Souls and Evolution

[Phred]

For all the waffling a "soul" is what's necessary in order to have an "afterlife". Without the soul you can't live on after the body is obviously dead. All this talk about awareness and such is just trying to justify believing in something that has no evidence for its existence and no reason for believing in it other than the necessity of it's existence if you wish to somehow have a "heaven".

A "soul" a "ghost" a "spirit" is what men made up when they wanted to continue on after they died. There is no logical reason to believe such a thing exists and, because of this, no reason to assume any living creature has one be they "glorified ape" or man.

 

[dad]

For all the waffling a "soul" is what's necessary in order to have an "afterlife". Without the soul you can't live on after the body is obviously dead. All this talk about awareness and such is just trying to justify believing in something that has no evidence for its existence and no reason for believing in it other than the necessity of it's existence if you wish to somehow have a "heaven".

A "soul" a "ghost" a "spirit" is what men made up when they wanted to continue on after they died. There is no logical reason to believe such a thing exists and, because of this, no reason to assume any living creature has one be they "glorified ape" or man.

Nonsense. Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many. Spirits of those dead were also seen by many when He died. Moses and Elijah were seen after death with Jesus, and so on. There is every reason to believe that the afterlife that is accepted across belief systems has some reality.

 

[chris4243]

Nonsense. Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many. Spirits of those dead were also seen by many when He died. Moses and Elijah were seen after death with Jesus, and so on. There is every reason to believe that the afterlife that is accepted across belief systems has some reality.

You won't ever convince someone with such arguments. If the person you're talking to believes the Bible's supernatural claims, they don't need to be told of them by you and you look a fool for doing so. If the person you're talking to rejects the Bible as a valid reference to supernatural claims, then using it as such just makes you look like a fool.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[chris4243]

For all the waffling a "soul" is what's necessary in order to have an "afterlife". Without the soul you can't live on after the body is obviously dead. All this talk about awareness and such is just trying to justify believing in something that has no evidence for its existence and no reason for believing in it other than the necessity of it's existence if you wish to somehow have a "heaven".

A "soul" a "ghost" a "spirit" is what men made up when they wanted to continue on after they died. There is no logical reason to believe such a thing exists and, because of this, no reason to assume any living creature has one be they "glorified ape" or man.

No, the words can be applied just fine to materialistic things. For example, you can understand "brevity is the soul of wit", and neither atheist nor theist has any problem with that. What you deny is not the existence of a "soul", but that such a thing could be supernatural or remain intact after death.

And if you were to state that such things don't exist, you would be no different than a theist, having faith in what you see not.

 

[Nostromo]

No, the words can be applied just fine to materialistic things. For example, you can understand "brevity is the soul of wit", and neither atheist nor theist has any problem with that. What you deny is not the existence of a "soul", but that such a thing could be supernatural or remain intact after death.

You can't argue that atheists actually believe in a soul because they use a metaphor that includes that word. Well you could, but it wouldn't make any sense.

And if you were to state that such things don't exist, you would be no different than a theist, having faith in what you see not.

We don't have to state that they don't exist, just that there's no evidence they do exist.

 

[gaara4158]

You can't argue that atheists actually believe in a soul because they use a metaphor that includes that word. Well you could, but it wouldn't make any sense.
We don't have to state that they don't exist, just that there's no evidence they do exist.

It's not a metaphor, it's a different use of the word.

 

[Tiberius]

AV, what is the scientific definition of a soul? I'm still waiting to hear...

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, what is the scientific definition of a soul? I'm still waiting to hear...

Not a clue.

Basic doctrine says it is that part of the tripartite nature of man that houses the mind, the will and the emotions.

Man is a trichotomy, broken down as follows:

• body = soma = gives us world consciousness via empirical senses
• soul = psyche = gives us self consciousness via mind, will, emotions
• spirit = pneuma = gives us God consciousness via the Word

 

[dad]

You won't ever convince someone with such arguments. If the person you're talking to believes the Bible's supernatural claims, they don't need to be told of them by you and you look a fool for doing so. If the person you're talking to rejects the Bible as a valid reference to supernatural claims, then using it as such just makes you look like a fool.

Don't worry about how you look to fools. If anyone had a lick of sense, the bible would appeal to them.

 

[dad]

AV, what is the scientific definition of a soul? I'm still waiting to hear...

The physical only definition of something not physical only? Don't hold your breath.

 

[Tiberius]

hey, if AV says he has one, then I want to hear it.

And scientific doesn't mean "physical only". It means something that is observable and verifiable.

 

[dad]

And scientific doesn't mean "physical only". It means something that is observable and verifiable.

Hey if you think it deals in anything else, you got news comin.

 

[chris4243]

You can't argue that atheists actually believe in a soul because they use a metaphor that includes that word. Well you could, but it wouldn't make any sense.

soul

   /soʊl/

Show Spelled[sohl]

Show IPA
–noun 1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come: arguing the immortality of the soul.

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person: He feared the soul of the deceased would haunt him.

4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.

5. a human being; person.

6. high-mindedness; noble warmth of feeling, spirit or courage, etc.

7. the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.

8. the inspirer or moving spirit of some action, movement, etc.

9. the embodiment of some quality: He was the very soul of tact.

10. ( initial capital letter

) Christian Science . God; the divine source of all identity and individuality.

11. shared ethnic awareness and pride among black people, especially black Americans.

12. deeply felt emotion, as conveyed or expressed by a performer or artist.

13. soul music.


–adjective 14. of, characteristic of, or for black Americans or their culture: soul newspapers.




Origin:
before 900; Middle English; Old English sāwl, sāwol; cognate with Dutch ziel, German Seele, Old Norse sāl, Gothic saiwala

—Related forms soul·like, adjective
un·der·soul, noun

—Synonyms
1. spirit. 4. heart. 7. essence, core, heart.


All those definitions seem compatible with materialists, although the reference to what is commonly believed may someday become outdated.

We don't have to state that they don't exist, just that there's no evidence they do exist.

Fair enough. But to justify what many materialists say, you'd have to also consider there to be a very low probability that they exist.

 

[Tiberius]

Hey if you think it deals in anything else, you got news comin.

Well then why don't you let AV come and tell me himself. he's a big boy. He doesn't need you responding for him.

 

[chris4243]

Don't worry about how you look to fools. If anyone had a lick of sense, the bible would appeal to them.

Is that religious sense, or just generic sense?

 

[Nostromo]

All those definitions seem compatible with materialists, although the reference to what is commonly believed may someday become outdated.

Materialists use soul to mean "essence" or something similar, yes. When the meaning is fundamentally different, the word used is pretty much irrelevant, it could be anything.

It's probably not worth arguing about.

Fair enough. But to justify what many materialists say, you'd have to also consider there to be a very low probability that they exist.

What do many materialists say?
And how do I go about calculating that probability?

 

[Phred]

Nonsense. Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by many. Spirits of those dead were also seen by many when He died. Moses and Elijah were seen after death with Jesus, and so on. There is every reason to believe that the afterlife that is accepted across belief systems has some reality.

Nonsense.

Sitting at Odin's table because you died gloriously in battle is nothing like accepting Jesus as your lord and saviour and thus gaining access to heaven.

If Jesus was seen after he was killed then he wasn't really killed. Men do not rise after they are dead. What you do have is a nice story that you believe. That doesn't mean it's true. There are no spirits, no supernatural anything. There is, simply, imagination.

 

[Phred]

No, the words can be applied just fine to materialistic things. For example, you can understand "brevity is the soul of wit", and neither atheist nor theist has any problem with that. What you deny is not the existence of a "soul", but that such a thing could be supernatural or remain intact after death.

And if you were to state that such things don't exist, you would be no different than a theist, having faith in what you see not.

"supernatural" is a cop out for that which one does not understand. There is nothing "supernatural". If it interacts with this universe it's natural.

As to stating that things don't exist... do you not state that griffins don't exist? Dragons? Werewolves? Surely you don't go around living your life assuming everything exists if you can't personally see it doesn't? Then you believe in Allah and YHWH at the same time?

I simply need some evidence that something actually DOES exist. Not just a story in a book that has every reason to lie.

 

[dad]

Well then why don't you let AV come and tell me himself. he's a big boy. He doesn't need you responding for him.

I responded to a point...not a personality

 

[dad]

Is that religious sense, or just generic sense?

In the sense that it is a powerful historic book of well preserved knowledge, and fulfilled prophesies.