Conservation of souls?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
The soul dies when you sin and most folk have lost their soul because of their sin..if you walk past a neighbour mowing grass on the day of rest and dont kill him that is automatic loss of your soul.
The concept of a soul goes way back (I read up about it as can everyone) and is no more than a superstition that has endured over many a campfire and been ammended many times and is now yet another unsupported myth that sits nicely with all the other unsupported myths.
Alex
The concept of a soul goes way back (I read up about it as can everyone) and is no more than a superstition that has endured over many a campfire and been ammended many times and is now yet another unsupported myth that sits nicely with all the other unsupported myths.
Alex
Dumb ass here could not remember Planck spelling and no Google at the moment because of my location (sssssshhhh)
Hence the Plank and
I don't accept that as a definition of soul.
This seems to be semantics. Regardless which word you want to use, you will still be left with a phenomena that is greater than whatever you can draw up as the sum total of its parts.
How do you even know all the parts?
Well thats the whole conundrum of buddhist thought. Saying there is no whole, only parts, seems to inevitably lead to a shortlist with missing parts.
So, the phenomena is greater than...what?
Most machines are like that.
Most machines have a complete shortlist
Really? You think trying to understand what you mean by a word is semantics?? Wow.
You miss the point, and don't actually address what I said. It is not a matter of which word you use, but of what you mean by that word. Yes, semantics. Rather important in understanding things.
So, do you consider the soul simply to be a word to describe an activity that displays certain characteristics but with no explicit agency itself, or do you consider it to be the agent of that activity?
As exampled, if one considers "the heat" simply to be a description of something with high temperature then it has no agency, it is not the cause of the high temperature etc. But if you consider it to be the cause, that a cup of tea is hot because it has been imbued with this non-material substance called "the heat", then that, to me, is very different... especially if one believes that this "heat" retains some coherence as it moves from cup of tea to cup of tea, or to a freshly baked bagel.
If you think it dismissable as just a matter of semantics then, instead of calling it a soul, try discussing this subject without using the word "soul" and instead refer to it as the "activity of life". If you can do so, and retain what you mean, then okay. But my bet is that you'll come across as simply offering theological definitions: something is alive because it has the activity of life, etc. And unable to coherently and sensibly talk about conservation of the activities of life.
But I look forward to the attempt.
My point is that you can't explain that explicit agency, hence semantics ...
So come back to us when you have identified the cause of life.
Usually people adopt semantics, or a way of utilizing different language to discuss the same thing, for the sake of securing political ends.
So the question here is why you are insisting on your semantic take as the level playing field in this thread?
I guess if you desire to turn every thread into generic atheist monologues, that's your perogative ... but looking at the op, I expect one would be disappointed if they were expecting not to encounter theological definitions.
I'm making no attempt to explain it, merely raising question as to why you choose your description when it could be due to another. You have issue with that... because...?
So until someone discovers a scientific cause, we should accept the notion of soul being the cause? Seems rather wishful thinking, and very much like "you can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right", on your part.
I'm all for one accepting a definition of soul for purposes of discussion, but that still doesn't stop me wondering why people actually believe it.
While in physics it is quite true that there is no difference to the effect on an object of whether it is pushed or pulled, and that to discuss such within that context of that object would rightly be dismissed as semantics, there is a actually a big difference in how that force might be applied in reality. Unless you think you use the same muscles to pull as to push?
You described the soul as being identifiable to us (from the motion of a block) as being due to a push. I simply pointed out that it could be due to a pull, and the block still moves in the same way. I have certainly made no claims as to which should be taken as the level, but I have perhaps questioned why you should go with pull when it could be a push.
I guess if I did then that would indeed be my prerogative.
I could just as easily ask you the same question. Inevitably such a discussion would drift into ontology, probably with a lengthy detour into personal values, culminating in an opinion on who has the best example ...., and is probably better served by a different thread. If, however, you have some issue regarding the conservation of souls as a platfotm for hoisting your world views, then you are in the right spot.
Certainly a better position than "I can neither prove I am right nor that you are wrong, therefore I am right." .... especially if one is calling upon empirical science as the ultimate epistemological playing field for what should and should not be accepted.
IOW if you want to maintain the integrity of the empirical epistemology, its not clear how you can go further than agnosticism (agnosticism in the pure sense ... not the online atheist garden variety).
I could just as easily provide examples within our experience, like your hot tea, to question your stance on "the pull", and leave you to try and explain what is pulling (and then call upon empiricism to explain that it doesn't support your position).
Thats the problem of arguments utilizing flexible premises ... they can just as easily be called upon to support an opposite conclusion
Only I haven't made a claim as to which is correct.
That would only be better if you can prove them wrong, otherwise it's the same position you're taking, just with 50% unexpressed.
The difference between what you consider to be agnosticism in the pure sense and that of the online atheist being what, exactly? FYI, I am agnostic and an online atheist. Please don't confuse me for any strawman version you might wish to construct.
My stance on "the pull"? What exactly do you think my stance is, other than it being a possibility?
Indeed. You seem to be of the view that I have suggested otherwise. Similarly I have always maintained that when two valid paths lead to the same destination, one can not use the destination itself as evidence of the path taken. Push or pull both cause the object to move in the same manner. If I ever discount the pull as impossible, feel free to remind me of this conversation. Until then, please don't assume that I am your strawman atheist.
Yet here you are trying to introduce problems to the very word "soul" in a thread that aims for discussion specifically on topics where all parties, at least theoretically, are assumed to be willing to accept the existence of soul. Its obvious to all what party flag you are flying.
You will find that the odds never get better or worse than 50% for each and every metaphysical phenomena to which you bring empiricism to solve.
IOW if you default empiricism as non-different to proof, when countering any metaphysical claim it will always be the same. You will always have the position of "But can you prove I am wrong?" to rally behind, regardless of it being for or against.
Online atheists levy all sorts of attacks against theism and then bid a hasty retreat to agnosticism the moment they get examined.
I would never have guessed.
Its not important. What is important is that whatever stance you choose to advocate, it can be challenged in exactly the same manner you are now challenging the existence of the soul.
You have been conspicuous by your absence in any discussion I have come across where reductionist views of life are bandied about. Even in this thread, a vast majority of contributions are made by people who have let loose with empirically unproven notions of life ... yet they do not get a question or a challenge from you. A brief examination of your post history reveals this to most definitely be the rule and not the exception .... how else do you expect such behaviour to be interpreted?Indeed. You seem to be of the view that I have suggested otherwise. Similarly I have always maintained that when two valid paths lead to the same destination, one can not use the destination itself as evidence of the path taken. Push or pull both cause the object to move in the same manner. If I ever discount the pull as impossible, feel free to remind me of this conversation. Until then, please don't assume that I am your strawman atheist.
I guess there is the possibility that you are on the brink of changing the way you think of such problems, in which case your post history does not reflect your current state of mind. Other than that, it seems to be a page from the textbook of online atheism.