go with modern science.

Can you say that in english? Oo

You must remember the Soul is what controls your intelligence, it would make some sense, that chemicals can affect it's physical part (the brain)
You claimed the soul is a spirit. Now it has a physical part? Make up your mind. Also, if it has a physical part, what happens when that part dies? Does the soul cease to function properly? Why should we accept the existance of a soul, which cannot be seen, measured or detected in any way either directly or indirectly, when the evidence points to brain activity rather than spiritual?

True, doesn't mean that the brain is the soul though. It may be how the Soul controls the Body...but it is not it.
No

Ok lets get this strait ... what properties of "you ness" are you associating with being in control of the soul?

I only said truth, because he just claimed his to be the truth. Thus since he claims this theory to be true, and mines false, i am allowed to say my point as well.
I claimed that evidence available supports my theory and contradicts yours. A theory that is contradicted by observations should be scrapped.

You claimed the soul is a spirit. Now it has a physical part? Make up your mind. Also, if it has a physical part, what happens when that part dies? Does the soul cease to function properly? Why should we accept the existance of a soul, which cannot be seen, measured or detected in any way either directly or indirectly, when the evidence points to brain activity rather than spiritual?

Hey religion is complicated don't blame me, i don't have all the answers, it'd be easier if someone who has had more experience and knows these types of questions. I know the basic answer in my head, but i can't seem to get it out right.

True, doesn't mean that the brain is the soul though. It may be how the Soul controls the Body...but it is not it.
Occam's razor. We can have soul to brain to thought and emotion, or we can have brain to thought and emotion. The one with less steps is more likely to be true.

I claimed that evidence available supports my theory and contradicts yours. A theory that is contradicted by observations should be scrapped.


... The evidence states that the brain controls your emotions and personality and such..it does not prove if something else controls that.

Hey religion is complicated don't blame me, i don't have all the answers, it'd be easier if someone who has had more experience and knows these types of questions. I know the basic answer in my head, but i can't seem to get it out right.
But your answer, when compared to real life observations, seems to be wrong.

... The evidence states that the brain controls your emotions and personality and such..it does not prove if something else controls that.
There's no evidence for something else. I could say that fire cooks my food, or I could say that building a fire appeases the food elves and they make my food hot. Which one seems more likely to you?

Hey religion is complicated don't blame me, i don't have all the answers, it'd be easier if someone who has had more experience and knows these types of questions. I know the basic answer in my head, but i can't seem to get it out right.
Which begs the question why follow something you dont understand?

Can you say that in english? Oo
They thought that a milky liquid that came out of the head in battle was semen. And that sex drained some of that stuff from the brain, and so weakened the man.

Which begs the question why follow something you dont understand?


I'm only starting to learn... Lemme put it to you this way, Do you understand Genetic Engineering? I'll assume you don't. Just because you don't understand it, does that mean you shouldn;t follow it...there may be tons of people who claim it is real..but you don't understand it, so why should you follow their "nonsense"..so to speak.

They thought that a milky liquid that came out of the head in battle was semen. And that sex drained some of that stuff from the brain, and so weakened the man.


LOL, that's cool. :) They also said that you should be kind to your neighbour, i guess we shouldn't listen to that either.

There's no evidence for something else. I could say that fire cooks my food, or I could say that building a fire appeases the food elves and they make my food hot. Which one seems more likely to you?

I say...Where's the elves? So chibi! :D

I'm only starting to learn... Lemme put it to you this way, Do you understand Genetic Engineering? I'll assume you don't. Just because you don't understand it, does that mean you shouldn;t follow it...there may be tons of people who claim it is real..but you don't understand it, so why should you follow their "nonsense"..so to speak.
1 Genetic engineering is based on stuff that I do understand.
2 It doesn't expect me to accept anything on faith. All we know about it is open to anybody who wants to put in the time and effort to study.
3 We can see the products of genetic engineering to know that it works.

I accept the existance of Genetic Engineering not on faith, but on evidence.

I say...Where's the elves? So chibi! :D
One can't argue with a sick mind.

There's no evidence for something else. I could say that fire cooks my food, or I could say that building a fire appeases the food elves and they make my food hot. Which one seems more likely to you?
food elves

1 Genetic engineering is based on stuff that I do understand.
2 It doesn't expect me to accept anything on faith. All we know about it is open to anybody who wants to put in the time and effort to study.
3 We can see the products of genetic engineering to know that it works.

I accept the existance of Genetic Engineering not on faith, but on evidence.


My evidence states, that the world could not have been created without a creator.

where did the original singularity come from?

And science is only starting to scratch the surface of religion..., Religion is based on not solely on faith, but by the evidence that if there is no G-d, then there is no point. There is no point in bettering ourselves, it would not matter.


Once again, my thoughts are coming out all blurry.

"All knowledge....comes from the senses." Friedrich Nietzsche

I'm only starting to learn... Lemme put it to you this way, Do you understand Genetic Engineering? I'll assume you don't. Just because you don't understand it, does that mean you shouldn;t follow it...there may be tons of people who claim it is real..but you don't understand it, so why should you follow their "nonsense"..so to speak.
But the evidence is there … it is all based off of the basics I understand … if I wish to learn more I can, just by putting forth effort. But religion/soul comes from the books and beliefs … subjective rather then objective evidence

I continue to study religion and such all the time! But the information needed to build the basics are not there and the rest has to be taken on “faith”
(not to mention the reporduceability of genetic engerneering)

My evidence states, that the world could not have been created without a creator.

where did the original singularity come from?

And science is only starting to scratch the surface of religion..., Religion is based on not solely on faith, but by the evidence that if there is no G-d, then there is no point. There is no point in bettering ourselves, it would not matter.


Once again, my thoughts are coming out all blurry.
That begs the question where did god come from

But the evidence is there … it is all based off of the basics I understand … if I wish to learn more I can, just by putting forth effort. But religion/soul comes from the books and beliefs … subjective rather then objective evidence

I continue to study religion and such all the time! But the information needed to build the basics are not there and the rest has to be taken on “faith”
(not to mention the reporduceability of genetic engerneering)

If i were to study the Torah or Midrash some more, i'm sure i could make an even better argument on how the soul works... otherwise my argument is stuck on what i remember from Judiasm classes. :)

That begs the question where did god come from


G-d always was... that's the best answer i can think of.

I'm only starting to learn... Lemme put it to you this way, Do you understand Genetic Engineering? I'll assume you don't. Just because you don't understand it, does that mean you shouldn;t follow it...there may be tons of people who claim it is real..but you don't understand it, so why should you follow their "nonsense"..so to speak.
Genetic engineering is not that difficult to understand. And what the hell do you mean by "follow it"? How can one "follow" genetic engineering?

LOL, that's cool. :) They also said that you should be kind to your neighbour, i guess we shouldn't listen to that either.
Being kind to one's neigbour has justification in modern sociology. Since it agrees with modern science, there's no reason to disregard it.

However, there is a difference between accepting how the universe works from a millenia old text and deciding how one should act. Fundamentally different concepts.

G-d always was... that's the best answer i can think of.
Why can the universe not be "always was"?

I agree with a number of folks who have registered an opinion on this topic. However, I don't believe your "soul" is your personality. Your soul goes much deeper than that. As one person wrote, "It is your essence." Have you ever met someone without a soul? I have. They lack a sense moral grounding.

Why can the universe not be "always was"?


There's no proof it always existed...that's the problem. With G-d, the answer is obvioulsy he always existed. :)

Genetic engineering is not that difficult to understand. And what the hell do you mean by "follow it"? How can one "follow" genetic engineering?

If i don't understand it, why should i follow it? Doesn't matter to me if it's a more complciated form of a science i don't undestand. If i don't understand it, why should i believe it. Isn't that what you said?

Being kind to one's neigbour has justification in modern sociology. Since it agrees with modern science, there's no reason to disregard it.

Yes...because Religion has influenced Sociology since the beginning of modern humans.

Have you ever met someone without a soul? I have. They lack a sense moral grounding.
So in your opinion a soul is inherently good? That's even less plausible than saying that a soul exists at all. That also implies that no other organism has a soul. Which must suck so much ass for Homo sapiens idaltu. As well as for H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. floresiensis, H. habilis, H. heidelbergensis, H. neanderthalensis, H. rudolfensis, as well as all the rest of Animalia.

My evidence states, that the world could not have been created without a creator.

where did the original singularity come from?

And science is only starting to scratch the surface of religion..., Religion is based on not solely on faith, but by the evidence that if there is no G-d, then there is no point. There is no point in bettering ourselves, it would not matter.


Once again, my thoughts are coming out all blurry.
1 You ask how the world and unverse came to be. I answer that science doesn't know yet. You say then it must be god. I've seen this before. You people just throw logic out the window and assume that your invisible sky wizard must exist. Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm just too attatched to logic. Your argument is as dumb as "I don't know how my computer works, therefore there's a little man in there who types back to me."

2 Atheists have purpose in their lives. The difference is we choose our own purpose. We are gods, you guys are primitives cowering in fear of the unknown.

No, I'm not using the word "moral" as code for "good." To me, moral grounding doesn't reflect, or imply good or bad. It simply means being capable of telling the difference between the two.

If i don't understand it, why should i follow it? Doesn't matter to me if it's a more complciated form of a science i don't undestand. If i don't understand it, why should i believe it. Isn't that what you said?
I still don't know what you mean "following" genetic engineering. You can choose to believe it is possible and happens or not, but that doesn't change the fact that there are genetically engineered bacteria, protists, plants, and even animals out there.

Yes...because Religion has influenced Sociology since the beginning of modern humans.
Religion is part of what sociology encompasses, but true sociology does not cross over with theology at all. Religion influences what sociologists study, not sociology itself.

No, I'm not using the word "moral" as code for "good." To me, moral grounding doesn't reflect, or imply good or bad. It simply means being capable of telling the difference between the two.
Between the two what? Morality is, by definition, subjective. So there must be something that morals entail, and that is what you view the lack of as amoral.

There's no proof it always existed...that's the problem. With G-d, the answer is obvioulsy he always existed. :)



If i don't understand it, why should i follow it? Doesn't matter to me if it's a more complciated form of a science i don't undestand. If i don't understand it, why should i believe it. Isn't that what you said?



Yes...because Religion has influenced Sociology since the beginning of modern humans.
1 Obvious to who? The people who made him up? There's no evidence for god either.

2 Science offers evidence and results. Religion offers speculation and unfounded assertions.

3 Religion has influenced sociology. So what. Astrology used to influence how governments were run. Racism too.

Racism too.
Used to?

Used to?
Good point. Also didn't the Regans and some French leaders consult with astrologers? Why can't we as a species make some fucking progress already?

I'm also not saying that only humans have souls. My horse knows immediately when he has done a bad thing. For instance, the day he grabbed my chest, let go, and stepped back, he KNEW he'd done a bad, bad thing. He waited for me to react. He's definitely got a soul!

Religion started as an explanation for the things we, as humans, observed but did not understand. It began polytheistic, and gradually became somewhat monotheistic (although not entirely). Possibly, the thoughts of an afterlife were appealing, and were used to inspire men to fight for a cause.

Following the needs of the human mind, we came to better, more sensible explanations, explanations that required no ultimate father figure. It's called science, and it can explain a lot. However, the beginning of our universe is still a mystery to all, including religious-types. The big bang hasn't been fully explained, and may never be. Evidence suggests that there was a big bang, but not that there was ever a grand "director" of this bang. There is also no real, conclusive evidence against a god/(s)/(ess)/(esses).

I'm not saying that you don't believe God exists, MuhOre, just saying that you seem to be regurgitating what you've been taught your entire life. Is it possible that there isn't a God?

Memetics is emerging as a viable theory on the spread of religions and ideas. Ever heard of it?

Christianity Meme.org (http://www.christianitymeme.org)

Also didn't the Regans and some French leaders consult with astrologers?
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Reagan did something like that. The only difference may be that astrology is more clandestine and less influential in government now.

Why can't we as a species make some fucking progress already?
Because we are a malignant growth on the face of this planet. We are the result of positive feedback without control, and the Gaia theory should frighten us more than it does.

I'm also not saying that only humans have souls. My horse knows immediately when he has done a bad thing. For instance, the day he grabbed my chest, let go, and stepped back, he KNEW he'd done a bad, bad thing. He waited for me to react. He's definitely got a soul!
Perhaps he just realized that he had taken aggressive action against the dominant member of his social group and decided to back off before you punished him.

Memetics is emerging as a viable theory on the spread of religions and ideas. Ever heard of it?
Memetics is a pretty neat theory. I am also proud of myself for coming up with it all on my own, and then realising that Dawkins had talked about it in his The Selfish Gene, which I am going to read when I get around to it. The biggest problem with it is that most religions are not proselytising religions, and that Christo-Islamic religions seem to really be the only ones.

Still waiting for clear, non-circular religious definitions of:
soul
spiritual
spiritual essence
heaven
hell
and "breath of God"

(Actually both the non-religious and religious definitions have been confusing.)

Before I can argue for or against something I need to know what it is...

I'm also not saying that only humans have souls. My horse knows immediately when he has done a bad thing. For instance, the day he grabbed my chest, let go, and stepped back, he KNEW he'd done a bad, bad thing. He waited for me to react. He's definitely got a soul!
I apologise for the ensuing condescension, but you really remind me of someone on acid.

Because we are a malignant growth on the face of this planet. We are the result of positive feedback without control, and the Gaia theory should frighten us more than it does.
I see alot of potential in us. Potential that's wasted on crap like reality tv, religion, and keeping up with the Jonses. I admire ants and bees. They may not be as intelligent, but they know how to band together and get things done.

This thread is going nowhere...Science can't explain everything. Obviously you know that, you can't put Logic or Science into more spiritual matters, no more then i can put my religion and philosophy into yours.

These kinds of topics, should be answered, by the religious.

Now i answered your questions, and you keep trying to disprove and fail miserably...this is exactly what i don't try and disprove anything that involves Spiritual matters. It is impossible...the only person that can change their mind is the person themself. :)

Memetics is a pretty neat theory. I am also proud of myself for coming up with it all on my own, and then realising that Dawkins had talked about it in his The Selfish Gene, which I am going to read when I get around to it. The biggest problem with it is that most religions are not proselytising religions, and that Christo-Islamic religions seem to really be the only ones.

Yeah, I'll get around to reading it sometime. Christianity and Islam are the largest growing religions around the world, so maybe their respective memes are better evolved for spreading and retaining converts?

This thread is going nowhere...Science can't explain everything. Obviously you know that, you can't put Logic or Science into more spiritual matters, no more then i can put my religion and philosophy into yours.

These kinds of topics, should be answered, by the religious.

Now i answered your questions, and you keep trying to disprove and fail miserably...this is exactly what i don't try and disprove anything that involves Spiritual matters. It is impossible...the only person that can change their mind is the person themself. :)

Seems like you do try to disprove science and logic, and you fail miserably. Perhaps the "spiritual" matters wouldn't matter if they could be explained?

Read up on memetics, it uses logic and the scientific method to identify religions and more "spiritual" things.

No, he backed off because he knew he engaged in bad behavior. And I did punish him. You have to. Horses will try to test you every chance they get. Believe me, he gets away with lots of little stuff, but grabbing the chest is not acceptable. In fact, my swift reaction surprised us both!

I see alot of potential in us. Potential that's wasted on crap like reality tv, religion, and keeping up with the Jonses.
I think those are good things. Just imagine what would happen if we didn't distract ourselves with frivolous things...violence anyone?

I admire ants and bees. They may not be as intelligent, but they know how to band together and get things done.
You bet you do! Eusocial insects are my passion, though you forgot wasps and termites. But ants are definitely my favourite. I seriously go and just watch the leaf-cutter ants, Atta cephalotes specifically, at the Museum of Natural History for hours. They are just so incredible and baeutiful! I'm into entomology, so I've got an excuse.

Hymenoptera >= Isoptera > Everything else

This thread is going nowhere...Science can't explain everything. Obviously you know that, you can't put Logic or Science into more spiritual matters, no more then i can put my religion and philosophy into yours.

These kinds of topics, should be answered, by the religious.

Now i answered your questions, and you keep trying to disprove and fail miserably...this is exactly what i don't try and disprove anything that involves Spiritual matters. It is impossible...the only person that can change their mind is the person themself. :)
Actually you have given unsatisfatory answers to the questions posed to you, and have refused to accept the reasonable answers others have posted to your questions.

Science can't explain everything, yet. It keeps getting closer though. Perhaps there are some questions that it will never answer, but most of those are pointless philosophical exercises anyway.

Seems like you do try to disprove science and logic, and you fail miserably. Perhaps the "spiritual" matters wouldn't matter if they could be explained?

Read up on memetics, it uses logic and the scientific method to identify religions and more "spiritual" things.


Name one instance where i tried to disprove it.

And if everything could be explained..well there would be no more Science, Science is here to try and explain the unexplained, but to quote Shakespeare

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Actually you have given unsatisfatory answers to the questions posed to you, and have refused to accept the reasonable answers others have posted to your questions.

Science can't explain everything, yet. It keeps getting closer though. Perhaps there are some questions that it will never answer, but most of those are pointless philosophical exercises anyway.

You've also given me unsatisfactory answers...you ask why should i believe in something i don't fully understand, but when i ask you the same thing using science, you twist the subject and fail to answer the question.

I only said truth, because he just claimed his to be the truth. Thus since he claims this theory to be true, and mines false, i am allowed to say my point as well.


They are not competing theories. Science does not compete with religion. Science explains what it can so far.

Religion is shelter of superstitions for those who cannot cope.

Still waiting for clear, non-circular religious definitions of:
soul
spiritual
spiritual essence
heaven
hell
and "breath of God"

(Actually both the non-religious and religious definitions have been confusing.)

Before I can argue for or against something I need to know what it is...

The difficulty defining these things comes from the fact they are fictions and everyone who professes to believe in them make up their own definitions.

This thread is going nowhere...Science can't explain everything. Obviously you know that, you can't put Logic or Science into more spiritual matters, no more then i can put my religion and philosophy into yours.

These kinds of topics, should be answered, by the religious.

First, you seriously underestimate what science can explain. Second, you conclusion is illogical. Simply because you cannot comprehend something doesn't suddenly justify a whole fantasy construction of God and religion.

And, please, please, do not confuse philosophy with religion.

Yeah, I'll get around to reading it sometime. Christianity and Islam are the largest growing religions around the world, so maybe their respective memes are better evolved for spreading and retaining converts?
Sure. They push the right buttons.
Crisis, Protection of the young, Low risk/high reward, Security, and more.
Plus they have "evangelism" memes to make them try to actively recruit new members.

My evidence states, that the world could not have been created without a creator.

where did the original singularity come from?

And science is only starting to scratch the surface of religion..., Religion is based on not solely on faith, but by the evidence that if there is no G-d, then there is no point. There is no point in bettering ourselves, it would not matter.


Once again, my thoughts are coming out all blurry.

Science isn't scratching religion's surface. And maybe there is no point in bettering ourselves except to be better.

Actually, I'd like to see the evidence that proves we have no point in surviving.

They are not competing theories. Science does not compete with religion. Science explains what it can so far.

Ok...what's your point?

Religion is shelter of superstitions for those who cannot cope.

... and Science is a shelter of facts, to try and calm themselves, that nothing will happen to them when they die... sounds to me like they also cannot cope.

The difficulty defining these things comes from the fact they are fictions and everyone who professes to believe in them make up their own definitions.

May be true in some cases, but i believe in what i was taught.

First, you seriously underestimate what science can explain. Second, you conclusion is illogical. Simply because you cannot comprehend something doesn't suddenly justify a whole fantasy construction of God and religion.

1. I don't underestimate, but it is true, that science will never be able to explain everything.

2. So because you cannot comprehend G-d and religion, i am to only believe what science tells me?

And, please, please, do not confuse philosophy with religion.

.. It is obvious there is a difference...


..

No, he backed off because he knew he engaged in bad behavior. And I did punish him. You have to. Horses will try to test you every chance they get. Believe me, he gets away with lots of little stuff, but grabbing the chest is not acceptable. In fact, my swift reaction surprised us both!
Horses are gregarious animals by nature. All gregarious animals have some kind of morality hard wired into them by instinct. He inadvertantly challenged the dominant member and backed off because he realized what he had done, and didn't want to be punished more harshly. It doesn't take some supernatural explanation. It's just something natural. Something we observe in every gregarious species of mammal. Of course it's more pronounced in more intelligent mammals, they have extra brain power to build more complex social structures.

How about Buddhism? In that framework, you can accept/interpret whatever scientific or philisophical evidence that seems convincing to you about whatever aspects of creation, god(s) or quantum physics you want. The Buddhist universe works under cause-and-effect, and the closest thing you have to the christian "soul" is your self. Your conciousness, personality and intellect are all just things in your brain. Your self is simply life, just like a cat or a tree or a fruit fly. The state and environment variables in which your self exists determines its future state, which traditional Buddhism thinks of as reincarnating. You can believe whatever you want about the details of what is the soul and is there a god, etc. Nobody else who has ever lived can claim to know the answers any better. So, the religious framework focuses instead on things we do know, and helping people who are suffering and trying to make the world a better place. Like what Michael Jackson and all the rest of those hacks were singing about in the 80s, "for you and for me and the entire human race..."

Damn, I need to do some karaoke tonight!

You've also given me unsatisfactory answers...you ask why should i believe in something i don't fully understand, but when i ask you the same thing using science, you twist the subject and fail to answer the question.
Actually I didn't ask that. I just explained why trusting science (which is open to scrutiny and gives evidence) is more reasonable than trusting religion (which tells you some things are just mysteries to be accepted and provides no hard evidence).

Of course it's more pronounced in more intelligent mammals, they have extra brain power to build more complex social structures.
Excuse me, brain power if one thing that allows complex social structures. Eusocial insects, ants and bees especially, have far more complicated social structures than anything else we know of. However, the biggest difference is that even people who have studied them for decades have no fucking idea how they do this.

Excuse me, brain power if one thing that allows complex social structures. Eusocial insects, ants and bees especially, have far more complicated social structures than anything else we know of. However, the biggest difference is that even people who have studied them for decades have no fucking idea how they do this.
Yeah, got me there. Maybe they act as one big brain encased in separate bodies, wired together by their chemical and body language.

My evidence states, that the world could not have been created without a creator.

where did the original singularity come from?

And science is only starting to scratch the surface of religion..., Religion is based on not solely on faith, but by the evidence that if there is no G-d, then there is no point. There is no point in bettering ourselves, it would not matter.


Once again, my thoughts are coming out all blurry.

The first two are theology flaws 101. (1) what "evidence"? (2) if so, where did the creator or "original singularity" come from? (3) even assuming creator, creator = God . . . . .

Ironically, last point is sometimes called heresy. Completely unfounded assumptions. (1) why no point if no God? (2) why does God give it a point?

Note - even the best arguments for the existence of God are (in addition to being weak) no basis for all the other assumptions about the nature of the said God. Most with "faith" also have a many, many believes about what God is that are convenient, but inherently illogical and completely without justification

Actually I didn't ask that. I just explained why trusting science (which is open to scrutiny and gives evidence) is more reasonable than trusting religion (which tells you some things are just mysteries to be accepted and provides no hard evidence).


Actually religion is also open to scrutiny and evidence.... why do you think there are so many different sects in Christianity? How is it that no-one talks about Judaism, when it comes to science? It seems more focused on Christinaity..and sometimes Islam.

The first two are theology flaws 101. (1) what "evidence"? (2) if so, where did the creator or "original singularity" come from? (3) even assuming creator, creator = God . . . . .

Ironically, last point is sometimes called heresy. Completely unfounded assumptions. (1) why no point if no God? (2) why does God give it a point?

Note - even the best arguments for the existence of God are (in addition to being weak) no basis for all the other assumptions about the nature of the said God. Most with "faith" also have a many, many believes about what God is that are convenient, but inherently illogical and completely without justification


Of course G-d doesn't make sense, if he made sense he would't be omnipotent, now would he?

This thread is going nowhere...Science can't explain everything. Obviously you know that, you can't put Logic or Science into more spiritual matters, no more then i can put my religion and philosophy into yours.

These kinds of topics, should be answered, by the religious.

Now i answered your questions, and you keep trying to disprove and fail miserably...this is exactly what i don't try and disprove anything that involves Spiritual matters. It is impossible...the only person that can change their mind is the person themself. :)


I haven't tried to disprove anything (others have, yes).

However, can yopu define the terms clearly, please.

How about Buddhism?

Actually I am Buddhist (Vajrayana).

I was raised in a nominally Christian household (Unitarian-Universalist and Presbitarian) household. I've never heard anyone answer the question "What is a soul?".

I still have no idea what anyone means (either pro or con).

Lots of noise, but no definitions... :confused:

(I'll probably end up asking this elsewhere. BTW, it really is a genuine question.)

Actually religion is also open to scrutiny and evidence.... why do you think there are so many different sects in Christianity? How is it that no-one talks about Judaism, when it comes to science? It seems more focused on Christinaity..and sometimes Islam.
What hard evidence is presented by religion?
How open to scrutiny can it be if asking the wrong questions can lead to being branded a heretic?
Why do religions say some things are just mysteries to be accepted, rather than questions yet to be answered?

Yeah, got me there. Maybe they act as one big brain encased in separate bodies, wired together by their chemical and body language.
Oh, that's certainly part of it. I remember reading the analogy in, if I recall was either in Ants at Work: How an Insect Society is Organized by Deborah M. Gordon or Empire of the Ants by Bernard Werber, which was that humans have brains like cauliflower, and ants a brain like shredded cabbage. Pheromones are pretty much the life of eusocial insects, and some bees have even evolved body language. But we still can not figure out how it is they organise anything. What in hell governs them? Primitive entomology thought that it was the queen, hence the name, but the queen is really just the colony's bitch, who is used solely for her egg laying.

Of course G-d doesn't make sense, if he made sense he would't be omnipotent, now would he?
Why only one god? Why not 17?

Why only one god? Why not 17?


If there is more then 1 god, then it shows that the creator is not omnipotent, and needed help, moreso, it means us humans could have the ability to surpass its strength one day.

If there is more then 1 god, then it shows that the creator is not omnipotent, and needed help, moreso, it means us humans could have the ability to surpass its strength one day.
How do you know that isn't the case?

How do you know that isn't the case?


that was isn;t the case?

I'm only going to be on for another couple of minutes...so bye bye in advance. :P

Calm down, the bold is unecessary.

..

They are not competing theories. Science does not compete with religion. Science explains what it can so far.

Ok...what's your point?

Although I'll violate this somewhat in discussing this later, science versus religion is a false dichotomy. Religion gives no excuse for ignoring verifiable facts. 99.9% of science does not conflict with religion in the general sense.

It makes far more sense to talk about whether religion is supportable than to try to compare religion to science.

"Science" is misleading anyway. There are verfiable facts, laws, theories, hypothesis, many different branches, etc. The philosophy of science is itself a whole area you do not want to get into.

Religion is shelter of superstitions for those who cannot cope.

... and Science is a shelter of facts, to try and calm themselves, that nothing will happen to them when they die... sounds to me like they also cannot cope.

Science is independent of religion. We seek scientific knowledge for a host of reasons completely unrelated to "spiritual" questions.

Curious that you admit that science is based on fact and some need calming about what will happen when they die. Nice to see you concede half the argument.

Assuming something "happen[s] when [one] die[s]" is illogical fear. Science can be used to assauge that fear, true, but that is hardly the purpose of science.

Religion on the other hand serves little other purpose -- except as a socio-political tool or (as described earlier) a survival mechanism. There are no "facts" or logic to religion.

Before you dispute the last sentence, name one verifiable religious "fact."

..

The difficulty defining these things comes from the fact they are fictions and everyone who professes to believe in them make up their own definitions.

May be true in some cases, but i believe in what i was taught.

That is nice for you. Not much helpful to anyone else. It is also very likely that you believe it because you were taught it.

Does what you were taught allow you to define the above terms so that you can defend them?

..
First, you seriously underestimate what science can explain. Second, you conclusion is illogical. Simply because you cannot comprehend something doesn't suddenly justify a whole fantasy construction of God and religion.

1. I don't underestimate, but it is true, that science will never be able to explain everything.

2. So because you cannot comprehend G-d and religion, i am to only believe what science tells me?

1. Simply an assumption. Name something you can prove science will never be able to explain. You cannot because you do not know what science will be able to explain in the future.

I'll give you an easier one. Name some verifiable fact that science cannot currently explain. How does religion explain it?

2. Your use of "comprehend" is ambiguous. I'm quite well-informed on most religions. Some are more difficult to become knowledge about that others. Some are more illogical or make less sense than others.

What basis do you have for believing in religion? For anything other than "science."

..
And, please, please, do not confuse philosophy with religion.

.. It is obvious there is a difference...

Good. You seemed to equate them. Glad you do not.

Of course G-d doesn't make sense, if he made sense he would't be omnipotent, now would he?

Nice tautology. Does not answer the questions.

Why assume that, if there is a God, he is ominipotent? Big leap in logic.

Convenient to simply say your side need not make sense, but it makes it a bit hard to defend. Why believe in what you admit does not make sense and is uncomprehensible?

There's no proof it always existed...that's the problem. With G-d, the answer is obvioulsy he always existed. :)


Right now the same ammount of proof that god always existed but the problem is there are
1) issues with thext's that tell me what god really is
2) requirements in almost every religion that require me to do things ... without proof of god I choose to not change my whole life on what may be a myth


If i don't understand it, why should i follow it? Doesn't matter to me if it's a more complciated form of a science i don't undestand. If i don't understand it, why should i believe it. Isn't that what you said?

Not understanding is not the same as not being able to understand.

If you wish you can learn more about science objectivly ... you can only go to a point with learning about god then you rely on faith there is a difference




Yes...because Religion has influenced Sociology since the beginning of modern humans.

If there is more then 1 god, then it shows that the creator is not omnipotent, and needed help, moreso, it means us humans could have the ability to surpass its strength one day.
No they could all be omnipotent does not mean he needed help rather that they just existed

(though it brings about more then one irresistable force issues)

I'd have to say it's organised religion's tool of spiritual blackmail and an invention to keep people 'in line' lest it be condemned to eternal hellfires should you not follow someone else's rules. Specifically another invention known as God.