Don't confuse having issue with a specific comment with issues with the whole. I have no idea who you're arguing against with this. And no doubt bang up against agnostics already there. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and an agnostic really is an agnostic, even if he is also an atheist by dint of lack of belief. Well now you know, sarcastic or otherwise, so perhaps you can put your strawman away. It is important if you don't simply want to be acknowledged as arguing against a strawman. Such as? I have little interest in examining why they think the way they do. I've been there, briefly worn the t-shirt, and moved on, so to speak. I do, however, retain an interest in understanding why theists believe what they do. As someone with an interest in furthering my understanding of the theist point of view, and not the strong atheist point of view, perhaps? And achieving that through challenging it? You know, interpreting it correctly, perhaps. Post history such as what, exactly? Over how many years? Care to cite some actual examples? Or are you simply noting my preference for discussion topics and making a fairly sweeping generalisation? I've been on this site for quite a while, so I'm sure you can cherry pick some doozies if that is your wish. And I have no doubt my position on many things has changed, tempered, as the years have passed. But throughout remains my interest in understanding what, and more specifically why, theists believe. But I get it that you can't have a discussion with someone without assuming that they're a militant atheist, believing God to not exist, or that empiricism is the only way to prove or know anything. But if you actually put down your blinkers then you might see a wider range of beliefs (or lack of) than just those you imagine or want people to have. Yes, even from those who dare to challenge what you might say. And they may be challenging you not because they think they know you are wrong, but simply to see why you think you know you are right. But hey, why not just go with your first thought, I'm sure it'll be less effort for you than engaging with more than one type of atheist.
I don't accept, "the essential you" as a definition of "soul" because it doesn't say anything. It just passes the definition buck on to "essential". I would put "soul" in the same category as elves, unicorns, magic rings, etc. - i.e. things whose existence is not supported by evidence.
/// Again, this thread should not be concerned with whether souls exist. The topic depends upon assuming they do. The essential you certainly does say something. <>
Then the answer is that more souls get created. Extra ones go to other planets. I mean, as long as we are making things up...
Substitute elves, unicorns or magic rings. We can assume that they exist until the cows come home but how can we discuss them without a definition? Not to me it doesn't. Try saying the same thing in other words.
It's more about ''essence'', than being essential. The soul, is you. It is obviously essential to the body, as parts of the body, like the heart, the brain, and so on. So ''you'', are the one who has decided you don't accept ''the essential you'' as a definition. It is'' you'' that makes claim to your body. Without you, your body is a dead lump of stuff (including brain, heart, and so on) jan.
When Jan says: He is saying the soul is exactly like the heart, except there is no possible way to detect it and this completely undetectable thing serves no detectable function. So the soul is exactly like an internal organ only completely different, uh, and undetectable. Hope that clears that up... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You didn't mention how to cook it? How many calories it contains? Will it lower my cholesterol? What does it taste like? Will it go straight to my butt? (girlfriend asked me to put this one in)? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Musika: I see. So trees and grasses have souls, too, I guess. And if reincarnation occurs, then I guess we could come back in our next lives as a patches of grass, or algal blooms or something like that. Would that be correct? Are you a believer in reincarnation yourself, if you don't mind my asking? My point was that there are far fewer human beings than bacteria, say. So, all things being equal, you're far more likely to be reincarnated as a bacterium than as a human being. Actually, as I write this, a few more questions occur to me. A lot of separate organisms are actually along for the ride, so to speak, in my human body. I have, for example, a whole lot of different types of bacteria in my gut, on my skin, in my hair, etc. etc. Does each gut bacterium have its own separate soul? Am I, in effect, a collection of souls, rather than a single soul? Interesting point of view, but probably off-topic for this thread. Another time, perhaps.
Seattle: I see. So there's a kind of store of spare souls that are doing nothing, then? The vast majority of souls, then, never make it into a living thing.
That is not the topic of this thread. My focus here is on what all these immortal souls are doing at any given time, assuming they exist as described by our theist friends.
Do human gut bacteria share the "you" soul, or do they have separate ones of their own? Note that they cannot, in general, live independently outside the human gut, for long. Can one soul own another soul? When I talk about my gut bacteria, am I wrong to claim it as mine? According to Musika, each bacterium needs its own soul, as I understand it. Do you agree with that? Or do I somehow share my soul with the bacteria? Oh, and while you're here, could you please answer the question in my opening post? Thanks.
Yes, that is correct. Just in time parts is just for manufacturing. Souls are a dime a dozen and spares are always available.
Can souls evolve? A lot of soul goes into a pound of ground beef you know. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here's a thought What would you call a arsehole of a soul? A soul hole? Or a soul who was a arsehole? A hole soul? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If every living being is essentially the soul, or from your perspective, has a soul, then it stands to reason that if bacteria are alive, they are an individual soul. No. Ezekiel 18:4 King James Version (KJV) 4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. jan.
I have heard of soul music? Is that music for souls but we hear it also? Or is it music which has its own soul? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
More likely mistaken. That not what he said. Quote what he said, then we can discuss it properly. I doubt it. jan.