| Poll: Do humans have souls? This poll is closed. |
|||
| Humans do have souls | 2 | 11.76% | |
| Humans don't have souls | 15 | 88.24% | |
| Total | 17 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
|
Do humans have souls?
|
I believe in chemical energy.
Who I am is contained and controlled by the chemical energy in my brain. When I die this chemical energy will be converted to heat energy via decomposition and will dissipate into the ground around my body. The end... no soul.  (March 18, 2009 at 6:48 am)theo Wrote: How many radio-waves have you seen today? I was just being cynical. I agree with you; it is narrow-minded not to believe in anything you can't see. But it's not narrow-minded not to believe in something for which there is no evidence for. That's just plain reasonable.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." Oscar Wilde
My Blog | Why I Don't Believe in God
This can't see thing is so old...
same with air, and electricty. There is observable effects, they can be tested for. And we know that life is powered by adenosine triphosphates... not a soul!  
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
"Soul" must be the most commonly used term by secularists. Popular songs are full of references to it. It describes 'something' to poets and songwriters that can't be expressed better any other way.
That it doesn't exist evidentially is completely besides the point, and the most absurd waste of time. 
It's only a waste of time to you, someone who thinks that God exists except we don't need any evidence to prove it. To us, evidence is everything.
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Well it seems pretty clearly the opposite of the meaning of soul to any dictionary definition I've ever seen. Can you show me a definition that would remotely suggest an actual physical object?
(response to original post)
I wouldn't call it a soul that living things have... i think energy is a better word. I believe that every living thing has its own energy, and I might be mistaken but I'm pretty sure something like that was scientifically proven in Japan. But I don't believe that energy lives when the body dies. I don't believe in an afterlife. ...it's been a while since I visited the forum. I guess I've just been busy... nice to be back 
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful with out having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it to?" -Douglas Adams.
  
Welcome back
RE: Do humans have souls?
March 19, 2009 at 4:39 am
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2009 at 4:53 am by Kyuuketsuki.)
(March 18, 2009 at 5:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I think the soul could also be described as your God spot. The part of you that can accommodate God. If he isn't there, you can fill it with other stuff like shopping, materialism, greed etc etc, which are all negative and bring you down. Not saying that being a Christian is the only way to be healthy, but it makes clear & simple guidelines to stop the rot. I so want to say to you that that is just "b#llocks" but I won't ... instead I will simply say that you've made a number of assertions. Now justify them. Kyu (March 18, 2009 at 5:33 am)theo Wrote: I don't subscribe to any religion so I describe my self atheist but at the same time I am curious to find out more about where we all came from. That doesn't actually make you an atheist as you can be a theist (a believer in the idea of a god or gods) without subscribing to a specific religion. An atheist rejects all current claims to deity (and yes I'm aware that makes it essentially identical to one description of agnosticism) ... if you don't believe in a god then you are an atheist, if you do (including any self-originated ideas) then you are not. Kyu (March 18, 2009 at 6:48 am)theo Wrote: How many radio-waves have you seen today? Or microwaves? I haven't seen any but I'm inclined to believe they exist because I can see them having an effect in the world. That's essentially correct ... whilst we cannot observe some things directly we can observer their effects. As I said to Frodo in another theread ... if something affects this universe it must leave evidence and that's what science is about. (March 18, 2009 at 6:48 am)theo Wrote: Although I'm not saying your wrong to not believe in souls, I'd say it's rather narrow-minded not too believe in anything you can't see. There's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars ... it's too small to be seen or detected by any telescopes yet it's definitely there. So you see the mistake you're making with the above statement? There is no way, outside of wishful thinking, to distinguish the "soul" claim from the orbiting teapot claim. Kyu (March 18, 2009 at 6:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Well it seems pretty clearly the opposite of the meaning of soul to any dictionary definition I've ever seen. Can you show me a definition that would remotely suggest an actual physical object? Can you show us anything that is pretty much universally agreed to exist for which there is no evidence? Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
