My Adventures Through Theology and Beyond discussion

Religious definition- Your non material body that ascends to god once you die.
Scientific definition- your thoughts, ideas, emotions and ect

I have no opinion on this. The soul is included in quite a few religions...but nothing in science remotely suggests the existence of a separateness of body and being.

What I believe is that when a spirit has a body, then it's a soul.

Could you expand on that?

Well, I divide a living being into, Soul, Spirit, and Body.


The Body is the very body you live in and work with. Something to keep healthy and strong and use. Like a tool.


The Spririt (this is my favorite) is your beliefs, your passions, your theories..... ectera ectera. It's the way you lived. So even when you're gone, your spirit lives in others. In people that follow your beliefs and follow your passions.




The Soul, is the part of you that goes to heaven when you die. It's the thing that creats you Spirit and controls your Body. That is my defination.

The soul is the made up thing that people say makes them "who they are" and somehow continues to exist after one dies. Unfortunately, the thing that makes you who you are is your brain and this does not continue to work after you die. The soul is an idea, and not even a good or logical one.

It isn't a good one because there is absolutely no reason to think that there is a part of you which exists inside of you and outside of you after you die. It isn't good to think that a piece of nothingness, as the soul is immaterial, can hold onto everything about you that makes you, you.

there is absolutely nothing wrong in believing in something..maybe metaphyscial.

There is always something wrong with believing in things for which you have no evidence.

well that would depend on your definition of evidence, wouldn't it?

Okay, so where is the evidence?

And where is your evidence that we don't have a soul? You might think that there is no reason to believe, but no one can know for sure.

And where is your evidence that we don't have a soul?

Where is your evidence that invisible fairies don't fly out of my butt every time I fart?

I never said there was scientific empirical evidence.

Okay, so where is the evidence?

Nathan wrote: "And where is your evidence that we don't have a soul?

Where is your evidence that invisible fairies don't fly out of my butt every time I fart?"

I don't have any evidence...and you don't have any evidence to support your side of the argument.
At least soul's are more real then farting out fairies.

I don't have any evidence...and you don't have any evidence to support your side of the argument.

And without evidence, you should come to the same conclusion that you do about invisible fairies flying out of my butt.

At least soul's are more real then farting out fairies.

In order to conclude that, you would need evidence. Where is your evidence?

I think the "evidence" (although I wouldn't call it that) for people who believe in "souls" is that some how some way they feel they have had an experience with the Divine and the "soul" is what they believe was the "gateway" (I use that loosely) for that experience

I am sure I don't need to tell you that this is not an example of evidence.

And as I am sure I don't have to tell you, as I said there is no scientific empirical proof for these type of things

You repeat this but I am not sure you know what you mean. Are you implying that there are other forms of evidence? Are are you implying there are none?

Are we still talking about souls?

I am implying that there is another form of "evidence" (I wouldn't even use that word..)

If you wouldn't use that word, then there can't be another form.

You would use "proof" but you wouldn't use "evidence"? That makes zero sense. And what reason could there be to believe if you don't have evidence?

If we didn't have a soul, then we probably won't have a feelings.

Claere wrote: "If we didn't have a soul, then we probably won't have a feelings."

...Care to explain?

If we didn't have a soul, then we probably won't have a feelings.

Our large brains are responsible for feelings. if someone is brain damaged in the right area, they can lose the ability to have any feelings. No happiness, no sadness, no caring about anything.

Ugh because i find "proof" a less scientific word

Proof is an extremely scientific world.

a personal experience that gives justice to a certain belief

Except that these personal experiences don't give justice to these beliefs people come up with. "I was in my bedroom and I felt a cold chill down my back. I believe it was a ghost." The conclusions people draw from their personal experiences in these cases are not conclusions that can be drawn validly from the experience.

Well for one it will always make sense to them because they have come to that conclusion by themselves.

Of course. But who cares? They jump to conclusions. "There was a noise. It must have been a ghost." They have had no experience that could not easily have been attributed to a natural cause or any number of ridiculous other unnatural causes like leprechauns, fairies, fart monsters and Beezlebub. So what causes them to conclude "ghost"? The fact that they want to conclude ghost.

Anyway I was not necessarily talking about ghosts however if some was spontaneously pushed to the ground...and no one was around and then someone started to cackle...that is probably the conclusion that they draw.

Great. You're just making this up though. I would venture to guess that this has never happened. These types of stories are just stories that people tell that "happened to someone else." They are essentially urban legends.

however I would be happier to say....this is where humbleness comes in.

So being humble involves jumping to wildly improbable conclusions? It invloves claiming to know what you do not know? I don't think that is being humble at all.

I don't care about what other people think about souls.

A lot of people care

Are you reverting back to your bullshit responses again, like when we first met?

Well you honestly can't be the judge of that, can you?


Yes, I can. Want to know why? Because I listen to their stories and that is exactly what they do. They search not for an answer. They have the "answer" in their minds already.

Yes just like you made up farting fairies and the noise situation.

The difference is, farting fairies were an analogy and analogies are often made up. Second, the noise situation happens all the time. I didn't make it up. You can see it on the ghost hunting shows every single episode.

By the way we are not talking about farting faeries and it really isn't a good analogy.

Duhhhhhhh.... that is what an analogy is. An analogy doesn't speak exactly of the situation it is talking about. It is a comparison. And it was a perfect example.

however you can't say honestly that the concept that there is something beyond this..is soo wild and crazy because if it was you would be paying no attention to it.

I pay attention to stupid, idiotic beliefs all the time. I find them ammusing and can't understand why people believe them. So yes, yes I can.

Are you reverting back to your bullshit responses again, like when we first met

no, she is telling the truth. People care. And plus, I don't think you can speak for everyone in the world.

You want to know why it is difference. Is that for some reason people care and are searching for the Truth. No one gives a damn about farting fairies but almost everyone cares about religions......atheists and theists (the ones worth listening to) share this common link. that everyone wants to know the Truth and care about what others think about certain beliefs.

I find it odd that you still don't get it. Analogies are a way to think about ideas from different angles. They say something about the situation in a different way. That is why there is a difference.....because they are different. That is the point. Holy shit.

Okay and my point is...is that it is not a good analogy....

My point is that you have no clue what the purpose of an analogy is. It is an apt analogy because both are examples of claims made for which there is no supporting evidence.

But there isn't. If it comes down to assertions made with no evidence, then there is no reason to believe one concept of God over another. Also, God comes down to whatever anyone says is true about him. I can say he has pink hair and grants everyone three wishes and you can say he is Jesus Christ. Without evidence, both our nonsensical claims are just as valid (or as invalid).

O.K, I think that a soul is whatever that particular person thinks about it. In other words, if you believe there is no such thing as a soul, you do not have one. Cruel, maybe, but then again it's just what I believe.

In other words, if you believe there is no such thing as a soul, you do not have one. Cruel, maybe, but then again it's just what I believe.

So if I believe I don't have an appendix, I don't have one? What if I believe that I have an invisible unicorn as a bet, does that make it real?

That's different. You don't have to believe my theory you know, I'm not telling you to.

That's different. You don't have to believe my theory you know, I'm not telling you to.

No, it isn't different. You are claiming that a person's belief in something or disbelief in it can determine whether it exists or not. That is ridiculous.

Oh, I see. You need proof. Sorry, don't have any. And you can think it's ridiculous if you want to.

Sorry, don't have any. And you can think it's ridiculous if you want to.

Of course you don't, because what you are claiming is ridiculous. Things that are idiotic don't have evidence supporting them.

Everyone has a soul, it comprises your inner self, and I do believe that souls come back once the physical body leaves this earth. Same as God. I do believe in God and I don't need to go to church to believe that.

Thanks Girl4Beluga. How come you got your own site? You are doing a good job.

Go for it. You go on and talk all the theology that you want.

No I don't think you can. Don't feel bad, I got kicked out of Language and Grammar, since they couldn't see that I was joking with them, and they wanted to be so cultured and they wanted to be the ones in authority. So be it, I got over it, I have moved on.

Looks like they weren't supporting you.

That is how it should be. I was in on your debate group and things got pretty heated over there, also. I don't like major confrontation.

The one with the other girl, who was the same age as yourself. It was awhile back. Shark Debate, and the Debate one.

Everyone has a soul, it comprises your inner self, and I do believe that souls come back once the physical body leaves this earth. Same as God. I do believe in God and I don't need to go to church to believe that.

And why do you believe this? There is no evidence for it.

Nathan really...........evidence implies science, now considering science is just a tool you are basically trying to hang a picture with nothing but a hammer.

More like you are trying to tell me there is a picture there, but that it is invisible and that the frame can't be touched, tasted or smelled. But it is there!

Nathan wrote: "Sorry, don't have any. And you can think it's ridiculous if you want to.

Of course you don't, because what you are claiming is ridiculous. Things that are idiotic don't have evidence supporting ..."




*Shrugs*

Girl4beluga wrote: "Nathan really...........evidence implies science, now considering science is just a tool you are basically trying to hang a picture with nothing but a hammer."




Agreed.

Trying to disprove religion by using science is like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork, it cant be done...

*Nods* I agree. I like science, but only when I think about it separated from religion.

Trying to disprove religion by using science is like trying to eat tomato soup with a fork, it cant be done...

Religious claims are scientific claims. When someone says a man was born, performed miracles, died, and rose from the dead, they are making claims about our natural world and the way it works. All religious claims are such claims.

If religious claims cannot be evaluated using science, then what are they? Nonsensical rantings that anyone, anywhere can make up at the drop of a hat. You say God loves you, I say God hates you. You say Jesus is real, I say invisible magical fairies live in my farts. If science has nothing to do with these claims, then each claim is just as valid (or actually invalid) as the next. If not science, what would you use to evaluate these claims?