Arguments for the soul's existence...

care to elaborate?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ok, so somebody is wearing socks. ......nevermind...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

posts 226 [page 12] through to post 269 of this thread.
special emphasis on posts:
246 and 255 comparison shows direct contra

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually I'm wearing these:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And thinking about this, (Yes, this is evidence of the soul)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Partial Evidence of transient posssession:

thus partial evidence of "soul"

 

Ignore what? I went back a page or so but you mainly seem to be having a personal side conversation.

 

Actually, later in this post you show that was a deceit on your part and it wasn't what this thread was about.

The term soul is superfluous here and adds nothing which the other terms don't already contribute. The same applies to the rest of your "definitions."

Sorry bub, the other social mammals have conscience. In fact its not hard to argue that some of them have a more active conscience than we do since their sense of greed isn't as well developed.

Dogs, who have lived with us for long enough to develop fair interspecies communication, can even express concepts like guilt in ways we understand.

All I saw in the "definitions" was that you are self serving and very unclear on the concepts of proof and existence.

Why is it that the theists who whine the loudest about souls and gods and judgment are the ones who lie and act with such deceit?

Jesus is just fiction. What about it? What exactly is there is to "get past?"

And failed because they weren't clear on the concept themselves, and weren't the world's best writers. What about it and what could fictional characters have to do with proving actual souls?

What a self serving conclusion. Fiction often is interpreted in different ways by different people. It is all too common that how the author thought a character was being portrayed ends up portraying him differently, and this is when the author is still kicking around to be questioned. Also cultural nuances change from culture to culture and time to time. What many have seemed no big deal at the time may spark a fire storm of controversy today, like Mohammad's favorite wife having been a child bride.

Grow up. Take a literary criticism class and broaden your horizons a bit.

Failing to agree with you is not failing to evaluate the character of Jesus. In fact as a "believer" your rose colored interpretation is the one most suspect. I would hardly be surprised if you turned away from an accurate re-portrayal of the Jesus character. He isn't that attractive when you arent' lusting after his carrot or fearing his stick.

We each do it every day and you seem to be coming up short.

An archaic concept without merit beyond its use as a poetic metaphor.

 

BM

This needs to be posted again.
Well said.

 

exactly the point. If Jesus is considered a fictional character, then he follows the directions of the authors (who were real people). The authors wanted to present this "god-man" character as a super-hero that could do no wrong. "Stealing" was not part of their script. Hence it would be illogical to assume that the authors implied Jesus was a crook. The bible is just fiction controlled by the authors ....right????

In addition, a fictional character can't steal something in reality.

Somehow, atheists need to learn this: once you have assumed something is fiction you must be consistent with that assumption.

Likewise with character which is a part of the concept of soul. There are real characters and there are fictional characters. Learn the difference. The same concept of "a character" applies to both of them, kind of like there are real numbers and imaginary numbers, but they are both numbers.

Once the concept of "character" can be discussed rationally, then perhaps the concept of "soul" can be discussed rationally --except with Marcos who rejects it outright. I did not start this thread by the way.

 

I think an idea too sciency like that isn't going to work for someone so pragmatic as an atheist. It has to be something completely faith based, maybe a loved one died and he's too attached to really ever think they left him, I don't know. But if it's too sciency, then the scientific readers can just easily dismiss it and it detracts from your book. Which reminds me, I never got back to you on the chapters you sent me! Once my midterms are over, I'll get right on to reading them. Sorry!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: You posted this in 06.. so I guess that means the book you sent me was the book you were writing.. whoops..

 

Bliss and ecstasy are the relief of suffering manifested into our consciousness. It is in these words the ultimate mortal relief from a build up of inherent tension if you like. Unfortunately short lived as the pleasure of rapture turns into suffering and boredom and inevitably over comes the sense of ecstasy.

It is worth noting though that other questions One_raven raises:

1. Why would a purely physical entity be evolved so that it strives for ecstatic events an a ongoing cyclic basis their entire life.
2. How does this serve the survival of the species?
3. Would not other systems be just as adequate and less costly to the whole? [ as this desire for ecstasy has driven man mad on many occassions and is contra to survival instinct.
4. Why evolve a system of cyclic self delusion thus deluding us into a sense of purpose when the atheist would say there is none other than biochemical....

are very valid indeed...

This in some ways points very much to the existence of something way beyond the mere physical biochemical existence and on to something a little more profound.
In the very lest providing a logical and reasonable justification for the asking of the questions about the existence of the soul.

just thought I'd comment on the inspiring post above...thank you...

 

in other words why is the sense of "oneness" bliss and ecstasy?
Why is an sexual orgasm a state of oneness and neutralisation of tension either betwen people or with self?
Why do we seek oneness with a partner be it heterosexual or homosexual?
Why do we develop friendships and love bond relationships with our children?

Why is singing Ava Maria in church on a Saturday for a devote Christian a state of ecstasy and bliss for the singer and the group simultaneously?
and why does winning the world cup [ soccer ] send an entire nation beserk with mass ecstacy? [ again onesness of purpose - oneness of shared success]

 

You are making the mistake of thinking evolution is purposeful.

It isn't. It doesn't matter if something seems contrary like some members being driven mad.

Its just survive and reproduce. Everything else is optional.

 

Not really.

 

ha...and you think having an orgasm is optional ha....tell that to most of the world men and women...especially the men and see what sort of response you get... [chuckle]

 

Having an orgasm is optional just ask all your girlfriends.

 

not very kind !

 

What do orgasms have to do with the existence of the soul ?

 

Nothing. They were just part of some spurious logic that was there to confuse the issue.