Atheists and the soul

Do you sign?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 33.3%

  • No.

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Total voters
    15
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey guys :)

?Isn't atheist an theosopher, philosopher of life and language

And isn't perhaps soul individuate right to enjoy form based on let's say credit and libertine.?
 
Let us assume that we are all born with souls.
Not of our own creation, but immortal---something beyond our comprehension.
Could any of us mortal creatures living in a mortal biom on a mortal planet within a mortal solar system ...etc... comprehend immortality?

I could not sign away the moon, nor an undiscovered planet, nor an undiscovered universe.
What could possibly be offered for a soul to induce such a behavior?
 
it has been said that "GOD created man is god's own image"

ok?

Man, then, wholly incapable of comprehending "GOD" created Gods in man's own image.

How can one direct one's prayers to that which one cannot comprehend?

In a sense, you give up what you think is 'independence'
Click to expand...

Not very likely.

(and, I ain't a fan of anyone who thinks that they can speak for"GOD".)
 
Do non-believers have souls, or can they just reach their potential. You can be such knowledgable person that you can't believe, but to believe is to achieve.

Does to existence of the soul depend on the existence of belief in one self?
 
kx000 said:
Do non-believers have souls, or can they just reach their potential. You can be such knowledgable person that you can't believe, but to believe is to achieve.

Does to existence of the soul depend on the existence of belief in one self?
Click to expand...

If anyone has a soul, then we all do, whether we choose to believe or not.
 
ModNote

Please keep the off-topic preaching to a minimum (ergo, don't do it). I'll be going through and pruning the... less than applicable posts shortly.

EDIT

Several off-topic posts struck from the conversation - dave, feel free to bring it back on track :)
 
Photizo said:
So you are not a "fan" of Jesus, then?
Click to expand...

Thing is... I know many people that are "fans" of Jesus... they think he was a great guy, taught awesome lessons and had a lot of wisdom to spread... but they don't think he was the Son of God.

They are called Jewish
 
Photizo said:
So you are not a "fan" of Jesus, then?
Click to expand...

Hmm.
fan.....?
I do not seem to have the personality for being a "fan" of anyone, thing, or other entity.
I was raised christian, and as a young man was fortunate to have fallen under the tutelage of the Reverend Zinn.
He was a true man of GOD and good shepherd to his flock. Nothing I could say would rattle his cage, nor threaten his faith.
Everyone should be so fortunate.

Language is but a shadow of a concept based on an imperfect perception. No words could encompass such an entity as "GOD".
so
I ain't a fan of anyone who would speak for GOD.
And, I tend to get a tad belligerent when people assign god a personal pronoun.
I was once thrown out of an army chapel over my reaction to the preacher constantly referring to god as "he".
"Out of my church you sacrilegious son of a bitch!" were the last words I ever heard from him.

If one would know god:
Start by getting rid of language
get rid of definitions
and control conscious interference in thoughts of that which is beyond conscious understanding


oops
sorry, enough "preaching" from me.
 
Current tally stands at 18 contributors. Of those 18, 5 have agreed to "sign their souls away" for whatever that's worth. I will call them Y.


Of the 13 who have not signed, there are two sub-types
- 5 who explicitly did not sign by voting no. I will call them N.
- 8 who implicitly did not sign by not voting yet still contributing. I will call them n.

So, T=18, Y=5, N=5, n=8

N can be broken down further into
- theists who have obvious reasons for not giving up their soul, and
- atheists who (I assume) have no spiritual objection to symbolically give up their soul, but voted no anyway. Their motives are so far a mystery.

n could be of two types, but we do not have enough data to know:
- theists (with obvious reasons for not giving up their soul) who contributed, yet did not vote (these do not not affect results of poll except inasmuch as they add noise to the signal). I'll call them n(t).
- atheists who (I assume) have no spiritual objection to symbolically give up their soul. These participants felt their rationale was worth sharing, but not their vote. I'll call them n(a).

This last one is the interesting category. They have lots to say on the subject, yet did not - even symbolically - put their money where their mouth is. They made a claim, but do not have the conviction to "put it in writing" (even by voting, let alone signing the contract) , though they do have the conviction of offering their opinion when it's just words.

I see two further subcategories (this gets a bit cynical, because it supposes motivations):

- n(a)'s who claim atheism, but are not entirely sure of their convictions, and don't want to admit it. These are the wafflers. n(a)wf.
- n(a)'s who claim atheism but resist revealing their real motivations on the issue, for fear they might be challenged to back their words with actions. I will call them armchair atheists. n(a)aa.

n(a)aas just don't like to be "gamed".

n(a)wfs have motivations that would be interesting to explore


Is this a fair breakdown so far?


BTW, I abstained from voting because it's my poll, but I would be an N. I'm an atheist, but I would hesitate and I will admit it. (Not because I wonder if there's a soul (I'm sure there isn't), but because I acknowledge that I can not know the answer surely enough to warrant the consequences of being wrong.)
 
You could just ask, as an atheist, am I absolute in my conviction that there is no God? No. I'm an agnostic atheist. I require evidence to believe. This isn't a weakness, it's a strength.

Ethically, I would not want to take advantage of some poor guy who thinks I have a soul to give. But I could also be mistaken, the guy could be an alien with technology to download my personality into a machine that could replicate a hellish experience.
 
It's an old concept, to be true, but then who does not have hope?
For me, one of the more damning (hah!) aspects of this is that there are no stories of those who, in much the same vein as those who asked the genie for more wishes, made a deal with the devil trading his soul for the devils promise to interfere no more in the affairs of man. Where are they, in the stories? And would God recognise the altruism of such a deal, should it exist, and give the one who struck such a deal a free pass to the hereafter?

Of course, any devil willing to strike such a bargain would be a silly little devil indeed. So perhaps the point is moot.

I do think you're missing the point of the original post, though. It's more about the inherent doubt of the atheist.
 
The Marquis said:
It's an old concept, to be true, but then who does not have hope?
For me, one of the more damning (hah!) aspects of this is that there are no stories of those who, in much the same vein as those who asked the genie for more wishes, made a deal with the devil trading his soul for the devils promise to interfere no more in the affairs of man. Where are they, in the stories? And would God recognise the altruism of such a deal, should it exist, and give the one who struck such a deal a free pass to the hereafter?

Of course, any devil willing to strike such a bargain would be a silly little devil indeed. So perhaps the point is moot.

I do think you're missing the point of the original post, though. It's more about the inherent doubt of the atheist.
Click to expand...

Mankind is inherently greedy... why would you strike a deal with the devil that benefits all mankind, when you can, instead, bet your soul against a fiddle of gold?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top