Arguments for the soul's existence...

[mis-t-highs]

Quantum:

Do you believe the soul to be, the idea of a continuous stream of consciousness, which is a representation of the individual, which continues after life has extinguished. If this idea is an accurate representation of the soul's existence, it must by default, exist for everyone.

However in certain cases an accurate representation of the soul cannot exist. the mind is altered due to disease, or chemical imbalances, and these new state of consciousness are no longer accurate. Dementia, Split brain syndrome, Multi personality disorder, Alcohol abuse(Korsakof'f's syndrome), Drug abuse. These include severe memory loss, invented memories, lack of insight, and apathy. It's not the individual symptoms, but noticeable changes due to the chemical imbalance.

This continuous stream of consciousness, which is representative of the individual which is used to define the soul, has been influenced, thus changed from its original state. The soul is now, not the soul it originally was.
The consciousness that results from these illnesses is clearly not an accurate representation of the individual.

How does one preserve an accurate representation of the individual's consciousness, at what stage do we extract the soul, lol. when the individual loses one one characteristic, or two, or maybe three. Any change incur a state of consciousness that is no longer an accurate representation of the individual.

To the extreme in regard to these illnesses.

Do you also believe the soul to exist at the moment of conception. If so could you explain twins, triplets, quads, etc. which clearly are not present at conception these occur some time later, in the zygote's existence. does a creator place an immaterial soul in at the begin or later or not at all. Go for the latter it's much wiser.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum:

Do you believe the soul to be, the idea of a continuous stream of consciousness, which is a representation of the individual, which continues after life has extinguished. If this idea is an accurate representation of the soul's existence, it must by default, exist for everyone.

However in certain cases an accurate representation of the soul cannot exist. the mind is altered due to disease, or chemical imbalances, and these new state of consciousness are no longer accurate. Dementia, Split brain syndrome, Multi personality disorder, Alcohol abuse(Korsakof'f's syndrome), Drug abuse. These include severe memory loss, invented memories, lack of insight, and apathy. It's not the individual symptoms, but noticeable changes due to the chemical imbalance.

This continuous stream of consciousness, which is representative of the individual which is used to define the soul, has been influenced, thus changed from its original state. The soul is now, not the soul it originally was.
The consciousness that results from these illnesses is clearly not an accurate representation of the individual.

How does one preserve an accurate representation of the individual's consciousness, at what stage do we extract the soul, lol. when the individual loses one one characteristic, or two, or maybe three. Any change incur a state of consciousness that is no longer an accurate representation of the individual.

To the extreme in regard to these illnesses.

Do you also believe the soul to exist at the moment of conception. If so could you explain twins, triplets, quads, etc. which clearly are not present at conception these occur some time later, in the zygote's existence. does a creator place an immaterial soul in at the begin or later or not at all. Go for the latter it's much wiser.

ok I'll take you post as a serious one..ok..it appears to ask very valid questions and has been seriously considered and is not spurious.

ok talk about what I believe and if you want me to supoprt this with evidence then the convo is over...ok?
The best way is to take an extreme situation such as someone who has due to illness or accident become totally immobile and for all intents and purposes a vegitive state exists.

The person in this example has been found and has no identity that we can discover, has no way of communicating his identity or any other aspect of self. No facial expression no movement can be discerned. say for this example we allow his eyes to be open but only because the nureses thought this woudl be better during the daytime but as far as they can tell they are still and unmoving although reactionary to changes in light conditions. Pupil dialation, blinking but no movement of the eye ball. etc...
so you get the picture...yes?

I believe very much so that the soul is not determined by that which is considered it's tools such as memory or intellect or even expression, the soul orintrinsic identity, personality is not dependent on the body for it's existance however it is dependant on the body for it's expression.
In the case of the patient who is vegative his soul is still eixsting even though it has not vehicle for expression and no memories available due to inaction to apply conditions to that expression.

However that person still exists as a living but severely handicaped person.
Years ago I worte a story /poem from a similar perspective that may aid in your enquiry:

Final smile:

After opening my eyes
for another day of smelling
urine soaked sheets and the stench
of a soiled napkin.
I see the nurses smile
As she asks “ How are we
this morning Mr Rogers”
Of course she wasn’t expecting me to reply
In fact I haven’t said a thing for nearly a year now.
As she goes about her chores, changing the sheets
and attending to the other areas of undignified waste,
I notice the pain on the base of my spine,
excruciating ulcerations due to lying in bed for so long.
I try to tell her but my lips wont move,
I try to lift my hand but it just sits limp like so much else about me.
As she rolls me over she sighs, upon seeing the necrotized flesh, the smell over comes her for just a moment as she struggles to understand why I am still alive.
The morning tasks done food arrives
and a nurses aid with gentle words and patience
spoons food into my mouth
and wipes the excess dribbling out the side.
Chatting as if to herself about the weather
and her young children at home.
I want to join in but of course my mouth is impotent.
As she is finishing she looks just for a moment, a look of curiosity, looking for signs of cognizant awareness, a tear shows in my stationary eyes,
oh Lord, I can’t even cry the tears I need to cry.
Finished she leaves only to be replaced by Gloria, my wife of 40 years.
In her hands as usual she carried pictures of our grown up children,
which she placed on the little table next to the bed.
She would pick up each picture and tell me the latest gossip about that child.
She told me of my daughters up coming wedding and told me how she wont come to see me any more because her heart breaks every time she does.
Intuitively she knows that something is listening to her but of course she can not see any sign of it.
Eventually she hold up a picture of the two of us enjoying one of our holidays down the beach. Her eyes are wet but she is brave, her courage is astounding as she talks of loving times past.
The monitor next to the bed lets out a loud continuous beep, I look at her eyes one last time and slowly she fades as focus is lost, her voice yelling “Nurse! Nurse! fades also as I drift in to oblivion, smiling with in for the first and last time in years.


so yes in my opinion the soul exists as perfect regardless of the material conditions it has to endure.

As to what happens after death this is something I can not discuss as my words may cause serious confusion to some.

However suffice to say that because I believe that all persons are connected via the soul then all living persons have reflections if you like of all those souls with in themselves.
So in his particular level one can conclude that indeed one lives on after death but only as a reflection in all those you have touched and all they go on to touch etc etc...so in a sense a continuous stream of consciousness is present and never lost. and because memories are also reflective they too are never lost.

however there is much more to it than just this simplistic level.

Do you also believe the soul to exist at the moment of conception. If so could you explain twins, triplets, quads, etc. which clearly are not present at conception these occur some time later, in the zygote's existence. does a creator place an immaterial soul in at the begin or later or not at all. Go for the latter it's much wiser.

I believe it is the first and most important task of a newly conceived child to create his own soul by reflecting of every one around him through out his entire life. The child developes a soul as he matures. And does so quite deliberately however it is not refered to as soul building persee, it is referred to as character building or personality maturation or other similar growth type words...culturally this is shoewn in traditions of maturation such as the comming of age [ puberty ] adult hood and later mature age....
This of course implies there is more than just the soul involved as somethng is doing the soul building yes? And it is that something that is unknown to the world at this stage and probably never will be known....
So your question is not quite answerable in it's current form however I have taken the liberty of addressing it as if asked correctly.

Again this is another simplistic level of it all...as per my belief.

How does one preserve an accurate representation of the individual's consciousness, at what stage do we extract the soul, lol. when the individual loses one one characteristic, or two, or maybe three. Any change incur a state of consciousness that is no longer an accurate representation of the individual.

This is couched in so many preconceptions about the nature of death and what is presumably transmitted or in your words extracted...that it is impossible for me to answer in any way that would be useful to you...

 

[Sarkus]

I suggested that the same evidencial requirements for the existence of a soul be used to prove the existence of the mind....that was and still is my main point.
You can't prove the existence of the mind so why bother even trying to prove teh existence of the soul.
All you have is a brain and body to work with...well stick to that and state categorically that the mind deos not exist only the body does....

Adequately define "mind" and "soul" and we'll start from there.

Throughout your wonderful(?) discourse with lixluke wizard, I'm still not sure I understand what your notion of "soul" is, QQ.
Would you care to elaborate, and define for us your understanding / concept of what the "soul" is, and how it differs to other aspects of a living person etc?


Edit - okay - just missed your post above...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Adequately define "mind" and "soul" and we'll start from there.

Throughout your wonderful(?) discourse with lixluke wizard, I'm still not sure I understand what your notion of "soul" is, QQ.
Would you care to elaborate, and define for us your understanding / concept of what the "soul" is, and how it differs to other aspects of a living person etc?


Edit - okay - just missed your post above...

he wasn't Lixluke....unless Lix has a multiple personality disorder, their writing voices are very different as is the attitude....[chuckle]

 

[Quantum Quack]

Adequately define "mind" and "soul" and we'll start from there.

Throughout your wonderful(?) discourse with lixluke wizard, I'm still not sure I understand what your notion of "soul" is, QQ.
Would you care to elaborate, and define for us your understanding / concept of what the "soul" is, and how it differs to other aspects of a living person etc?


Edit - okay - just missed your post above...

Sarkus I am caught in a bit of a dilemma because yes I do know the truth about the human soul. I had to build one as an adult so I know what I am talking about.....[ don't need to believe me ok but this is how it is from my perspective]

The problem is that to just go straight into a proper definition would be terribly unwise for me to do.

Somethings need to be maintained as a mystery as part of the souls purpose relies on this.

So to just come out with it would be very unwise at this stage.
I am using this thread as a way of working through the issues of such revelations to the public and I am not convinced that going down that path is the right thing to do.
Unfortunately there is too much at stake for any ridicule or flaming to be useful to any one

 

[Woody]

Al Capone had people killed, Hitler had people killed, Saddam had people killed, however that most likely never killed anybody themselves, are that not murderers?

red herring -- the subject was stealing, and you changed it. I said that stealing wasn't something a burgler announces.

Is that the password that the owner never knew. if the owner knew he would have had it ready, and been there waiting, instead it was done with stealth.

Jesus knew the colt was going to be there and waiting -- yet you claim Jesus had not been there before. You proposed "pony express mail" as the method of communication.

take the rose coloured glasses off, and read the paragraph again, but try not to extrapolate, and add to it, read it as is. Don't assume.How so, he was martyred wasn't he, it was more convenient for his followers.

At the time it was most expedient for the pharisees. Obviously their finances were being impacted when people left them to follow Jesus. As said in the bible, the love of money is the root of all evil. I feel theree is a lot of truth to that statement, even today, though you may disagree.

No, I mentioned Aesops fables earlier, the NT is not a book of proverbs, it's a book of all sorts including a lot of evil doings.It doesn't make me think about killing, it is about killing, as is the quran. There is nothing to think about it's there in black and white.

You wrote off the entire bible as a book of fables and foolishness. The book of Proverbs is in the Bible. Hence, my logical conclusion is that you think the book of Proverbs is also foolish.

You however see it with blinkers on and when you do things you don't consider, that you may be imposing your will on other, abusing them etc..

Loving others is taking of the blinkers.

No the mind virus that is religion, causes you not to think about killing, you just just do it in gods name with impunity.

I don't kill people, yet you say I'm personally a murderer. You ask me to consider others which I try to do, and then accuse me with murder which I have not done. I think you are being very unkind. As Jesus said, if you think unkind things toward other people, you have committed murder in your own heart. I am not thinking unkind things, but you are.

To deny a thing, you do need some assemblance of a belief in a thing.Yes but some of them cant read or understand any book, some even have no idea how to gather knowledge or what is real or not.Who said it wasn't.How so, they are not after personal gain like the religious.No thats the point you should never assume, and where did they need to look. can you point to the scripture, please. lol. Why was it, and what does it have to do with jesus stealing.

Here's the deal -- you think atheism implies a higher intellect, and it looks like arrogance. People get doctorates in divinity and religion just like any other arts degree. They are not uneducated. It required more intelligence than the average person just like any other doctorate requires. I think if you were being honest you could agree.

The thing atheists seem to completley miss is the concept of a soul which this thread is about. They have this pre-programmed do-loop that goes into denial, like other atheists. I can even see it in the last post you made. You have to constantly remind me that you think Jesus is fictional, and I gave you that point from the very beginning. So why do you keep saying it? It's irrational to keep repeating this when it isn't part of the debate. My only conclusion is that you can't be objective or even rational when you examine religion. :shrug:

 

[wizard]

it doesn't help your credibility to describe atheists as having a "pre-programmed do-loop that goes into denial." especially when you follow such a contradictory religion.

 

[Woody]

it doesn't help your credibility to describe atheists as having a "pre-programmed do-loop that goes into denial." especially when you follow such a contradictory religion.

So tell me why you have to keep saying "Jesus didn't exist", when I conceded on that point for this entire thread. You explain the reason so you can have credibility. It constantly interferes with a rational discussion. It's not logically connected.

 

[wizard]

i'm not mis-t-highs

 

[Woody]

i'm not mis-t-highs

So tell me, can you discuss the character of Jesus as described in the Bible, without getting hung up on whether he really existed or not (when that point has already been conceded)? If so then Kudos -- you'll be the first atheist I've met that can do so.

If you have to constantly remind me that he did not exist, when I've already clearly conceded that point, then I think it shows irrationality and an inability to be objective.

 

[mis-t-highs]

red herring -- the subject was stealing, and you changed it.

No sorry wrong, that reply was to point out that jesus may not of stole the colt, but he instigated it. as you said "Stealing is rather clandestine isn't it? "

I said that stealing wasn't something a burgler announces.

Where?

Jesus knew the colt was going to be there and waiting

And your evidence for this is where.

yet you claim Jesus had not been there before.

Thats because it doesn't say anywhere that he had, it is only logical to go by what is actually written.

You proposed "pony express mail" as the method of communication.

Given it does say when, of if jesus had ever been to bethany anywhere else in the bible, that was just a little bit of sarcasm.

You wrote off the entire bible as a book of fables and foolishness. The book of Proverbs is in the Bible. Hence, my logical conclusion is that you think the book of Proverbs is also foolish.

Yes it is but not in the NT, which I specified. Heres the quote again

No, I mentioned Aesops fables earlier, the NT is not a book of proverbs, it's a book of all sorts including a lot of evil doings.

Oh and yes I do think the book of proverbs in the OT to be fiction, when I said the bible is a book of fiction, I did mean all of it, not cherry picked parts.

Loving others is taking of the blinkers

Sorry not when your religious.

I don't kill people, yet you say I'm personally a murderer. You ask me to consider others which I try to do, and then accuse me with murder which I have not done. I think you are being very unkind.

Sadly you are a victim of the mind virus, and as such have no control, of what you might do, you have the potential to be a killer because of your illness, it's not your fault, you just need to be cured before you, do any harm, your literally a walking time bomb. And yes we all have a similar potential, but yours is made a thousand times worse because of the mind virus.

As Jesus said, if you think unkind things toward other people, you have committed murder in your own heart. I am not thinking unkind things, but you are.

I've tried to explain on several occasions that I hold religion up as evil not it adherents, you are just a victim. Hence why I am a humanist, people come first, I don't follow fantasies.

Here's the deal -- you think atheism implies a higher intellect,

No, not at all, just more able to use the sense reason and intellect, there minds are fit and healthy, tis all.

The thing atheists seem to completley miss is the concept of a soul which this thread is about.

No it's not missed, it's just classed as another irrational belief. Thus is not considered viable.

They have this pre-programmed do-loop that goes into denial, like other atheists. I can even see it in the last post you made. You have to constantly remind me that you think Jesus is fictional, and I gave you that point from the very beginning.

Where?

So why do you keep saying it? It's irrational to keep repeating this when it isn't part of the debate. My only conclusion is that you can't be objective or even rational when you examine religion. :shrug:

I did say I find religion abhorrent. But as for objective and rational, your the one who holds subjective and irrational beliefs not I. I think you might have that a bit back to front.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Jesus didn't exist, because he and everything that has been written about him, is a myth regardless of who wrote it, what they wrote, when they wrote it, where they wrote it, why they wrote it, and how they wrote it, is still and always will be, a myth.

 

[Woody]

*************
M*W: Jesus didn't exist, because he and everything that has been written about him, is a myth regardless of who wrote it, what they wrote, when they wrote it, where they wrote it, why they wrote it, and how they wrote it, is still and always will be, a myth.

This is what I mean.

We already know you believe Jesus is fictional, so why do you keep repeating it? :shrug:

Character is both real (like in real life) and fictional like in a Shakespere play. In a fictional work, the author makes up a character that the audience relates to in some fashion, but somehow an atheist just can't get past this. Somehow, after they call the Bible a fictional work (and this point is conceded) they still can not discuss the character of Jesus Christ rationally without going into this kookie denial routine.

It always goes this way. ALWAYS.

 

[Quantum Quack]

This is what I mean.

We already know you believe Jesus is fictional, so why do you keep repeating it? :shrug:

Character is both real (like in real life) and fictional like in a Shakespere play. In a fictional work, the author makes up a character that the audience relates to in some fashion, but somehow an atheist just can't get past this. Somehow, after they call the Bible a fictional work (and this point is conceded) they still can not discuss the character of Jesus Christ rationally without going into this kookie denial routine.

It always goes this way. ALWAYS.

this is only because Jesus and other prophets that have been debunked offer something that they refuse or do not wish to accept.
To accept Jesus as an example, means you have to reliquish control of something [ your life ] which you have no control over in reality.

It is simply a power struggle one between God and those who aspire to become God.

The use of the word "God" is just an analogy for those who believe they should have full and unfetted control over their own lives, ....ahh.... such is the way our Western culture is tending towards the "me" generation and individualism...
The rise of athiesm in Western culture is simply a power struggle and that is all and one that makes the notion of inner peace foreign and worthy to fight against which promotes growth towards the ambition of becoming all powerful in controling your own lives and those lives of lesser Gods around you ...
The posts that demonstrate the desire to control the thoughts rather than nurture the thoughts of others are clear demonstrations of this suggestion.
So why athiests argue the way they do is simply because they have ambitions to do better than what they are argueing against is doing. Which in many ways is a good thing yet one that leads to discord and inner conflict thus promoting change.
My assessment take it or leave it....and no offense intended towards any one.

taken from notes ~ The Human God Complex... yet to be published.​

 

[Woody]

No sorry wrong, that reply was to point out that jesus may not of stole the colt, but he instigated it. as you said "Stealing is rather clandestine isn't it? "

You changed the subject to murder, to satisfy Godwin's law, by using Hitler as an example. Why did you feel this was necessary?

And your evidence for this is where.

Your original claim was that Jeus had not been in town to see the colt or talk to the owners. Yet Jesus knew there was a certain colt that had never been ridden before and the disciples could find it in a certain place. Jesus did not ask for just any horse. There was only one that would do. So you tell me how he knew about it.

Heres the quote again Oh and yes I do think the book of proverbs in the OT to be fiction,

The book of proverbs is a look through the human character eyepiece, the same way Confucious does it. Are you telling me that nothing Confucious ever said regarding human nature has any value? Are you telling me likewise about proverbs?

when I said the bible is a book of fiction,

Hamlet by Shakespere is a book of fiction, hence it would be irrational and unintelligent to go to a Shakespere play -- this line of reasoning just sounds kind of kookie.

I did mean all of it, not cherry picked parts. Sorry not when your religious.Sadly you are a victim of the mind virus, and as such have no control, of what you might do, you have the potential to be a killer because of your illness, it's not your fault, you just need to be cured before you, do any harm, your literally a walking time bomb.

I think anybody is capable of murder, and they will rationalize it -- take abortion for example. and like Jesus said, if you think ill toward someone you are already a murderer.

And yes we all have a similar potential, but yours is made a thousand times worse because of the mind virus.

I haven't aborted anyone, and I don't approve of it. Do you? If so then I believe you are a murderer. I believed this even when I was an agnostic. The abortion debate places the woman's right to chose above the right of the unborn to live. So go ahead and rationalize it away. That's what murder is all about.

I've tried to explain on several occasions that I hold religion up as evil not it adherents, you are just a victim. Hence why I am a humanist, people come first, I don't follow fantasies.

I think you do follow a fantasy. You think your view comes from a position of more knowledge and it doesn't. You have no more knowledge than anyone else.

No, not at all, just more able to use the sense reason and intellect, there minds are fit and healthy, tis all. No it's not missed, it's just classed as another irrational belief.

If something works to make somebody a lot healthier, happier, and live longer, do you consider it irrational? I think that would be irrational.

I did say I find religion abhorrent. But as for objective and rational, your the one who holds subjective and irrational beliefs not I.

If so, then why do you keep bringing up that "Jesus did not exist" when nobody is debating that point? For some reason you keep doing this. It just doesn't look rational. I'm sure you'll defend it, but it just looks like denial from here.

 

[Woody]

this is only because Jesus and other prophets that have been debunked offer something that they refuse or do not wish to accept.
To accept Jesus as an example, means you have to reliquish control of something [ your life ] which you have no control over in reality.

That's the point QQ. How can somebody be objective when their own interests are a stake? I admit I have a biased point of view just like everybody else -- I'm just being honest. Anybody that thinks they are objective about religion is just being dishonest.

It is simply a power struggle one between God and those who aspire to become God.

and denial produces no change.

The use of the word "God" is just an analogy for those who believe they should have full and unfetted control over their own lives, ....ahh.... such is the way our Western culture is tending towards the "me" generation and individualism...

Did you read the recent article about people with religious views? They are much more likely to break the "me-centerred" paradigm that characterizes humanism and atheism.

The rise of athiesm in Western culture is simply a power struggle and that is all and one that makes the notion of inner peace foreign and worthy to fight against which promotes growth towards the ambition of becoming all powerful in controling your own lives and those lives of lesser Gods around you ...

Have you noticed the fall in accountability as well?

The posts that demonstrate the desire to control the thoughts rather than nurture the thoughts of others are clear demonstrations of this suggestion.

It's self-centerred isn't it?

So why athiests argue the way they do is simply because they have ambitions to do better than what they are argueing against is doing. Which in many ways is a good thing yet one that leads to discord and inner conflict thus promoting change.

Denial doesn't produce change.

My assessment take it or leave it....and no offense intended towards any one.

taken from notes ~ The Human God Complex... yet to be published.​

[/QUOTE]

 

[davewhite04]

Woody:

You are a genuine Christian.

Thank goodness for people like you.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

This is what I mean.

We already know you believe Jesus is fictional, so why do you keep repeating it? :shrug:

Character is both real (like in real life) and fictional like in a Shakespere play. In a fictional work, the author makes up a character that the audience relates to in some fashion, but somehow an atheist just can't get past this. Somehow, after they call the Bible a fictional work (and this point is conceded) they still can not discuss the character of Jesus Christ rationally without going into this kookie denial routine.

It always goes this way. ALWAYS.

*************
M*W: The problem is you and your compadres is that you talk about Jesus as if he had been a real person and not just a fairy tale character. Nobody cares who or what you believe in or whether it's real or fictional. That's your privilege. It would seem that you and others who believe in Jesus should have been able by now to provide the indisputable truth of the existence of your chosen hero, but you have not been able to do so.

You are expecting atheists to discuss Jesus as if he existed. Therefore, Jesus cannot be discussed rationally by anyone, including you and other believers. You are under the impression that believers discuss Jesus rationally, but you do not. You only assume you do. You can't discuss Jesus any more logically than you can discuss Santa Claus. No matter which way you look at it, it's apples and apples, myth and myth. You can't handle it, because we poke a little hole in your balloon.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Woody:

You are a genuine Christian.

Thank goodness for people like you.

*************
M*W: Hi Dave. I was just beginning to really get into your posts, because they were of a much higher order than other christians who have been on the forum, but you just lost me.

 

[davewhite04]

Jesus is as real as you mm, and one day he will be even more real, when he says "poof" and you'll be gone.

Cesspool James?