Souls?

[Sarkus]

i just want to thorw this question in and see what response i get. i am hioping to understand what is meant by boris the athiest mascot when he says immaterial.

questions about control;
what is "control"?
does "control" exist?
is "control" material?
are we affected by "control"?
do we affect control?

ask the same questions of such things as justice, hope, belief, discipline. i am aware that there are varying degrees of materiality with in these conceptions but are they actually material in themselves?

These words, such as "control", "justice" etc are words used to describe feelings.

The word "control" may be considered abstract, and thus might be construed as "immaterial" in casual parlance, but it is actually nothing but a word to describe physical interactions within the brain and/or other parts of the body.

All of the words you describe are feelings - highly subjective admittedly - but they are feelings - which are all driven by physical interactions within the brain, and caused by chemical imbalances - all very physical / material.

We consider something "discipline" for example because there is an interaction within our brain that recognises the lightwaves that our eyes see, equates it to some memory (physically stored) and calculates it to be "discipline".

[Raithere]

Ask yourself why you are wondering about what the soul is. And why you are asking these questions here, at such a forum.

Do you really want to know? Why?

Who are you, my therapist?

I enjoy religious discussions for a lot of reasons. I have been interested in mythology since I was a child and philosophy since I was a teen. In my twenties I became interested in sociology and history. Religion combines all of these fields. I see it as an intensely human topic. Moreover I am interested in people. I like to try to understand what they think, how they think, and why they think what they do.

The concept of the soul/spirit is quite ancient and all but ubiquitous. It has an intense affect upon how people perceive themselves, others, and the world in general.

If nothing else, discussions about religious topics increase my awareness and understanding of people, they help me define my own thoughts and positions, they help me understand humanity in general.

Not to mention that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Perhaps someone out there has a convincing argument. There are a number of things which I have been forced to perceive differently due to various discussions I've had here. Perhaps, if anyone bothered to even discuss this one I might find another. Who knows?

~Raithere

[Hapsburg]

Soulds don't exist. They are a fabrication of religion, which also is complete shit.
Souls are a double dose of bullshit.

[Medicine*Woman]

Soulds don't exist. They are a fabrication of religion, which also is complete shit. Souls are a double dose of bullshit.

*************
M*W: The Soul does not exist as defined by the xian association with the eternal life concept. The Soul goes neither hither nor yon upon death. Instead of the religionist's definition of the Soul, I believe in the bioelectrical energy contained by the body. Energy doesn't fizzle out or die, it just returns to its source.

[(Q)]

Boris's post is very obviously bias toward ATHEISM, as he has not been bothered to give a proper definition of the soul from religious texts.
As such I wouldn't waste my time arguing with the likes of him, regarding such subject matters, as it would be a complete waste of time.

No,no,no, you've got it all wrong.

YOUR post is a cop-out.

Who cares whether he's an atheist or not, that doesn't matter.

And for the record, WE take the time to respond and argue YOUR posts, even though YOU are obvioulsy biased toward THEISM.

Quit bullshitting everyone, Jan. You're simply afraid to tread unknown waters. Coward.

[water]

Who are you, my therapist?

I am certainly not your therapist, and don't want to be!
I also didn't expect you to answer those questions, they were meant for your introspection. But I also didn't want to lead you in any way, so I refrained from saying "But you don't have to answer this here."
You answered though.

I enjoy religious discussions for a lot of reasons. I have been interested in mythology since I was a child and philosophy since I was a teen. In my twenties I became interested in sociology and history. Religion combines all of these fields. I see it as an intensely human topic. Moreover I am interested in people. I like to try to understand what they think, how they think, and why they think what they do.

The concept of the soul/spirit is quite ancient and all but ubiquitous. It has an intense affect upon how people perceive themselves, others, and the world in general.

If nothing else, discussions about religious topics increase my awareness and understanding of people, they help me define my own thoughts and positions, they help me understand humanity in general.

Not to mention that there is always the possibility that I am wrong. Perhaps someone out there has a convincing argument. There are a number of things which I have been forced to perceive differently due to various discussions I've had here. Perhaps, if anyone bothered to even discuss this one I might find another. Who knows?

The thing I find stunning in many people (and sometimes in you as well, I mean no offense though), is that they insist talking to people who have failed to answer their questions. As if some seekers would deliberately make an effort to make those who have not been able to help them, to become part of their problem.
Like, "If you can't answer my questions to my satisfaction, then you are part of my problem". Which is a very ineconomical approach to solving problems, when you think.
And this approach makes me think that such people are not actually after answers to the questions they ask, but that they actually want something else, but can't or daren't express it directly.

It is the psychological approaches people take in their religious quests that I find more interesting than the actual questions they ask.

[water]

Quit bullshitting everyone, Jan. You're simply afraid to tread unknown waters. Coward.

You are the coward, because you seek universal approval.

[(Q)]

water bleats:

self-proclaimed atheists are pissy and angry and most of all, passive aggressive... they tresspass their competences and speak of things they have no clue of, in short, they are bullshitting... these angry, pissy, passive aggressive atheists... their excuse to indulge in their miseries

Are you through venting? Gonna refute boris' post? No?

I submit the theists here are beaten, they have no argument whatsoever and must resort to spitting venom to avoid using their brains.

Very sad indeed.

All hail Boris for his mighty sword of reason! HUZZAH!

[(Q)]

You are the coward, because you seek universal approval.

And you are a brainless twit.

[(Q)]

"If you can't answer my questions to my satisfaction, then you are part of my problem"

You can't answer questions, period. That IS the problem.

Why are you still here? Didn't you say you were leaving?

[water]

And you are a brainless twit.

And you can't live without me.

[(Q)]

I am a theist, I would not want to waste my time reading something that long and confusing...

Thank you for admitting what we all knew, you are unable to think.

When you do decide to visit our planet some day, we'll talk.

[(Q)]

And you can't live without me.

Try me.

[water]

You can't answer questions, period. That IS the problem.

You are not interested in answers. That IS the problem.

Why are you still here? Didn't you say you were leaving?

Yes. I think my new schedule will come this week, finally.

[water]

And you can't live without me.

Try me.

Try yourself.

[ellion]

These words, such as "control", "justice" etc are words used to describe feelings.

control is not a feeling. we can feel in control or we can feel like we are being controlled but control is beyond feeling the presence of control.

justice also is not a feeling. we can have feelings about just or of justice but we dont feel justice. we can feel justice is or is not being done, but that feeling is the satisfaction or disatisfaction about the event.

so those words are describing something immaterial that have existence and effect the material, i believe.

belief and hope are possibly abstract feelings but i would not say they where feelings in the sense of emotional states. i dont know if belief and hope can be detected by those physical instruments that science has concocted or if there is a spot in boris' brain where they materialize but i am sure they are effecing the material in some significant way and have been for sometime.

[Raithere]

I am certainly not your therapist, and don't want to be!
I also didn't expect you to answer those questions, they were meant for your introspection. But I also didn't want to lead you in any way, so I refrained from saying "But you don't have to answer this here."

I just don't have a problem with being honest water. I know where you were trying to lead me but the answer is not that "I'm searching for something missing in my life." as much as you probably expected me to be. I'm quite happy with where I'm at regarding religion and with life in general. In fact I'm the most content person I know.

The thing I find stunning in many people (and sometimes in you as well, I mean no offense though), is that they insist talking to people who have failed to answer their questions.

You're off track, at least in my case. I'm not looking for anyone to resolve the issue for me, I'm quite capable of doing so myself. In fact I have, although I am always open to considering new ideas, evidence, arguments, and points of view.

As I've already mentioned I am here to discuss things. I find it irritating when someone who presumably is here to discuss things too repeatedly refuses to even consider what I am saying. Honestly, this thread has been like talking to the television. Which I find upsetting because if I was looking for that I'd be watching television instead of earnestly attempting to convey my thoughts to other people which requires some effort.

By all means, if someone wants to simply state that they don't know what a soul is or how it might interact with the world but they believe in souls anyway, go right ahead. But no one here has done that. They keep asserting that Boris's argument is invalid and then refuse to discuss why.

The initial post was exploring the problems that certain aspects of the idea of a soul generate. The theme is one that has been going on for several centuries now. Religion claims things are a certain way and then science comes along and doesn't find what religion has claimed we should find. So the claims change, apparently in a constant retreat from what was claimed to be truth to some other, modified, claim. Till at some point the claims don't even seem to make any sense. Apparently, for instance, no one can tell me what a soul is because no one knows. So Jan, ellion, et al aren't arguing from any actual position, they just don't want to address the points that Boris brought. Jan even has the temerity to ask me to provide his argument for him.

It is the psychological approaches people take in their religious quests that I find more interesting than the actual questions they ask.

I'm not on a religious quest. I completed mine. I developed my own philosophical stance that allows me to be content, productive, and generally well centered. But I am still inquisitive. I read voraciously and enjoy discussing issues here as well as in real life. I speak honestly and matter-of-factly. I tend to be assertive because it generates a better response. But I expect people to be honest in return or at least do me the courtesy of not pretending to commit to a discussion when they're doing anything but.

This forum has generated some of the best discussions regarding religion I have ever come across. But people need to be willing to commit to the discussion and not go off wailing or plugging their ears and yelling, "wrong, wrong, wrong" when they come across something they don't like.

~Raithere

[ellion]

So Jan, ellion, et al aren't arguing from any actual position, they just don't want to address the points that Boris brought.

i have stated my position in my first couple of posts:

ellion,

So how would you define "soul"?

i would'nt it is a much misunderstood and maligning word, as is the word god.

to be fair though, i would use it in discourse if other parties are using it and i can pick up on their definition.

Please define what your "soul" is and we'll see how it stacks up to his arguments?

if i had to say what is my soul, i would have to say it is me. i am mysoul.

If you say that you are your soul, then you are saying your entire body interacts with the supernatural, correct?

no! i am saying if i had to say what my soul is i would say me. that which i interact with is not me, as it expresses itself to me. you may call that supernatural, i do not. it is not me, not mysoul.

this is the position from which i argue.

they just don't want to address the points that Boris brought.

i think the problem for you here is that we are not addressing the points in the way you would like us too.

[ellion]

where do you get hallucinogenic from, what definition of the soul are you working with?

the definition, you quite plainly, pushed, non-existent/ immaterial thus it can only reside in the subjective : aberration, apparition, delusion, Dream, fantasy, hallucination, head trip, illusion, imagination, mirage, phantasm, phantasmagoria, phantom, pink elephant, pipe dream, trip, vision, wraith, Realm.

are hallucinations material?

no, immaterial

does the hallucinated effect the mind of the hallucinator?

does the hallucinated effect the mind of the hallucinator?

If you think hallucinations are immaterial then this is part of the problem - they are not immaterial - they are very physical but contained with the visual elements of the brain.

Maybe everyone's understanding of "immaterial" is different.

i think the above discourse demonstrates exactly why there needs to be at least a minimal degree of clarity on what it is we are discussing.

[Sarkus]

Okay - let me clarify my post more....

"Justice", "Control", "hope" etc are just words.

But they are words used, subjectively, to describe very physical / material processes either within the brain (i.e. the interpretation) or external (i.e. the material actions of others).

You see someone giving someone orders - all material actions - and you, through material actions in your brain - deem one to be "in control" and the other "under control".
You can apply the word to your own feelings and/or situation.

"Control", if not a feeling, is an interpretation of a material situation.
As are all other such words.
At the root of everything is the material.
Wherever you subjectively consider there to be "control" you have merely assigned the word to your interpretation (material actions within your brain) to the material actions / situation being observed (through sight or sound etc).

All such words are this - assignations for subjective interpretation of material / physical events.