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
