Ummm now here is something "soul" which can be used to put some meaty substance on the bare bones of religion It should come as no surprise I don't believe souls exist. In over 40 nursing I never heard of somebody having a trouble with their soul. That is not just my 40 years every other co-worker never mentioned a patient with soul problems Let's make it very very VERY clear I am referring to a soul which exist. And by exist I mean HAS A PHYSICALITY If you are considered soul to be something like "feelings" I'm out Below are some of my expanded thoughts about the soul I use in another section of the net --------- There is no proof of any type soul. End of story Soul a made up concept It's akin to life force which was a more modern version popular for a short time The closest I come to understanding what is being considered as a soul is concessness However concessness is a PROCESS not a COMPONENT of the body. Which for some weird wishful thinking by some people gets the name soul, survives death and moves onto (into?) a afterlife The soul is a non existent concept which seeks to ascribe physicality to a process. The picture in my mind consists of a pale whispy vaguely human shape floating around and only composed of thought. Think about if you said the process of cooking is the soul of a oven and when the oven is broken beyond repair it has lost its soul Giving the process of life a name, “soul”, allows the concept of some sort of existence after death. The body dies, the soul looks around, packs up all your memories, hopes, dreams, loves and looses and heads off to heaven / hell (thought bubble - who gives directions to the soul? And is there any appeal system if the soul feels like something is not fair?) There is no such animal as a soul As mentioned in another post in more than 40 years of medical involvment with people I have never treated a soul along with so many co workers Once the brain stops working your dead and no soul heads off to any sort of afterlife Once the brain stops working your dead and as mentioned have no ability to react to surrounding conditions ----------- So if it being claimed souls exist (note note and note clearly EXIST) then there something which can be examined Grey's Anatomy does not have any diagram of the soul but it came out in 1858 so I guess he could have missed it. But then I I've not seen it in any modern anatomy text book So please straighten me out with a description of what you understand the soul to be? Always willing to be educated about the body Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it's not that mysterious. soul is the holistic (total) 'sense' of self and also the experience/seat of our emotions/emotional state (24/7) that we experience in what is termed the heart chakra (literally around your chest).
I don't experience any emotions around my chest. Does that mean I have no soul? My music teacher at school was way ahead of you, if that's the case. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I do experience physical sensations around my chest, just as most other parts of my body, but no emotion. That's all in my head. Those emotions may be caused by, or give rise to, chemical and physical processes that are felt, or subsequently felt, "around my chest". But I do not confuse that with the emotion being experienced in that area. Just as my anger when stubbing my toe is felt in my head whereas the physical pain is felt in the toe. So maybe you need to explain to me further what you mean by the seat of our emotions being around our chest?
yes, thanks for arguing your own point. that is what i said. don't worry, you are not being hoodwinked into some hocus pocus. you don't feel emotions in your head. that is either a lie or you are an anomaly. that's where abstract thinking occurs. the only sensation you might ever experience in your head is a headache. your brain processes information, sends information and reacts with chemicals to create the sensations/emotions you feel in your chest which can be extremely complex and nuanced. metaphorically, where you give birth to your whole 'sense' of self. interestingly enough, this isn't just a one-way communication either, as it can go both ways. your mind can detect your emotions and your emotions can inform your mind of more subtleties to reprocess, and further modify/change. basically, just what i said previously, just spelled out more.
So in answer to the bare bones ultimate questions are you saying the soul exist? YES OR NO Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So the myth is... The body dies and the soul continues to live? Well...... Where does it go ? Does it live in a house? Does it eat and drink? Does it need to wash, wear clothes and go to the toilet? Can it enjoy the company of other souls? Can a mummy soul and a daddy soul still have a baby soul or at least love each other like mommys and daddys do? How do souls pass the time? Could my alledged soul still do astronomy and take astro photos? Are all the souls of every human from the start of the human race all waiting to go to heaven or are they already in heaven? How do souls get around? And what substance or material is the soul made from? Can anyone see or feel or touch a soul? Alex
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your stealing my thunder Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But I'm OK with that because my thunder seems to be as loud and as ineffective as a pea being shaken in a 44 gallon drum Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Either you're playing dumb, or you have simply chosen to be regarded as an atheist. Either way it begs the question to why you are partaking in these types of discussions. As for the rest of your post, it appears as though you're playing dumb, so I won't bother to respond. But I do hope that one day you may change your tune, so we can have a sensible discussion. jan.
So when you said that it was the seat of emotion experienced in around the chest, you were lying?? 'Cos what I said is entirely different to what you said. So when you have stated that what I said is what you said, is this before or after you reject what I have said and replaced it with your version of what I am saying? I consider emotions to be mental states, accompanied by or the cause of physical signs. Given that the issue is emotion and not sensation, I wonder what relevance this comment has? Perhaps you can clarify? Why are you equating sensations with emotions? I'm sure the words, in some context, could be synonymous, but I favour the notion that emotions are mental reactions. They give rise to sensations and might be caused by sensations, but they are not themselves sensations, as I see it. I can assure you that my sense of self is located squarely behind my eyes and between my ears. It can be fooled into thinking it is elsewhere, but my sense of self takes its primary clues from my eyesight, then my ears, I believe. Now, I agree that some manifestations of emotion can be felt in the chest, especially emotions that might distort breathing. I've certainly laughed hard enough to almost break a rib (or at least it felt like that). But to me they are merely either the physical reaction to or physical cause of the emotion, not the emotion itself. If you equate emotion with sensation, sure, you may be right. But I don't. Still, I accept (and explained my thinking on) it being a two-way process, but for me it is between the sensations and the mental state (emotion). It is indeed in full agreement with what you said... if you ignore all the rather significant differences. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When it comes to fundamental belief systems, it is not as simple as laying out facts. I'm you can appreciate that. Which religion specifically did it come from Alex? Or is it something that religions make reference to, and you mistakenly think it comes from religion? The idea (I'll call it that) is that you are the soul, and have developed a body. You already make reference to that idea by claiming ownership of it. However, you never claim ownership of yourself? Why? How would you verbalise ownership of yourself, without referring to yourself. You don't comprehend fully, the concept of the soul? Which is why I'm helping you out in that area. I think you should at least know something about what you vehemently deny. That way at least you cannot claim ignorance. That makes your whole belief system circular. Which is what I've been intimating all along. Your belief system keeps you in constant ignorance. For one start, I'm not arguing for a belief system. I'm laying out an idea, without having to believe it. If I wanted to I could lay out an atheist idea, I've discussed with enough of you. The point is, this is discussion, Alex. We can pit ideas against other ideas, debate them, and see what comes out. The problem is though, you cannot. No. What I mean is, you have basically stopped the flow of the discussion, with your belief system. It's no different to talking to a Jehova's Witness, but in the atheist styleee. There's no reasoning with you. It is based on ignorance, Alex. You can't learn anything, because your belief system kicks in. Either you think you already know what I'm going to say, and try to head me off at the pass, or you don't want to comprehend anything I have to say, probably because you don't want to learn anything. Either way it is ignorance. Ask yourself. How do we obtain knowledge? We must know something. How do we get to know? Do we get knowledge by sticking to our belief systems? Or do we get it, whether we have belief systems or not. You must know something, you work it out. So if I say ''that is my car'', doesn't that mean that I am separate from the car? That doesn't make any sense, if you really think about it. Imagine someone proclaim to be currently in the most important room in his house, while standing at the front gate looking at the house from the outside. You'd most probably think he was nuts. But that is effectively what you are saying. ''It's my house'' ''It's my car'' ''It's my wife'' ''It's my brain'' That's just something atheists say. I know that's what you believe, and I know you have no idea of the idea of the soul. But it is possible to learn about, seriously, without having to form a belief, one way or the other. But you have surrender your pride, and take it in properly. Do you think you could do that? Poor you, Alex. Another silly remark? Is this what it has come to. Comedy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good things comes to those who wait. I think that actually makes a lot of sense. You're in serious denial at the moment, and you are rejecting everything. It is very obvious. So I would advise you to stay in your ignorance, until such time you decide that you want to learn more. And it's no surprise that what you suspect is in line with modern atheism. Gee! I wonder if they are somehow linked? You don't, Alex. You don't. But yet you know the idea of the soul is a made up concept. With that ability I would have thought those two tasks, childs play. Now you know about your consciousness? Come on! You should piss those two tasks. Why? These sound like pretty good standards, and I suspect you want to be a good person. My question is what makes these qualities good? How do you ascertain what is good? You said something like ''it makes me feel good''. What if murder makes someone feel good, should they do it? No? Why? Of course you feel superior to me Alex. You won't even take this discussion seriously. It's as if you already know I wrong, mistaken, or deluded. How can you not feel superior to me, or anyone like me? jan.
Then don't act as though you want a discussion with me. I think I can just about live with that, although it will be hard. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
I dont have to play at being dumb Jan I have to work at it. So in a sidestep to avoid a reasonable set of answers to a reasonable set of questions all you can do is refuse,... saying its my fault you wont answer and judge me to be dumb or if not that your near worn out fall back that I am being an atheist. Poor form. The very word atheist suggests enlightenment and living in a world of reason Jan and each time you call me an atheist I feel pride and sense of purpose and reminded I have not surrendered my reason to superstition. So dumb play or not that is no reason not to comment on attributes of the soul. Perhaps when you consider the implications of my reasonable questions you feel uncomfortable presenting answers. Otherwise why avoid offering answers. Or do you just hold a wishy washy notion of the soul and have never thought that you missed some very basic aspects when you thought the soul was a nice idea. I suggest you dont answer because you never thought the idea of a soul through at all. I am the one presenting things to discuss like the questions about the soul and you are the one who presents questions clearly designed to sidetrack discussion. If you disagree deny that is what you do...I dare you deny my claim. And its not a tune it is a well reasoned position that you may attempt to find flaws in or not. In any event you have avoided presenting anything Jan not one thing...not one. Alex
It is that simple and we use facts to consolidate fundamentals and avoid talking nonsense. Why do you have a problem using facts? I accuse you of being evasive and secretive can you appreciate why I would do that? I dont know why dont you tell me? Enlighten me. I know it doesnt come from medical science. So tell me where... It comes from religion Jan if not deny my claim and prove me wrong. And your point is???? What are you talking about do you know? Ownership of my body? I did not purchase my body ...you are not making sense let alone any sort of case. I say there is no soul you say there are souls. As you claim there are souls back up your claim. You dont even offer something that I can deny. And dont dare say it is up to me to show the soul does not exist...the onus is on you. You are not serious? The proposition is I use words honestly and your nonsense is nonsense. Why do you force me to state the obvious? Well make a point. Present something. You have no substance or anything tangible to discuss. Try me. Ignorant of what? Head you off at the pass what is going on in your head Jan...there is no pass nor a situation where the anology can be fitted. Try again. Right back at you Jan. The horse is dead stop flogging it. What do you want to say Jan? Just make your point. It wasnt meant to...the conclusion was simply thinking does not establish the existence of the soul. No. Pride has nothing to do with it...you say there is a soul thats your belief. If you expect others to accept that your believe reflects reality then you are free to offer your reasons...so go ahead present any reason why I should accept that you have any view that reflects reality. Dont waste your pity on me Jan just say something relevant and perhaps make a sensible comment. The proposition presented was you take thinking as evidence of the soul and I say you make it up. I know you claim a monopoloy on silly remarks and I wont take that away from you but point out simply that if you believe in an after life why not go there...take the bus. That is a saying I absolutely disagree with mainly because things simply do not work that way. Ignorance? Clearly you mean enlightenment. So are you afraid of dieing or not? Why? What are you talking about?. Why not? Just basic atheist ethic Jan dictated by a desire to be decent and contribute where possible without fear or promise of reward. Atheist just know how to be good and honest and work with reason devoid of superstition and make believe. If you were an atheist you would not have to ask. When I reach full enlightenment I wont say such things. Alex
actually, this is not pure logic. the 'onus' is not necessarily on him either when it comes to a theory (a 'sense' of self can be construed as a soul or possibly) . this is a rule (whose onus) that has been set up and followed is a protocol of the scientific method but it's still a construct. this mistake often comes up and repeated in matters where there is no definitive evidence either way, otherwise it would be easy to disprove. when something is obviously erroneous, there is no need to push the onus on one side because it can legitimately be tackled or analyzed to dispel it completely. the bolded sentence/statement is no more valid than a statement that there is a soul because you have no proof there is not one either. in actuality, it's as much guessing, conjecture and assumption based on nothing concrete to make such an emphatic statement. it is the same as "i say there are no aliens" or 'there is no other universe' or 'there is no life on other planets' merely because you can't prove otherwise or you have not seen or experienced it. the truth is neither of you can prove your position or belief. but the concept and the possibility of a soul has interesting implications nonetheless. especially in light of unusual incidents that people have experienced that seem to point to some form of existence or extension of consciousness after physical death. not that this is the case but it's not completely understood either. this gives it some reason or weight to consider for some or it's understandable why it would be considered a possibility.
Hi Birch. Thank you for trying to bring something to the table. I lifted this from Wiki an my interpretation is that any proof lays with the person making the claim. An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false. Or, that something is false if it has not yet been proved true. This is also called a negative proof fallacy. This also includes the (false) assumption there are only two options (true or false). There may be as many as four choices: true false unknown unknowable.[1] Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim.[2][3] A logical fallacy is simply a bad argument.[4] Using bad logic does not necessarily mean the argument is false (or true). It is basically a hastyconclusion, one that is arrived at incorrectly.[5] But it still may be convincing to some audiences.[5] This is why it is used in politics and advertising. ExamplesEdit "This drug is safe because no-one has found any toxic effects."[6]This only implies that complete testing has been done. It does not say it has been tested completely. "Candidate Smith has never spoken out concerning her views on abortion. We can safely conclude that she must be pro-choice".[7]The argument from ignorance fallacy can be used to dismiss a subject or to argue that it means the opposite.[7] As to the existence of a soul I will take from the above options..number 2 but either 3 or 4 wont help the case for the soul camp. Alex
We do not need to invoke belief. The concept of the soul appears to have always been around, and as such there is plenty of information that we can look at to determine whether such a concept has any credibility. The problem is, Alex refuses to even entertain the idea, let alone discuss it. Plus he believes (the platform Alex speaks from) that the concept of the soul is purely a made up one. He believes this without any, or very little knowledge of information regarding the concept. It smacks of religious fundamentalism. Unfortunately I doubt Alex's belief system will allow his mind to gain more understanding. Is it fear of feeling he has to accept the idea as reasonable, if he allows himself to calm his mind and weigh up the info? I would love Alex to come to a conclusion like this, after all you don't have to believe it if it has absolutely no merit. But you will have to accept it, if it does. Because of this, I doubt you will see Alex having a real discussion about it. He will continue to sidestep the issue with nonsensical statements (that are nothing to do with the concept), and comedic put downs. It's a shame really. jan.
