Thread: Why a 'soul' is not likely.

Originally posted by Neruo


No becouse I blame my environment. *

God is such a wanker.

So. I think the soul only exists within the mind itself. Like it is the stuff thoughs (and dreams) are made off.

To get the subject back to Souls. *

So what would happen if a persons soul were to be.. say, sold to the devil, and they no longer had it, what would the person be like?

When you say the soul exists in the mind, do you think it is corporeal or incorporeal?

Have the brain dead, those who have no thoughts or dreams, have they lost their souls?

Originally posted by Awhislyle


So what would happen if a persons soul were to be.. say, sold to the devil, and they no longer had it, what would the person be like?

When you say the soul exists in the mind, do you think it is corporeal or incorporeal?

Have the brain dead, those who have no thoughts or dreams, have they lost their souls?

Souls don't exist lol. Not the one that can travel out of your body. The soul is just like electric current in the brain. But that definition makes it about the same as the mind.

Souls r teh bullshit. So I am thinking about selling my soul on ebay for 40.000$

Originally posted by Neruo


Souls don't exist lol. Not the one that can travel out of your body. The soul is just like electric current in the brain. But that definition makes it about the same as the mind.

Souls r teh bullshit. So I am thinking about selling my soul on ebay for 40.000$

I dont really think of a soul as being spiritual , i think of it more as just consciousness . Or you could say i dont believe we have souls but i think what people think is a soul is actually a mixture of their own conciousness and moral beliefs or affirmations .

The point that everybody seems to be missing about God and the Soul is that the primary source for Belief in such things is substantially empirical. Atheists assume that just because all of their beliefs arise from just pure empty baseless thought, that it must operate the same way for those of Religious Belief... that they only sat around and thought it up, in the same way you came up with your skepticisms. So many Atheists assume that they are only answering speculative philosophical arguments -- fabrications of thought. Well, no, that is not the case at all.

When people say that the Soul is not possible or that God is not possible, they are arguing bluntly against the fact that the only reason people are attesting to God and the Soul is that they have been empirically witnessed.

God is authenticated by His Angels and by the Religious Experiences of the Saints who have visited His Heaven. And the extrabodily existence of the Soul has been verified in the survival of more than quite a few Saints.

God is authenticated by His Angels and by the Religious Experiences of the Saints who have visited His Heaven. And the extrabodily existence of the Soul has been verified in the survival of more than quite a few Saints.[/b]

Sure he is....

Originally posted by Leo Volont
Atheists assume that just because all of their beliefs arise from just pure empty baseless thought

lol

Originally posted by Leo Volont
The point that everybody seems to be missing about God and the Soul is that the primary source for Belief in such things is substantially empirical. *Atheists assume that just because all of their beliefs arise from just pure empty baseless thought, that it must operate the same way for those of Religious Belief... that they only sat around and thought it up, in the same way you came up with your skepticisms. * So many Atheists assume that they are only answering speculative philosophical arguments *-- fabrications of thought. *Well, no, that is not the case at all.

When people say that the Soul is not possible or that God is not possible, they are arguing bluntly against the fact that the only reason people are attesting to God and the Soul is that they have been empirically witnessed.

God is authenticated by His Angels and by the Religious Experiences of the Saints who *have visited His Heaven. *And the extrabodily existence of the Soul has been verified in the survival of more than quite a few Saints.

You mean like people tripping on LSD saw jesus and started the church.

[acting like I believe in god] God is the only person that knows everything, us mortals can not know or god is really 'god'. It might be satan or a different god messing with us. A mortal can never true understand 'god'. So stop trying like you do. [/acting like I believe in god]

You act like you know everything Leo. That's an atheists job. >: ( silly goose

Originally posted by Neruo


You mean like people tripping on LSD saw jesus and started the church.

[acting like I believe in god] God is the only person that knows everything, us mortals can not know or god is really 'god'. It might be satan or a different god messing with us. A mortal can never true understand 'god'. So stop trying like you do. [/acting like I believe in god]

You act like you know everything Leo. That's an atheists job. >: ( silly goose

"You mean like people tripping and seeing Jesus"..

Well, yes, something like that. You see, what Religion does is that it affirms Subjective Reality. Do a study -- if the preponderance of psychotic and hallucinogenic delusions are of a Religious Character, then what does this say about the place of Religion in the Psychological Structures of Humanity?

take another look at these Lucid Dream Essays:

http://www.sawka.com/spiritwatch/tableof.htm

The ones on Ecstatic, Mystical and Meditation experiences. You will find either Religion directly referred to or wormed in using the euphemisms you aetheists would accept when referring to God.

But, in addition to the Subjective Reality of God which you yourself open up by acknowledging, I do suppose that there have been non-delusional Apparitions and Miracles. You see, delusions must be limited to individuals, as I said, to Subjective Experience. But when we begin to have crowds witness Phenomena, then we move out form the Subjective and out into the Objective. But evaluating these phenomena, for their Value to Psychology and Humanity, the same principles can be applied. If people are experiencing these things, then they are experiencing these things.

Atheists and Materialists have a funny argument here. While they even allow the prevalence of these Experiences, they insist that simply because the phenomena is subjective or psychological only -- having no 'material' reality, that they need to be entirely discounted. It is as though Atheists, while denying God and Religion, would also wish to discount and deny Humanity, Consciousness, and all Human Experience. Do you see why I have a bit of a problem with Materialists?

And about your definitions of God (when you pretend to believe). You must be careful about defining God. One of the Atheists favorite pursuits is to attack God, but using speculative philosophical renderings of God. You know that is quite unfair. You should hold Religion responsible only for the Religious Descriptions of God. But half of you philosophers do a bad job of describing God and then the other half of you philosophers use the first half's silly arguments as arguments for Atheism. It is like you formed a conspiracy to attack Religion by planning only to give it a weak defense.

To understand God, abandon all those Greek Philosophies and descriptions of God as some big embodied Absolute. It is all too silly to imagine anyway. Consult the writing of the Mystics and the Saints. We can refer to this as Revealed Literature. Take your ideas of God from those who have Experienced God, not from those who have only pondered the idea... and the Greek philosophers did not even do God the justice of thinking sober, but they were drunk the entire time and probably with a dick up their ass a great good deal of the while.

[quote]

[A long story, like allways]

Your arguments are hard to disprove, but so are atheist argument. I think no-one can really objectively have an oppinion about god. Execpt maybe a computer. I hope some day they will make a computer that understands the universe in such a way it can awnser the question or a 'god' is likely. I think the chance of a god will turn out below 50%. The chance of THE christian god about 0.0001%.

Ok first of all Leo: You see everything from the point of 'God exists I know it from sure'. If you were born in the jungle and your parents would have died. You to be raised by eighter animals (it has happend before) or by tribal african people, unless some missionary would spam you, and even then, you would never be a christian. You might believe in something, but not the christain god.

Same if every christian died right now. Every bible and everything that points to christianity destroyed. People wouldn't never 'invent' a religion like it. People just made religion up.

---

Allso. Why the fuck does Mr. Allmighty need a son to be send to earth to pay for our sins? A) can't god do it himself in a more easy way B) Why don't have to pay for our own sins.

C) People that believe in an other religion don't really die more of plagues do they? Since africa has turned mostly christian, is there less war? less hunger? WHERE IS YOU GOD NOW?! *that funny picture with the buger-King.*

---

You really believe in a christain god leo? I understand people to believe in a god, a higher power, like with no personality, for it does not need one. Like nature.

But a Christian god, according to the bible, should help people. At least when they are doing good things. You can't tell me that god thinks that every fucking african person that died was a sinner.

So or the nazi-girl is right. Maybe god is a racist to. Why do black people, even when turned to christian, still have it so bad in this world?

A Christain god is: A) a false god and/or B) An asshole.

edn. >: (

P.S. Hey leo you wanna buy my soul? I am going to sell mine on ebay anyway lol j/.k

Please spell 'Christian' correctly before criticising it.

As much as I am an atheist and staunch believer in his existence (rather lack of it) it's one of those weird things I've noticed - that nobody gets anywhere by calling each other stupid for what they believe in. It certainly doesn't make you the better person.

Originally posted by Kaniaz
Please spell 'Christian' correctly before criticising it.

As much as I am an atheist and staunch believer in his existence (rather lack of it) it's one of those weird things I've noticed - that nobody gets anywhere by calling each other stupid for what they believe in. It certainly doesn't make you the better person.

I r teh dyslectic
Ha great excuse 24/7
and I don't care.
Really.

I will now argue the existence of '24/7' on the next four pages. Well, this is philosphy right? IMPORTANT TOPICS DAY IN DAY OUT!

I agree spell it correctly for f**s sake.
And no use critizing it, where is it going to get you. No-where.

God is just a kabab stick

Originally posted by Incesticide
I agree spell it correctly for f**s sake.
And no use critizing it, where is it going to get you. No-where.

God is just a kabab stick

Hmmmm...

And why bother spelling the name off all the people that worship a Kabab stick correctly? : )

KRAISTIUNS!1!111!

Originally posted by Leo
Do a study -- if the preponderance of psychotic and hallucinogenic delusions are of a Religious Character, then what does this say about the place of Religion in the Psychological Structures of Humanity?

It says that religion and spirituality is psychologically significant to the individual being tested. But like anything else, Religion is an evolved behaviour. What's the best way to deal with fear? Denial. What's the biggest fear of any one person? Death. So what happens when you deny death? Fancy ideas of an afterlife arise, that's what.

The concept of an afterlife (every culture has one, coincidence? I think not) has enormous comforting power, so it only makes evolutionary sense that a species who evolves the capacity to foresee one's own demise would want to believe that they never vanish from existence.

Originally posted by InTheMoment

Due to a little word called \"probability,\" everything is a belief. So you can't just go about casting blanket statements in hopes to group everyone into a nice tidy bundle.

No, not everything is a belief. Things can be proven, like your own existence. A lot of things are beliefs, though. Still, if you want to disprove my statement based on probability, go ahead. What makes it more probable that God does not exist than the opposite?

Originally posted by Kaniaz
I will now argue the existence of '24/7' on the next four pages. Well, this is philosphy right? IMPORTANT TOPICS DAY IN DAY OUT!

I'd discuss what actually is important with you, but I am afraid that's a philosophical topic.

Originally posted by Jalexxi
No, not everything is a belief. Things can be proven, like your own existence.

Prove it.

What makes it more probable that God does not exist than the opposite?[/b]

The lack of evidence for the existance of ANY god.

To doubt, you must exist. Doubting your own existance is therefore impossible. Courtesy of Descartes.

And I'll give you a reason why God exists. Our world is based on causality. One thing leads to another, and then to another, etc. How did the world came to be then? There must be an almighty being or principle, who can act like both cause and effect of the same thing at the same time, thus creating the universe.

The lack of evidence for anything does not mean that something does not exist. It means we do not know of it yet.

Originally posted by Jalexxi+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jalexxi)</div>

And I'll give you a reason why God exists. Our world is based on causality. One thing leads to another, and then to another, etc. How did the world came to be then? There must be an almighty being or principle, who can act like both cause and effect of the same thing at the same time, thus creating the universe.[/b]

If our reality is 'based on causality', the existence of something that is both cause and effect is impossible. You're argument is, however, solid proof that our universe had no beginning.

<!--QuoteBegin-Jalexxi
The lack of evidence for anything does not mean that something does not exist. It means we do not know of it yet.

Well, you are the one saying that there is a gOD and it should be worshipped.

That's kind of like me saying there is an invisible pink unicorn standing beside you right now and it should be worshipped. I think you'd want a little bit of proof before you acknowledge its existence, and the burden of proof would rightfully be placed on me.

Therefore, prove to me that gOD exists (actually, show me even the tiniest shred of evidence) and I'll worship the hell of out it.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Well, you are the one saying that there is a gOD and it should be worshipped.

Really? Quote where I say a God exists. I don't believe in God, for the moment. I simply want you to realize there also is no proof he does not.

If our reality is 'based on causality', the existence of something that is both cause and effect is impossible. You're argument is, however, solid proof that our universe had no beginning.[/b]

I agree. This is something that's often put forward as a proof of God, that's why I used it. It does, if you deny God, force you to acknowledge the infinity of the universe. Still, why can God not be cause and effect at the same time? Why can't God be the infinite factor in the universe?

Really? Quote where I say a God exists. I don't believe in God, for the moment. I simply want you to realize there also is no proof he does not.[/b]

Sorry about that, I didn't bother reading your other posts. I was bored and wanted to point out the glaringly obvious missteps in logic. My bad

Regardless, believers use the exact same argument, "you can't prove he doesn't exist!!!". It's important to realize how pointless and backward a statement like that is.

The point is that the argument for gOD's existence CANNOT be proven false. It's unfalsifiable. Therein lies the problem.

Therefore, we must not assume there is no God, but be open to the possibility. It's unfalsifiable (for now), I give you that, but saying that also means you acknowledge a God can always exist. This is not a flaw of logic, it is fact. The flaw of logic is, to use this as basis to claim God's non-existence.

Originally posted by Jalexxi
To doubt, you must exist. Doubting your own existance is therefore impossible. Courtesy of Descartes.

And I'll give you a reason why God exists. Our world is based on causality. One thing leads to another, and then to another, etc. How did the world came to be then? There must be an almighty being or principle, who can act like both cause and effect of the same thing at the same time, thus creating the universe.

The lack of evidence for anything does not mean that something does not exist. It means we do not know of it yet.

Dear Jalexxi

Were did god come from?

EDN.

~Neruo

P.S. Why do Christian black people in africa still die?

edn.

Originally posted by Jalexxi+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jalexxi)</div>

Still, why can God not be cause and effect at the same time? Why can't God be the infinite factor in the universe?[/b]

He can if you abandon causality.

Originally posted by Jalexxi@
Therefore, we must not assume there is no God, but be open to the possibility. It's unfalsifiable (for now), I give you that, but saying that also means you acknowledge a God can always exist. This is not a flaw of logic, it is fact. The flaw of logic is, to use this as basis to claim God's non-existence.

The same argument can be made for the invisible pink unicorn.

EDIT:

<!--QuoteBegin-Neuro
Were did god come from?

That's a great question if one is bound to the laws of causilty (I, for one, agree that this question destroys the "uncaused cause" argument for gOD). But irrelevant if you reject causality (as Jalexxi did when he suggested that gOD could be both cause and effect).

The problem is that before gOD created time and space, there was no time or place for gOD to create time....