Prove to me that you have a soul.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

Storm
The concept of a soul itself is difficult to define, because there have been so many different ideas as to what it really is.

Alliance
1. There is no proof.

2. There is a certain "energy" in all life.

3. Humans seem to have a special abount of "energy" and consciouness.

This leads me to believe that humans posess the capability to be spiritual, (emphasising a certian mystical aspect of the human body).

You could call this a soul.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Storm
The concept of a soul itself is difficult to define, because there have been so many different ideas as to what it really is.

That should be part of this thread. In order to prove, me must first define. Thanks. thumb up

Robtard
You want proof? Well here it is:

http://entimg.msn.com/i/mu/r/ray_charles/raycharles_150.jpg

That guy undeniably has soul.

Alliance
No. Thats passion.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Robtard
You want proof? Well here it is:

http://entimg.msn.com/i/mu/r/ray_charles/raycharles_150.jpg

That guy undeniably has soul.

You are correct. Also one of the best musicians and songwriters of the last century.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof. This is going to turn out like my 'prove your religion' thread isn't it? erm

Mindship
H'mm.

Don't most people consider...
1) a soul to be nonmaterial, and
2) proof to be material (empirical)?

As such, it is impossible to empirically prove the existence of a nonempirical entity.

Regret
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

My beliefs state that the soul is the combination of spirit and body. The Bible states that God breathed life into man and he became a living soul. Presence of spirit is then defined by living. So, if you are living, and have a physical body, you have a soul.

Now, I think you are referring to spirit, not to soul, and so I would state the same. I am living, and so I have a spirit. Whatever it is that is not present in the body upon death is thus defined as spirit.

debbiejo
I've read that "Soul" in the OT really meant "being alive" which is in a living being.........And god breathed into them a living soul..........THEY WERE ALIVE IN THEIR BODIES...........Hebrew text in the concordance.

Also a study of scriptures will tell you this...

But if you are talking about something outside this living body, then I agree, we are part of a life force.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Regret
My beliefs state that the soul is the combination of spirit and body. The Bible states that God breathed life into man and he became a living soul. Presence of spirit is then defined by living. So, if you are living, and have a physical body, you have a soul.

Now, I think you are referring to spirit, not to soul, and so I would state the same. I am living, and so I have a spirit. Whatever it is that is not present in the body upon death is thus defined as spirit.

My cat has a body and is alive, therefore, my cat has a soul.

Alliance
in your definition.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
in your definition.

IMO ether all animals including humans have souls or they do not have a soul.

Alliance
what about bacteria, plants, fungi, and protists?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
what about bacteria, plants, fungi, and protists?

Yes. Including non living things.

lord xyz

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. Including non living things.

My sh*ts got SOUL!

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
My sh*ts got SOUL!

Or you and your shit dose not have a soul.

Alliance
...I am athiest.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
...I am athiest.

What does that have to do with soul? confused

Regret
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My cat has a body and is alive, therefore, my cat has a soul.

I'd agree. Unless of course the term "soul" is similar to the term "man" and what a cat has is termed something else. All the same, yes I'd agree with that Shaky smile

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
...I am athiest.
Really?

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What does that have to do with soul? confused

its why i dont have one?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
its why i dont have one?

So, Christians have one you don't?

Regret
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
IMO ether all animals including humans have souls or they do not have a soul. Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. Including non living things.

Mormon beliefs state that God created everything spiritually before creating it physically. This would state that if a soul is the combination of spiritual and physical then everything has a soul.

Storm
Atheism is compatible with the belief in a soul.

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Really?

Yeah.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, Christians have one you don't?

You said i might not.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Yeah.



You said i might not.


laughing Am I confusing you?

The idea of the soul in the Buddhist (my form of Buddhism) is known as the 8th level of consciousness.

I am the incarnation of my entity and my entity could be considered my soul, but it is not mine, it belongs to my entity or God.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
laughing Am I confusing you?

The idea of the soul in the Buddhist (my form of Buddhism) is known as the 8th level of consciousness.

I am the incarnation of my entity and my entity could be considered my soul, but it is not mine, it belongs to my entity or God.

I've always seen this as a fancy way of defining soul. Yes, I realize it's different than the Western sense of the word 'soul' but it's still something that transcends the body (or the material world).

Reincarnation (and the Buddhist belief in it) is an example. With absolutely no extra-body "soul entity" there wouldn't be anything able to reincarnate.

You call it the incarnation of your entity. Fair enough. Many would say you're just referring to your soul, however.

I've always strayed away from such definitions since it's so hard. I believe in reincarnation. And whatever it is that reincarnates, people can call it whatever they like, and think of it however they like. My sphere of "belief" ends with the evidence I can point to that supports a belief in reincarnation (in that sense, I'm rather empyrical rather than 'spiritual')

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I've always seen this as a fancy way of defining soul. Yes, I realize it's different than the Western sense of the word 'soul' but it's still something that transcends the body (or the material world).

Reincarnation (and the Buddhist belief in it) is an example. With absolutely no extra-body "soul entity" there wouldn't be anything able to reincarnate.

You call it the incarnation of your entity. Fair enough. Many would say you're just referring to your soul, however.

I've always strayed away from such definitionssince it's so hard. I believe in reincarnation. And whatever it is that reincarnates, people can call it whatever they like, and think of it however they like. My sphere of "belief" ends with the evidence I can point to that supports a belief in reincarnation (in that sense, I'm rather empyrical rather than 'spiritual')

To me the difference is like: is the Earth the center of the universe? Once we thought the sun went around the Earth, but later we found that we go around the sun. It is not my soul; I am not the center of my own existence. There is something bigger then myself. To take it one step further, all entities are one, and that is how we are all connected.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or you and your shit dose not have a soul.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance


I forgot the "?".

lord xyz
This thread is confusing, so let me just say this,

The proof of a soul is like the proof of God, there is no knowledge of it, yet that doesn't disprove it. It was most-likely made up in ancient times, therefore, should be ignored by anyone sensible. Having that said, you might say we have no souls because it's made up, still, you never know, so it's best to just ignore it.

I don't think "Do we have a soul?" isn't the question to be asked. We first need to know "What is a soul?", "What can and cannot have a soul?" and "Is a soul even necessary?"

I guess you've now probably realised I'm getting ahead of myself here and shouldn't of posted this at all.... Ah well.

Shakyamunison
^ You are just fine.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ You are just fine. happy Thank you Shaky, I can alway rely on you to boost my confidence. big grin

Alliance
He's lying you know...

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes. Including non living things.

Consider consciousness, awareness, in broadest terms. Perhaps it's everywhere, but we don't see this because, in a way, consciousness is like gravity.

The more massive something is, the more noticeable its gravity. A moon is more massive than a pebble, so we notice lunar gravity. Lunar grav is nothing, however, compared to the gravity of a black hole.

The more complex something is, the more aware it is. A lizard is more complex than a pebble, so we notice it is aware. We can even talk about our awareness, we're so aware, which makes sense since we are the most complex entities we know of.

I might define the soul as a process of consciousness. And the only way you could hope to prove anything like this is by showing the skeptic "the way," and to let him draw his own conclusion.

DigiMark007
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me the difference is like: is the Earth the center of the universe? Once we thought the sun went around the Earth, but later we found that we go around the sun. It is not my soul; I am not the center of my own existence. There is something bigger then myself. To take it one step further, all entities are one, and that is how we are all connected.

Understood. I realize you see 'soul' as just a diferrentiation from the entity that is "All". In that respect though, if all is one (and you and I are in agreement here, since I believe roughly the same thing with regards to everything being connected) then our individual "souls" are, to create a metaphor, arms on a body. We aren't seperate from other aspects of the body, but that which is you (an arm) is different than that which is me (another arm). But we're a part of the same whole.

We'd just have to imagine an infinite-armed creature to get the metaphor truly correct. smile

Not too far from a 'we're all children of God' analogy from Christianity, but I think that's the general idea.

...

Back to the main subject though:

I'd still simply point to the considerable (non-biased) evidence we have of reincarnation (not proof, but evidence) and use that to say that there's at least evidence of something greater than the body/material world/etc.

Lord Urizen
Shaky, I always thought of it this way.....

We are not our bodies...our bodies are a part of us, and belong to us (atleast for now) but they are not who we are.

Our mind is not who we are either...it is also just a part of us. If your mind was really you, then you would always be in union with it, and that is not the case.

Ever have thoughts that enter your mind without your permission ? Has your mind ever stressed you out in any way ?

There has to be something deeper. Your beleif in your Entity is pretty much the same concept of the Soul.

The Soul predates the Concept of the Christian/Judeo God. The idea of a soul existed way before the mainstream religions, because it existed in Egyptian, Peruvian, and Greek mythologies as well......

I sort of believe it like this:

Your Body is the dwelling place for your mind. And your mind is the dwelling place for your Soul. The mind is such a complex "place"....a network of thoughts, dreams, and emotions. However, what absorbs all of that? You can't be your mind, because your mind is more of a "place" than a state of identity. Your identity, ego, or purest self has to be something else....if not a soul, then what ?

Shakyamunison
Lord Urizen we mostly agree. However, the main difference is that my entity is not in my body. Let me explain; the world we see around us is only a small part of the true reality. We live in this true reality, but cannot understand or even detect it. Every atom, everything that is physical, extends from this physical world into the main part of the universe that we cannot detect. Your body and mind exist in this physical form and beyond. My entity is the part of me that extends into that other part of the true nature of reality.

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Shaky, I always thought of it this way.....

We are not our bodies...our bodies are a part of us, and belong to us (atleast for now) but they are not who we are.

Our mind is not who we are either...it is also just a part of us. If your mind was really you, then you would always be in union with it, and that is not the case.

Ever have thoughts that enter your mind without your permission ? Has your mind ever stressed you out in any way ?

There has to be something deeper. Your beleif in your Entity is pretty much the same concept of the Soul.

The Soul predates the Concept of the Christian/Judeo God. The idea of a soul existed way before the mainstream religions, because it existed in Egyptian, Peruvian, and Greek mythologies as well......

I sort of believe it like this:

Your Body is the dwelling place for your mind. And your mind is the dwelling place for your Soul. The mind is such a complex "place"....a network of thoughts, dreams, and emotions. However, what absorbs all of that? You can't be your mind, because your mind is more of a "place" than a state of identity. Your identity, ego, or purest self has to be something else....if not a soul, then what ?

While I understand your position, the idea of "mind" separate from brain is up to debate. I believe that "mind" is used only to distinguish scientific view from religious view. I believe this is the major error in internal construct based psychology, and the downfall of scientific opinion of psychology outside of the field due to its spiritual style connotation. I believe the idea of mind is no different than the idea of spirit, and for clarity I believe use of the term spirit is a more accurate description of what you are talking about. But then my opinion is that the spirit is absolutely inseparable from the body while living, so even the idea of spirit is not the same to me. Given this, as to any discernible portion of the body separate from the physical is not something I prescribe to.

But then, the topic of mind/spirit has been debated since Plato and Socrates, and we still haven't come to a definitive on the subject. I doubt between yourself and I we would be able to come to an agreement. I believe science will be able study spirit at the same time it is able to discover a means of studying mind.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
While I understand your position, the idea of "mind" separate from brain is up to debate. I believe that "mind" is used only to distinguish scientific view from religious view. I believe this is the major error in internal construct based psychology, and the downfall of scientific opinion of psychology outside of the field due to its spiritual style connotation. I believe the idea of mind is no different than the idea of spirit, and for clarity I believe use of the term spirit is a more accurate description of what you are talking about. But then my opinion is that the spirit is absolutely inseparable from the body while living, so even the idea of spirit is not the same to me. Given this, as to any discernible portion of the body separate from the physical is not something I prescribe to.

But then, the topic of mind/spirit has been debated since Plato and Socrates, and we still haven't come to a definitive on the subject. I doubt between yourself and I we would be able to come to an agreement. I believe science will be able study spirit at the same time it is able to discover a means of studying mind.



I think it would be highly interesting if Science could in fact study the spirit. I mean we already study the mind....so why not ?

Templares
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think it would be highly interesting if Science could in fact study the spirit. I mean we already study the mind....so why not ?

Im getting flashbacks of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within laughing.

Templares
I dont believe (for now anyway) that souls exist.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

Romans 2:15
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them )

Your conscience is one example of proof.

Let me ask you this? Why do people feel (innatey, instinctively, and almost intrinsically) that certain things are just wrong? Why do all people have this same basic understanding of right and wrong? Your conscience is immaterial so it is not part of your body, but a discrete thing as such. I believe that God gave each and every person this natural ability to distinguish between right and wrong.


John 8:9
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience , went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Those were unsaved, non-born again, non-Christian people who were convicted by their conscience. So their conscience was not a religious thing, it was planted their (I believe) by God.

Templares
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Romans 2:15
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them )

Your conscience is one example of proof.

Let me ask you this? Why do people feel (innatey, instinctively, and almost intrinsically) that certain things are just wrong? Why do all people have this same basic understanding of right and wrong? Your conscience is immaterial so it is not part of your body, but a discrete thing as such. I believe that God gave each and every person this natural ability to distinguish between right and wrong.


John 8:9
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience , went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Those were unsaved, non-born again, non-Christian people who were convicted by their conscience. So their conscience was not a religious thing, it was planted their (I believe) by God.

Conscience and one's view of morality is SUBJECTIVE.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Templares
Conscience and one's view of morality is SUBJECTIVE.

Having one is not.

Templares
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Having one is not.

eek!

oooohhh. The influence of conscience is not the same on each individual hence SUBJECTIVE.

Plus, i wouldnt put a supernatural tag on human behavior.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Templares
eek!

oooohhh. The influence of conscience is not the same on each individual hence SUBJECTIVE.

Plus, i wouldnt put a supernatural tag on human behavior.

I directed my comments in response to the title of the thread. The conscience is a common, universal thing. I believe it is immaterial (having no physical substance). Thus, I believe that it is proof of the soul's existence. Even people in countries that are warring or predominantly Islamic have consciences. They may not hold the exact same values us Americans but they each have a conscience. But you see the conscience can be seared according to the Bible. It can be ignored and overidden for so long that it becomes almost calloused. That is how a person can commit atrocites although they have a conscience.

maham
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

Prove 2 me u don't!

N I don't hav time answerin ppl's bizarre qs.

Bardock42
Originally posted by maham
Prove 2 me u don't!

N I don't hav time answerin ppl's bizarre qs.

You can't prove the non existence of something in such a case...you have the burden to prove to us that you are right when claiming such a thing.

Alliance
Originally posted by Bardock42
You can't prove the non existence of something in such a case...you have the burden to prove to us that you are right when claiming such a thing.

correct.

Wonderer
There is no proof to anything in life, unless it is proof to you. Personally, I feel that there must be a soul, or some conscious force bigger in dimension and effect than the body. It's more about feeling, rather than knowing or proving.

Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I think it would be highly interesting if Science could in fact study the spirit. I mean we already study the mind....so why not ?

We have never studied the "mind" brain yes, "mind" no. What we study is behavior and then cognitive types infer that they have studied the "mind". There has never been actual study of "mind". "mind" is the exact same as "spirit" in our level of study of it. Responses and cognitive thought do not necessitate a "mind" it only necessitates brain function, also thoughts do not necessitate "mind". We have no study that necessitates the existence of a nonphysical "mind"/consciousness. Scientifically there is exactly the same amount of study of "mind" as there is study of "spirit".

Regret
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Having one is not.

Actually, conscience is believed to be taught by a large number of psychologists. There is no evidence for conscience existing without experience, and so it is a phenomena that is impossible to study without history effects interfering with study. The fact that some individuals (serial killers especially imo) appear to not have a conscience as others do may be evidence of the conscience not existing.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
We have never studied the "mind" brain yes, "mind" no. What we study is behavior and then cognitive types infer that they have studied the "mind". There has never been actual study of "mind". "mind" is the exact same as "spirit" in our level of study of it. Responses and cognitive thought do not necessitate a "mind" it only necessitates brain function, also thoughts do not necessitate "mind". We have no study that necessitates the existence of a nonphysical "mind"/consciousness. Scientifically there is exactly the same amount of study of "mind" as there is study of "spirit".

Behaviors and thoughts are studied. And all behaviors and thoughts are spawned from the mind.

So yes, as Abstract as the mind is, we have studied it. We just don't have as much knowledge of it as we do the physical things in life.

but how do we know our knowledge of this physical world is really that accurate? One of the first things they teach us in psychology is that no one sees the world for what it truly is. We can't truly comprehend the external world, we can only translate it to our perceptions.

FeceMan
No. I can't prove you have a soul.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by FeceMan
No. I can't prove you have a soul.

Prove it.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Regret
Actually, conscience is believed to be taught by a large number of psychologists. There is no evidence for conscience existing without experience, and so it is a phenomena that is impossible to study without history effects interfering with study. The fact that some individuals (serial killers especially imo) appear to not have a conscience as others do may be evidence of the conscience not existing.

Romans 2:15
who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them )

John 8:9
Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience , went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.


1 Timothy 4:2
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron ,

Serial killers were not always serial killers. They were once children who grew up into adults. They have a conscience just like every other human being. Their conscience is just "seared" from being ignored and overidden for so long. Conscience is God's law as it were written on our hearts (fig., an internal guide or law of right and wrong). We don't need someone to tell us that taking something that does not belong to us is wrong we just know. We don't need someone to sit down and expound the Bible to know that taking someone's life is wrong. We just know this (internally).

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

Serial killers were not always serial killers. They were once children who grew up into adults. They have a conscience just like every other human being. Their conscience is just "seared" from being ignored and overidden for so long. Conscience is God's law as it were written on our hearts (fig., an internal guide or law of right and wrong). We don't need someone to tell us that taking something that does not belong to us is wrong we just know. We don't need someone to sit down and expound the Bible to know that taking someone's life is wrong. We just know this (internally).

More senseless bullshit ?

Sociapaths do not think anything is wrong....they kill and enjoy it. They don't care, they don't feel it's wrong.....serial killers enjoy what they do. Terrorists think its right to kill.

People who like to kill don't have the morality that you or I have in regard to life and death.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by FeceMan
No. I can't prove you have a soul.

Neither can he prove that God does not exist. But God does exist.

Alliance
Or.

No.

Wonderer
When are people going to stop trying to prove such big things. It's not about proving them, but about giving people the right to believe whatever they want to. If you could prove anything like that, then why has humankind tried to prove things like that for thousands of years? It will never be proved, because one can always doubt. Simple.

Alliance
You don't have the right to believe anything without at least shreads of evidence.

Wonderer
Originally posted by Alliance
You don't have the right to believe anything without at least shreads of evidence.

And what authority do you have to believe that? Were's your shread of evidence?

Alliance
Because, if you believe a lie, you are living a lie, meaning you have an untruthful existance.

But, because nto everything can be 100% proven with what we are capable of examining (intellectually and physically on both a personal and societal level), you should be able ot back up everything with at least some sustainable basis in reality.

(making "truth" more like your personal Theory on truth.)

( Theory because you should constantly be rexamining the state of existance)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Because, if you believe a lie, you are living a lie, meaning you have an untruthful existance.

But, because nto everything can be 100% proven with what we are capable of examining (intellectually and physically on both a personal and societal level), you should be able ot back up everything with at least some sustainable basis in reality.

(making "truth" more like your personal Theory on truth.)

( Theory because you should constantly be rexamining the state of existance)

But Christians are not allowed to reexamine. However, a Buddhist is encouraged to always reexamine.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But Christians are not allowed to reexamine. However, a Buddhist is encouraged to always reexamine.

Perhaps this explains why there are so few Buddhists in the world (relatively)

Himo
I don't a have a "soul" persay, but an energy felt by others. If I'm sad, others will take notice of it and will create a dent on their mood, vice versa if I'm happy. I believe everyone emits a kinda "energy" that influences how others react around you on a subconscious level, or in some cases, conscious.

I would describe more simply as an instinct or a gut feeling, and that's my definition of a soul.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Himo
I don't a have a "soul" persay, but an energy felt by others. If I'm sad, others will take notice of it and will create a dent on their mood, vice versa if I'm happy. I believe everyone emits a kinda "energy" that influences how others react around you on a subconscious level, or in some cases, conscious.

I would describe more simply as an instinct or a gut feeling, and that's my definition of a soul.

Is an energy field the same as a soul?
If it is, then does the Earth have a soul?

Himo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is an energy field the same as a soul?
If it is, then does the Earth have a soul?

True, it may not be, but that is my closest belief that I can currently formulate. My beliefs are kinda outside the box. But for now, I'll use the conservative view of a soul.

In my personal opinion, yes, the Earth does have a soul. It is a entity much like you or I.

Alliance
Is it a seperate entity?

Himo
Originally posted by Alliance
Is it a seperate entity?

Yes and no. The Earth is living through the life of plants and animals. Its heartbeat is that of everything living.



It works much like a child star's parent, living through its offspring. wink

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Himo
Yes and no. The Earth is living through the life of plants and animals. Its heartbeat is that of everything living.



It works much like a child star's parent, living through its offspring. wink

So, you could say that the solar system is living through the fact that the Earth is alive, and our galaxy is alive because of our solar system. Therefore the universe is alive because we are.

Alliance
"alive" is not the proper term. There is no "life" in non-living matter. (bad WC I know, but work with me here).

debbiejo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is an energy field the same as a soul?
If it is, then does the Earth have a soul? I believe so....Everything is made of energy and connected...One part of other parts....

Himo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you could say that the solar system is living through the fact that the Earth is alive, and our galaxy is alive because of our solar system. Therefore the universe is alive because we are.

Hmmm, that's a good question.

finti
well Motown used to have some good Soul............

lord xyz
I think a soul is a life, if you have a life, you have a soul.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
"alive" is not the proper term. There is no "life" in non-living matter. (bad WC I know, but work with me here). "Alive" could be used to describe it though.....

Alliance
not really. Its not alive.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
not really. Its not alive.

What's not alive? confused

debbiejo
How do you know?

Alliance
Its not by defenition. Things have to be cellular to be alive.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
Its not by defenition. Things have to be cellular to be alive. Not necessarily....You're only talking biological.

Alliance
BIOlogy. The study of life.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
BIOlogy. The study of life. Biological life... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Alliance
Originally posted by Alliance
BIOlogy. The study of LIFE.

debbiejo
Biological life.....you know, like fresh and blood...and germs, and other such things. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Alliance
ALL LIFE...even xenobiology could be considered a "field"

debbiejo
There could be things that I might call alive that I wouldn't consider BIO.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
There could be things that I might call alive that I wouldn't consider BIO.

Like a theorized crystalline entity?

debbiejo
blink laughing out loud

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
blink laughing out loud

What?

debbiejo
embarrasment sorry

I suppose it could, ah yes....there are those things

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
embarrasment sorry

I suppose it could, ah yes....there are those things

Sorry, I am very confused.

debbiejo
Alternative biochemistry collectively refers to an assortment of astrobiology theories and hypotheses in which life can be based on biochemical systems other than the organic chemistry used life on earth. These include the use of other atoms to construct the cellular structures of that are necessary for life besides carbon and the use of other solvent besides water as a medium of life. Speculation of about extraterrestrial life based on radically different forms of biochemistry is particularly popular in science fiction.




big grin

No, I was confused........I didn't know what you were talking about.....I thought you were making fun of me.......lol

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by debbiejo
big grin

No, I was confused........I didn't know what you were talking about.....I thought you were making fun of me.......lol

Oh no, just referring to an old staple of a theorized life form not seen as traditionally "biological."

Alliance
Virus and prions would fall under that category.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Virus and prions would fall under that category.

Yes. In the end I believe biology should cover all such things. It is just a lag of definitions where "biological" carries and shares the connotations of "organic" - that biology deals with "oraganic life" only...

Alliance
I was referencing the dabate over wheather or not prions or viruses are alive.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
I was referencing the dabate over wheather or not prions or viruses are alive.

I know. Just commenting on linguistic considerations.

Alliance
Ah.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
- that biology deals with "oraganic life" only... Yep, yep, yep.......That's what I meant...

And I would agree prions and viruses are alive.

Alliance
Life is organic. There is no separation.

debbiejo
I didn't say "life", I said "alive"....It's different.....Maybe "alive" is not the best word. Hmm how about intelligence. Intelligence would be alive.

Alliance
Life is alive by definition..and the only things that can be alive are living.

But, like my first comment said....

Originally posted by Alliance
"alive" is not the proper term.

debbiejo
What about "alive" as in life we don't understand yet? Yet not bio. An active intelligence, a field, a force, an interaction..

Alliance
There ARE no such things...give me an example of non-biological life.

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
There ARE no such things...give me an example of non-biological life. entities that give out energy sources? Electro magnetic fields, BIO energy fields, Photons. These seem to have some different type of "alive" or energy intelligence....They seem to act with some sort of intellect, especially the photons.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Life is organic. There is no separation.

True, but there are people who when they think "Organic" think grass and trees and people and things like that, and that that is the only kind of "organic life" there is, where as if one described a prion, or the concept of silicon-based life they would say "but that isn't organic" because it doesn't meet the preconceived notion of "organic" and thus, by extension biological.

debbiejo
True.

Alliance
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but there are people who when they think "Organic" think grass and trees and people and things like that, and that that is the only kind of "organic life" there is, where as if one described a prion, or the concept of silicon-based life they would say "but that isn't organic" because it doesn't meet the preconceived notion of "organic" and thus, by extension biological.

Well, the reason being...is that silicon based life doesn't exist.

Straw man argument...you set a false point and then disprove it.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Well, the reason being...is that silicon based life doesn't exist.

Straw man argument...you set a false point and then disprove it.

I don't think I am actually trying to set a point at all. Just explaining where Debbiejo was coming from and the thought set behind some people.

And besides, I haven't actually said silicon based life, but rather the concept of it, it was popular a few years ago, that theory, for some. No idea if it still is.

Alliance
I'm not awre that it is. Silicon has many weird properties that make it very un-carbon like.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
I'm not awre that it is. Silicon has many weird properties that make it very un-carbon like.

Not any more I don't think, but I remember picking up an old text book a couple of years back, think it was late 80's, maybe early 90's. Anyway I know it had a little bit in the origins of life section on alternate theories, one of which was "silicon based life" - first time I had ever seen it in a non-sci-fi setting. I assumed that it must have had at least a little following to get considered like that.

Anyway, as I said I have no idea if it is still a theory of interest to anyone, I doubt it. But then again you never know with some of the fringe groups.

Alliance
In 1952 silicon based life was the basis of the alien species (Ullerans) in the novel Uller Uprising (a novel based off of the Sepoy mutiny). It is widely considered the first novel that is proto-US military science fiction.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
In 1952 silicon based life was the basis of the alien species (Ullerans) in the novel Uller Uprising (a novel based off of the Sepoy mutiny). It is widely considered the first novel that is proto-US military science fiction.

Ah, proto-US military science fiction. A trend that seems to have survived far to well in so much of the pulp type sci-fi.

Alliance
somwhat. The sub-genre crystallized in 1958 with Heinlein's Starship Troopers . American Military SF had its influences on pulp SF, but they are considered different genres.

AMSF is a facinating genre. I wrote a very large thesis on it...tracing its origins and how it describes the rise and change of American militarism during the cold war.

Of course, the genre has changed significantly since 1992. But, it always was changing anyway.

Fascinating.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
somwhat. The sub-genre crystallized in 1958 with Heinlein's Starship Troopers . American Military SF had its influences on pulp SF, but they are considered different genres.

AMSF is a facinating genre. I wrote a very large thesis on it...tracing its origins and how it describes the rise and change of American militarism during the cold war.

Of course, the genre has changed significantly since 1992. But, it always was changing anyway.

Fascinating.

I agree entirely. Though the closest I have got to studying it for education was in one of my English classes discusses genre and value in times of trouble (of which cold war/post 9/11 genres were a big part.)

I'd love to do some more study some time in the future, but then I'd do it because I just enjoy the reading. One of the most galling things I ever heard, and made me question the intelligence of ones average human was, during one of my electives where I was doing literature I heard some guy remark "I don't think I like it, I didn't expect so much reading." I like to think he accidentally mailed himself to South America or something.

animelover4ever
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.
how can i prove what i don't have....

Alliance
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I agree entirely. Though the closest I have got to studying it for education was in one of my English classes discusses genre and value in times of trouble (of which cold war/post 9/11 genres were a big part.)

I'd love to do some more study some time in the future, but then I'd do it because I just enjoy the reading. One of the most galling things I ever heard, and made me question the intelligence of ones average human was, during one of my electives where I was doing literature I heard some guy remark "I don't think I like it, I didn't expect so much reading." I like to think he accidentally mailed himself to South America or something.

Cool. I just lvoe the relationship between Republics and the military. How societies reconcile facist ideals with democratic ones.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

How recent was this enlightenment? stick out tongue

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by FeceMan
How recent was this enlightenment? stick out tongue

The term "prove it" in the title is meant as a provocateur. Where as the other "prove it" is used in a way of challenging another person. There is nothing wrong with saying "prove it"; it is just a waste of time.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by animelover4ever
how can i prove what i don't have....

Ah, but you do have a soul.

mahasattva
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

I like to share this article..

With regard to the soul theory, there are three kinds of teachers in the world:

- The first teacher teaches the existence of an eternal ego-entity that outlasts death: He is the eternalist.

- The second teacher teaches a temporary ego-entity which becomes annihilated at death: He is the materialist.

- The third teacher teaches neither an eternal nor a temporary ego-entity: He is the Buddha.

The Buddha teaches that what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc., are merely conventional terms that do not refer to any real, independent entity. According to Buddhism there is no reason to believe that there is an eternal soul that comes from heaven or that is created by itself and that will transmigrate or proceed straight away either to heaven or hell after death. Buddhists cannot accept that there is anything either in this world or any other world that is eternal or unchangeable. We only cling to ourselves and hope to find something immortal. We are like children who wish to clasp a rainbow. To children, a rainbow is something vivid and real; but the grown-ups know that it is merely an illusion caused by certain rays of light and drops of water. The light is only a series of waves or undulations that have no more reality than the rainbow itself.

Man has done well without discovering the soul. He shows no signs of fatigue or degeneration for not having encountered any soul. No man has produced anything to promote mankind by postulating a soul and its imaginary working. Searching for a soul in man is like searching for something in a dark empty room. But the poor man will never realize that what he is searching for is not in the room. It is very difficult to make such a person understand the futility of his search.

Those who believe in the existence of a soul are not in a position to explain what and where it is. The Buddha's advice is not to waste our time over this unnecessary speculation and devote our time to strive for our salvation. When we have attained perfection then we will be able to realize whether there is a soul or not. A wandering ascetic named Vacchagotta asked the Buddha whether there was an Atman (self) or not. The story is as follows:

Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:

'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?

The Buddha is silent.

'Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Atman?

Again the Buddha is silent.

Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.

After the ascetic has left, Ananda asks the Buddha why He did not answer Vacchagotta's question. The Buddha explains His position:

'Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta, the Wanderer: 'Is there a Self?, if I had answered: 'There is a Self'. Then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada).'

'And Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?, if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist theory (uccedavada)'.

'Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta: 'Is there a Self? If I had answered: 'There is a Self', would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all dhammas are without Self?

'Surely not, Sir.'

'And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer: 'Is there no Self?', if I had answered: 'There is no Self', then that would have created a greater confusion in the already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Atman (Self), but now I haven't got one.' (Samyutta Nikaya).

The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.

The Buddha countered all soul-theory and soul-speculation with His Anatta doctrine. Anatta is translated under various labels: No-soul, No-self, egolessness, and soullessness.

To understand the Anatta doctrine, one must understand that the eternal soul theory _ 'I have a soul' _ and the material theory _ 'I have no soul' _are both obstacles to self-realization or salvation. They arise from the misconception 'I AM'. Hence, to understand the Anatta doctrine, one must not cling to any opinion or views on soul-theory; rather, one must try to see things objectively as they are and without any mental projections. One must learn to see the so-called 'I' or Sour or Self for what it really is : merely a combination of changing forces. This requires some analytical explanation.

The Buddha taught that what we conceive as something eternal within us, is merely a combination of physical and mental aggregates or forces (pancakkhandha), made up of body or matter (rupakkhandha), sensation (vedanakkhandha), perception (sannakkhandha), mental formations (samkharakkhandha) and consciousness (vinnanakkhandha). These forces are working together in a flux of momentary change; they are never the same for two consecutive moments. They are the component forces of the psycho-physical life. When the Buddha analyzed the psycho-physical life, He found only these five aggregates or forces. He did not find any eternal soul. However, many people still have the misconception that the soul is the consciousness. The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that is cannot exist independently of them.

The Buddha said, 'The body, O monks, is not the Self. Sensation is not the Self. Perception is not the Self. The mental constructions are not the Self. And neither is consciousness the Self. Perceiving this, O monks, the disciple sets no value on the body, or on sensation, or on perception, or on mental constructions, or on consciousness. Setting no value of them, he becomes free of passions and he is liberated. The knowledge of liberation arises there within him. And then he knows that he has done what has to be done, that he has lived the holy life, that he is no longer becoming this or that, that his rebirth is destroyed.' (Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta).

The Anatta doctrine of the Buddha is over 2500 years old. Today the thought current of the modern scientific world is flowing towards the Buddha's Teaching of Anatta or No-Soul. In the eyes of the modern scientists, man is merely a bundle of ever-changing sensations. Modern physicists say that the apparently solid universe is not, in reality, composed of solid substance at all, but actually a flux of energy. The modern physicist sees the whole universe as a process of transformation of various forces of which man is a mere part. The Buddha was the first to realize this.

A prominent author, W.S. Wily, once said, 'The existence of the immortal in man is becoming increasingly discredited under the influence of the dominant schools of modern thought.' The belief in the immortality of the soul is a dogma that is contradicted by the most solid, empirical truth.

The mere belief in an immortal soul, or the conviction that something in us survives death, does not make us immortal unless we know what it is that survives and that we are capable of identifying ourselves with it. Most human beings choose death instead of immortality by identifying themselves with that which is perishable and impermanent by clinging stubbornly to the body or the momentary elements of the present personality, which they mistake for the soul or the essential form of life.

About those researches of modern scientists who are now more inclined to assert that the so-called 'Soul' is no more than a bundle of sensations, emotions, sentiments, all relating to the physical experiences, Prof. James says that the term 'Soul' is a mere figure of speech to which no reality corresponds.

It is the same Anatta doctrine of the Buddha that was introduced in the Mahayana school of Buddhism as Sunyata or voidness. Although this concept was elaborated by a great Mahayana scholar, Nagarjuna, by giving various interpretations, there is no extraordinary concept in Sunyata far different from the Buddha's original doctrine of Anatta.

The belief in soul or Self and the Creator God, is so strongly rooted in the minds of many people that they cannot imagine why the Buddha did not accept these two issues which are indispensable to many religions. In fact some people got a shock or became nervous and tried to show their emotion when they heard that the Buddha rejected these two concepts. That is the main reason why to many unbiased scholars and psychologists Buddhism stands unique when compared to all the other religions. At the same time, some other scholars who appreciate the various other aspects of Buddhism thought that Buddhism would be enriched by deliberately re-interpreting the Buddha word 'Atta' in order to introduce the concept of Soul and Self into Buddhism. The Buddha was aware of this unsatisfactoriness of man and the conceptual upheaval regarding this belief.

All conditioned things are impermanent,
All conditioned things are Dukka -- Suffering,
All conditioned or unconditioned things
are soulless or selfless.

There is a parable in our Buddhist texts with regard to the belief in an eternal soul. A man, who mistook a moving rope for a snake, became terrified by that fear in his mind. Upon discovery that it was only a piece of rope, his fear subsided and his mind became peaceful. The belief in an eternal soul is equated to the rope of that man's imagination.

lil bitchiness
It really all depends, as its been mentioned what you define soul as. Proof needs to be something material, and soul, as far as other deffinitions go, it isnt.

I guess you can call the life enery soul. Life energy moves in and out of us, so that can be a soul or a spirit.

Alliance
My question is, reagarding mahasattva's post...

The Buddah says that the soul is neither mortal or eternal...and that we should not waste our time discussing it becuase we have no proof.

However, what proof does Buddah have that we have a soul in the first place?

JOE NUNEZ
Has there ever been any evidence of a soul?

Alliance
Not to my knowledge. It more just a "feeling" which is local evidence, but not evidence in general.

JOE NUNEZ
Well then if it don't fit, you must acquit... Seriously everything i know is evidence, so i base my beliefs on that. I mean whats the secrecy behind this soul, or devine God. Why is the world in conflict, and '' God'' is powerless to help.

JOE NUNEZ
Or does God only work, when one dies??

Alliance
Well, if we had this answer, ther would be a lot less to talk about.

JOE NUNEZ
Originally posted by Alliance
Well, if we had this answer, their would be a lot less to talk about. Actually their would be more to talk about.

Scenario A: there is a God. We can talk about heaven, or on how to purify our souls.

Scenario B: Santa clause story. Here we could discuss on how governments tattoo the idea of a God, in order to control the people.

Alliance
If you think religoin is simply a governmental issue...you're dead wrong.

JOE NUNEZ
Originally posted by Alliance
If you think religoin is simply a governmental issue...you're dead wrong. Huh? explain please....

debbiejo
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Ah, but you do have a soul. Well the word "Soul" only mean biological life in the original Hebrew. A spirit is different though.

Alliance
Originally posted by JOE NUNEZ
Huh? explain please....

Religion is not a tool of the government...it may be one, but there are many more restrictions preventing that.

There are not many thocracies in the world anymore. Worshipping your monarch is no longer the same as worshipping christ. Government has more power than the church in most nations.

Religion survives because it puts a whole nother set of people in power (clergy). Think about how much money is made off of the Hajj, or Christmas, and other such spiritual events. Or even just donations to your holy place...

Government is one of the smaller forces propgating religon.

mahasattva

Alliance
Give me a day or so to look it over messed laughing

lord xyz
Soul: The link between mind and body.

Alliance
Soul: The percieved link between mind and body?

And why is the soul between the two? What makes it part mind, part body, but not either?

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Soul: The percieved link between mind and body?

And why is the soul between the two? What makes it part mind, part body, but not either?

Biblically speaking it is both, it is the combined entity. But I don't know if he's talking Biblically.

debbiejo

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Prove to me that you have a soul.

Do we have a soul, and if we do, how do you know this to be true?

Give me your proof.

Is this another anti-Christain/God sucks thread?

Cuz if so, this shit is getting real old, ey.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Is this another anti-Christain/God sucks thread?

Cuz if so, this shit is getting real old, ey.

No, this is what is a soul, and do you have one thread. It's just some people turn every thread into an anti-Christain/God sucks thread.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
Soul: The percieved link between mind and body?

And why is the soul between the two? What makes it part mind, part body, but not either?

Personally when I think of soul I don't separate it from mind at all. In fact at best I just see it as another word for personality/mind/memories - the mental stuff that makes us... us. Strip away the body and it is what goes on in the mind that defines us. If a soul is applicable it is just another way of looking at that part of us.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Personally when I think of soul I don't separate it from mind at all. In fact at best I just see it as another word for personality/mind/memories - the mental stuff that makes us... us. Strip away the body and it is what goes on in the mind that defines us. If a soul is applicable it is just another way of looking at that part of us.

Soul is the mind, will, and emotions. Spirit is the real you. The body is the house that both live in.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Soul is the mind, will, and emotions. Spirit is the real you. The body is the house that both live in.

I don't sperate them either. The multitude of ideas, like we have our energy form, or the spirit is somehow us but sperate, kind of floating there, does nothing for me.

A person is what is in there mind. The minds (dreams, emotions, memories, personality etc) is carried around by the body. Body and mind/soul/spirit - human.

None of this body, soul and mind, or body, soul, spirit, mind. Or heat, soul and mind business. Just mind and body.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>