Do humans have souls?

[Rockthatpiano06]

My biggest problem with humans having or not having souls (and I apologize if I missed something in the thread that talks about this because I didn't read it all) is that if humans have souls, then surely everything living must? I mean, humans can't be the only ones. If everything has a soul, does that include things like trees, bacteria, ect? That's why I don't really believe humans have a literal soul. I think our personalities and lives create a figurative soul, but not in a physical sense if you know what I mean.

[Kyuuketsuki]

(25th March 2009 18:32)Tiberius Wrote:  Whether the soul is physical or non-physical, it shouldn't matter. There still should be evidence.

Not in Frodoverse

Kyu

---

(25th March 2009 19:21)Rockthatpiano06 Wrote:  My biggest problem with humans having or not having souls (and I apologize if I missed something in the thread that talks about this because I didn't read it all) is that if humans have souls, then surely everything living must? I mean, humans can't be the only ones. If everything has a soul, does that include things like trees, bacteria, ect? That's why I don't really believe humans have a literal soul. I think our personalities and lives create a figurative soul, but not in a physical sense if you know what I mean.

Ah, but we speshul see, we betta van all ver ress yeah?

Kyu

[padraic]

Quote:Not in Frodoverse Confused

Bad Kyu.

[fr0d0]

(25th March 2009 18:32)Tiberius Wrote:  

(19th March 2009 23:16)fr0d0 Wrote:  

Tiberius Wrote:Gravity isn't a physical object, yet there is evidence of gravity.

I was asking for a definition of the soul to support your interpretation.

No, you wanted me to find a definition of a soul as a physical object. I never said a soul was a physical object, I said I wanted evidence ("show me a soul and I'll believe in a soul").

We can see physical objects, and we can see the effects of the non-physical (forces such as gravity). Whether the soul is physical or non-physical, it shouldn't matter. There still should be evidence.

Yes, I did want you to find a definition of soul as a physical object. I repeated that to Kyu ???

Lets be more precise then. Please find a definition of soul for me that has proof. The point is, there is no proof of soul. You set yourself impossible goals. I can't fathom how you don't see the futility in it.

Don't bang your head against a lamp post you may get brain damage.

I realise for athiests this is a safety blanket so you don't have to think about the problem.

---

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  What I asked Tiberius was: Show me a description of the soul as a physical object

To which your answer is: "In many religions and parts of philosophy, the soul is the immaterial part of a person. It is usually thought to consist of one's thoughts and personality, and can be synonymous with the spirit, mind or self."

???

For the umpteenth time I have to ask, are you being deliberately obtuse?

If the soul is the seat of personality and emotion then it CANNOT be affected negatively or positively by changes in the body or, more specifically, the brain. The fact that changes to the brain (as a result of malfunction/damage) does affect (sometimes significantly) both personality and emotion means that the soul, if it exists, CANNOT be the seat of such things. Also, to claim that the soul is the seat of things that are very evidently affected by the biological malfunction IMPLICITLY states that the soul is physical or has a physical component. In other words your implied claim that the soul is immaterial or even real is just your usual rubbish/wishful thinking.

Try not to get too frustrated Kyu. I'll get to you.

Your logic isn't solid. Firstly, you're attaching quite a lot of weight in a definition from what you usually slate as an unreliable source. In this case, the secular wikipedia is hardly a good place to look for religious definition.

The soul is of course not as limited as your found definition. We could probe the subject into the night eeking out the finite definition, but I suspect that to be of no interest to you.

Suffice to say, please don't make sweeping statements as a conclusion of something that you've scratched the surface of. It makes you look foolish.

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  So, back to your question: "Can you show us anything that is pretty much universally agreed to exist for which there is no evidence?"

So taken in context, what I think you're asking is: As the soul isn't a physical object, can it exist? As I've said very many times now, spiritually perfect definitions require there to be no proof.

You have SHOWN nothing of the sort and any attempt to separate the soul (or your god) from the established rules of evidence and criticism is nothing more than SPECIAL PLEADING on your part.

Ooh - capital letters... *looks more closely*

By 'special pleading' you mean thinking outside the box, creativity, free thought - mustn't allow that now must we.

I repeat once more... you SERIOUSLY think that there is proof of God??

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  You may need proof, but I'm afraid it is a ridiculous pursuit, as I've shown. That you choose to remain obstinately narrow minded of the subject is your position. Until that position changes, a lot of the world isn't going to make sense to you.

In your eyes perhaps but then, since you routinely engage in wishful thinking and subsequent beliefs/claims that things of the imagination are real, your view is laughable.

I really don't know how you come up with this stuff. It makes me wonder if everything you say is equally unsubstantiated.

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  A lot of what world? The warped one you exist in or the one that I, as most science adherents, choose to believe (with reason) is inherently explainable and governed by physical laws that make sense? Thanks but no thanks ... I think I'll continue to inhabit the world of the rational.

It's nice and safe in that little box. Come back and see me when you're ready to come out and play in the real world.

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  EDIT: And if you look at the replies below you'll see that, whilst my style is uncompromising, they all say pretty much the same thing as I am. To claim that something needs no evidence is bad enough, to claim it can't have evidence is worse but to claim that the utter lack of evidence is not onloy expected but proof of such things is, to my mind (and I suspect of others here), self evidently ludicrous.

Well knock me over with a feather. Is this an atheist forum then???

Sadly for you, truth isn't a democracy. (atheist quote #898y34t527q)

[Kyuuketsuki]

(25th March 2009 22:37)padraic Wrote:  Bad Kyu.

Very, very bad Kyu :

(25th March 2009 22:38)fr0d0 Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 18:32)Tiberius Wrote:  We can see physical objects, and we can see the effects of the non-physical (forces such as gravity). Whether the soul is physical or non-physical, it shouldn't matter. There still should be evidence.

Yes, I did want you to find a definition of soul as a physical object. I repeated that to Kyu ???

Yes and Kyu found you one that implied exactly that.

(25th March 2009 22:38)fr0d0 Wrote:  Lets be more precise then. Please find a definition of soul for me that has proof. The point is, there is no proof of soul. You set yourself impossible goals. I can't fathom how you don't see the futility in it.

And just because you can define your "soul" in that fashion doesn't mean it can be that way ... like everything else pretty much universally accepted as actual it requires evidence and that evidence must be seen to conform to the normal rules of evidence as well as claims in that arena be seen to be reasonabvly free of deceit.

(25th March 2009 22:38)fr0d0 Wrote:  Don't bang your head against a lamp post you may get brain damage.

Ah but then his personality might change ... further evidence of the complete bollox type of definition you favour for "soul"

(25th March 2009 22:38)fr0d0 Wrote:  I realise for athiests this is a safety blanket so you don't have to think about the problem.

On the contrary ... your beliefs are nothing but a cuddly wuddly comfort blanket so have fun with that ("Aw diddums!")

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  For the umpteenth time I have to ask, are you being deliberately obtuse?

If the soul is the seat of personality and emotion then it CANNOT be affected negatively or positively by changes in the body or, more specifically, the brain. The fact that changes to the brain (as a result of malfunction/damage) does affect (sometimes significantly) both personality and emotion means that the soul, if it exists, CANNOT be the seat of such things. Also, to claim that the soul is the seat of things that are very evidently affected by the biological malfunction IMPLICITLY states that the soul is physical or has a physical component. In other words your implied claim that the soul is immaterial or even real is just your usual rubbish/wishful thinking.

Try not to get too frustrated Kyu. I'll get to you.

Really? And are you actually going to deal with the points raised as well?

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  Your logic isn't solid. Firstly, you're attaching quite a lot of weight in a definition from what you usually slate as an unreliable source. In this case, the secular wikipedia is hardly a good place to look for religious definition.

Firstly Wikipedia is not secular, it is user subscribed, in many ways more of a debate forum than anything else especially on contentious issues (which this may well be) and no I don't rate it except as a first stopping point (and the fact that the links at the bottom of an article are often more useful than the article itself but in this case I do, from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

Soul
"The animating and vital principle in humans, credited with the faculties of thought, action, and emotion and often conceived as an immaterial entity."
"The spiritual nature of humans, regarded as immortal, separable from the body at death, and susceptible to happiness or misery in a future state."

From Collins Essential English Dictionary:

Soul
"The spiritual part of a person, regarded as the centre of personality, intellect, will, and emotions: believed by many to survive the body after death."

So I think I can claim it is a fairly standard definition for "soul" and I'd be grateful if you'd address the point made and stop dodging like you nearly always do when it comes to the question you don't like (or more likely are too sacred to answer).

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  The soul is of course not as limited as your found definition. We could probe the subject into the night eeking out the finite definition, but I suspect that to be of no interest to you.

Yawn! Of course the soul (god/heaven/spirit/whatever theistic bollox you like) is not this, not that. not detectable, not provable, yawn, yawn, yawn!!!!

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  Suffice to say, please don't make sweeping statements as a conclusion of something that you've scratched the surface of. It makes you look foolish.

And that coming from someone as disingenuous as you? Someone who won't engage with the questions and points raised?

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  You have SHOWN nothing of the sort and any attempt to separate the soul (or your god) from the established rules of evidence and criticism is nothing more than SPECIAL PLEADING on your part.

Ooh - capital letters... *looks more closely*

By 'special pleading' you mean thinking outside the box, creativity, free thought - mustn't allow that now must we.

No, by special pleading I mean you are demanding that the things you claim are exempt from the accepted rules of evidence and reasoned interpretation. That isn't thinking outside the box, it's just wishful thinking ... by special pleading I implicitly mean that the claimant is subscribing to stupidity.

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  I repeat once more... you SERIOUSLY think that there is proof of God??

Of course I don't ... I don't because I don't think the bloody thing exists but if it did YES I would absolutely expect there to be evidence because, as I have repeatedly told you, if something is affected then it MUST leave a trail of evidence even if that evidence is only the phenomenon itself.

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  In your eyes perhaps but then, since you routinely engage in wishful thinking and subsequent beliefs/claims that things of the imagination are real, your view is laughable.

I really don't know how you come up with this stuff. It makes me wonder if everything you say is equally unsubstantiated.

You don't know how I come up with cynical dismissals of your demands to that wishful thinking should be regarded as fact and lack of proof regarded as evidence? Oh absolutely ... it's utterly crystal clear that I'm OBVIOUSLY the daft twonk in this!

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  A lot of what world? The warped one you exist in or the one that I, as most science adherents, choose to believe (with reason) is inherently explainable and governed by physical laws that make sense? Thanks but no thanks ... I think I'll continue to inhabit the world of the rational.

It's nice and safe in that little box. Come back and see me when you're ready to come out and play in the real world.

YOU are the one with the fairy tale belief system and you're saying I'm safe in some little box, that I should sometime venture out into the real world ... ROFLMFAO! You're just unbelievable!!!!!!!!!

(25th March 2009 14:04)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  EDIT: And if you look at the replies below you'll see that, whilst my style is uncompromising, they all say pretty much the same thing as I am. To claim that something needs no evidence is bad enough, to claim it can't have evidence is worse but to claim that the utter lack of evidence is not onloy expected but proof of such things is, to my mind (and I suspect of others here), self evidently ludicrous.

Well knock me over with a feather. Is this an atheist forum then???

You know cynicism works a lot better when you actually have valid points to back it up.

(25th March 2009 13:35)fr0d0 Wrote:  Sadly for you, truth isn't a democracy.

Fortunately for me "truth" tends to be a religious, ideological or philosophical commodity, science deals with facts and reasonable interpretation of the same so you know (honestly you do) where you can shove your "truth"

Kyu

[HalcyonicTrust]

(25th March 2009 22:38)fr0d0 Wrote:  The point is, there is no proof of soul.

And that's a good reason to believe in souls because....???

Isn't that a very good reason NOT to believe in souls??? No evidence?
Or perhaps you are saying its not 'proven' but there is SOME evidence...however small??

If there's not even any bloody evidence according to you, either - why on earth do you believe in souls?

EvF

[padraic]

@kyu

Totally unrelated of course,but I just had a thought (no really).Something my Nana said to me when I was 12 just popped into my head,I have no idea why.

"Always remember dear,it's wicked to mock the afflicted"

Thought I'd like to share that with you,to get this week's good deed out of the way.