Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

135

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Do you believe in gravity? ;)

    I think he means he cannot believe in something that isn't even defined.

    I often have the same trouble with the concept of "God", which seems rather undefined as well.

    I often feel that words like "god", and "soul" etc are more words that offer comfort to us, rather than attempts to describe the real world. They can mean anything so long as that meaning gives someone comfort when using the concept. You never really hear someone say "Man, I wish I didn't have a soul" or "Why is God so evil and wicked" These concepts are designed to give comfort. What they actually are is independent to that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote:
    Why not start a thread on the Trinity in the Christianity forum?

    I have done on a couple of occasions, but I find its a doctrine thats too embedded in the denominations of Christendom. Quotes like 'You cannot be a christian and not believe in the trinity'. The reason I asked the atheists, is that if any have read the bible, which by alot of their posts I assume they have, did they from a position of a reader get the impression of a trinity. For it quite categorically states that the Father is greater than the Son, and that the Father has 'given' the Son his authority. Anyway, lets not get into that here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    I didn't think gravity had been explained. Measured yeah, but not explained?
    Maybe I'm mixed up believing in something you can say what it is rather than why it is.

    Gravity is mass exerting an attractive force on nearby masses.

    Like a bowling ball on a trampolene surface, an marbles in the "well" created by the bowling ball will roll towards it. Planets do the same thing to space time, much as you and I do (albeit at much smaller values).

    edit: at least as far as I understand.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    That's roughly what it is, not 'why' it is.

    We do not know why it is and why it is so weak, just theories.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    Oh stop being pedantic.

    Change the sentence to: "I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHAT a "soul" is and I can't believe in something I don't understand." if you wish.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    JimiTime wrote:
    How about, its your person. Your Concience, your self awareness, your life-force. Its not a spirit that flies off when you die. Your Soul is actually all the components that make up the self.
    That's all well and good, but why the need to define this as a "soul"?

    Also, in this case, if you get Alzheimer's disease or another disease which affects the mind, or you take a psychedelic drug like LSD, which will alter both your conscience and your self awareness(temporarily or otherwise), is your soul affected?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,021 ✭✭✭Hivemind187


    That's roughly what it is, not 'why' it is.

    We do not know why it is and why it is so weak, just theories.

    And a hell of a lot more concrete than air fairy notions of a "soul"

    Gravity is:

    Measureable
    Observable
    Explainable by cause
    definable

    a "soul" is:

    .... not a lot really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    That's all well and good, but why the need to define this as a "soul"?

    Also, in this case, if you get Alzheimer's disease or another disease which affects the mind, or you take a psychedelic drug like LSD, which will alter both your conscience and your self awareness(temporarily or otherwise), is your soul affected?

    Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Soul is basically you. You can alter things about you, a disease, a drug etc. Your Soul is just you, your life. The word provokes thoughts of things spiritual, but theses nothing spiritual about it. Its your life. Its not seperate from you, it is you. You are the soul. Why use the word? Well if it had kept its intended meaning there'd be no problem using it. However, because of the corruption of its meaning it is a confusing term to use.

    E.G. 10 sould were at the party = 10 people were at the party. That simple.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    So why not use the word "person"?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote:
    I find that frustrating as a Christian also. The whole trinity thing that is. I don't believe in the doctrine of the trinity. It'd be good to hear the view of you non-believers about it.
    Well, the trinity, per se, isn't mentioned in the bible, but there are enough hints in the text for somebody who believed the text to infer that something like the Trinity is supposed to exist. But it's tenuous reasoning at best. The character of the holy ghost doesn't really get much of a look in anywhere, and the relationship between god and Jesus is never quite pinned down, let alone the relationship of either of them to the ghost (nor indeed, is the exact human or divine nature of Jesus which is what all the fighting at Nicene and elsewhere was all about). In the end, if you believe that everything in the text of the bible is true, then you should believe that the trinity exists, even if you don't name it as such.

    An interesting question then arises about why the holy ghost was never mentioned in the old testament, and why so little was written about exactly what the believer is supposed to believe.

    If it's of any use, quite a few people believe that the trinity was an import from Egypt where there are quite a few holy trinities. Athanasius, the guy who was the driving force behind Nicene which declared the trinity real, was from Egypt and would have been quite familiar with depictions of deistic trinities.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    So why not use the word "person"?

    Well as i said, its a case of closing the gate after the horse as bolted. The word Soul in a biblical context is the translation of the word 'nephish' which means, 'the ability to live'. So its more of an expression of the lifeforce of a person. TBH, looking back at my '10 people' explaination its oversimplistic. how about 10 lives were lost = 10 souls were lost. Yeh, thats better.
    Personally, i try avoid the word soul in spiritual conversation, because of the conotations it provokes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    What is "lifeforce"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote:
    Well, the trinity, per se, isn't mentioned in the bible, but there are enough hints in the text for somebody who believed the text to infer that something like the Trinity is supposed to exist.

    There is every reference to how close God and Jesus are. But certainly, nothing such a thing as they are the same God being. They had a 'Oneness' but even Christ said to God of his apostles, 'Let them be one, as we are one' There are so many things like, The Father has given authority to the Son'. Jesus saying 'the father is greater than I'. All of which do not equate to a being talking about their equal. even the basic language of the term Father and Son. In context, i see nothing to bring in such a doctrine. It had to come after the fact, which tells me that it is a corrupted doctrine of man, likely from a pagan source and incorporated into Constantines roman church and all who denied it, i.e. Arian, were heretics. Many were with Arian on this also, but this number declined, some say because of the threat in opposing the church. Such threat continued. I also think that the whole putting mass into Latin was another layer of the deception. Most people hadn't a clue what they were believing anyway.
    But it's tenuous reasoning at best. The character of the holy ghost doesn't really get much of a look in anywhere, and the relationship between god and Jesus is never quite pinned down, let alone the relationship of either of them to the ghost (nor indeed, is the exact human or divine nature of Jesus which is what all the fighting at Nicene and elsewhere was all about). In the end, if you believe that everything in the text of the bible is true, then you should believe that the trinity exists, even if you don't name it as such.

    Thats the thing though. If someone was a blank canvas, i.e. never heard of the trinity doctrine, and read it, I really don't think they'd deduct such a thing. I combine what I would see as an obvious false doctrine, with the fact that the denominations of christendom defend it with such vigour, enough vigour to say 'you are not christian because you don't believe Jesus was God', and really smell a rat.
    If it's of any use, quite a few people believe that the trinity was an import from Egypt where there are quite a few holy trinities. Athanasius, the guy who was the driving force behind Nicene which declared the trinity real, was from Egypt and would have been quite familiar with depictions of deistic trinities.

    I would believe that the trinity doctrine has spurious origins myself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    What is "lifeforce"?

    the ability to live.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    I'm sorry, I still can't grasp the concept.

    Or maybe I can, but I don't see the need for such a concept(?)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote:
    There is every reference to how close God and Jesus are.
    Well, there's plenty from Jesus, but very little from god on the topic. God's only quoted in the OT as sending a guy called "Emmanuel". Other than that, I believe that all the claims for Jesus's godhood came from Jesus himself which is suspiciously one-sided at best.

    And you've also got Mark's strange quote from Jesus has he died -- "my god, why have you deserted me?" -- that doesn't sound like a chap who's either speaking to himself, or holds out much hope for the future, does it? (and that's assuming Mark got it right; the other gospel authors quote Jesus as saying different things as he died).
    JimiTime wrote:
    Thats the thing though. If someone was a blank canvas, i.e. never heard of the trinity doctrine, and read it, I really don't think they'd deduct such a thing.
    Back on topic, slightly, it may not be called the "trinity" in the text, but the text does quite clearly imply that such a three-item-body exists -- like, god exists, Jesus is the son who also exists and the holy ghost is in there too somewhere. "Trinity" is just a word for all three of them together.

    From what you write, I think you're getting too tied down by the specific word "trinity" itself and assuming that it means more than the group of three.

    Don't forget either that three is considered by many folk traditions to have good connotations (quite apart from the Egyptian ones), and first century Palestine would have also been familiar with the first and second ruling Triumvirates in Rome (the last one finishing in 33AD), so it's quite reasonable to suspect too that the holy ghost was invented to make the numbers up to a round and auspicious three.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    JC 2K3 wrote:
    I'm sorry, I still can't grasp the concept.

    Or maybe I can, but I don't see the need for such a concept(?)

    Actually, you've raised a great point. There is no concept. In trying to show how simple it is I probably over complicated it. Forget about the 'soul' being anything more than the life of a person. There is no 'concept'. Replace the word soul with the word life. Is that clearer?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jimitime wrote:
    Forget about the 'soul' being anything more than the life of a person.
    As good a summary of the atheist position as I could imagine -- welcome :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote:
    Well, there's plenty from Jesus, but very little from god on the topic. God's only quoted in the OT as sending a guy called "Emmanuel". Other than that, I believe that all the claims for Jesus's godhood came from Jesus himself which is suspiciously one-sided at best.

    Thats just it though. He didn't claim he was. In fact he said that 'The Father is greater than I'. He says the Father sent him.
    And you've also got Mark's strange quote from Jesus has he died -- "my god, why have you deserted me?" -- that doesn't sound like a chap who's either speaking to himself, or holds out much hope for the future, does it? (and that's assuming Mark got it right; the other gospel authors quote Jesus as saying different things as he died).Back on topic, slightly, it may not be called the "trinity" in the text, but the text does quite clearly imply that such a three-item-body exists -- like, god exists, Jesus is the son who also exists and the holy ghost is in there too somewhere. "Trinity" is just a word for all three of them together.

    I suppose that answers my question so. You in your reading believe the doctrine of the trinity has creedence.
    From what you write, I think you're getting too tied down by the specific word "trinity" itself and assuming that it means more than the group of three.
    You'd be wrong so. I object that they are all God. The Father is God, Jesus is his Son. The Holy Spirit is something that God can 'pour out' according to scripture. It also has a residual effect on those it touches as exemplified by the dead man coming back to life when he touched Elishas dead bones. I have heard it defined as Gods active force in some circles.
    Don't forget either that three is considered by many folk traditions to have good connotations (quite apart from the Egyptian ones), and first century Palestine would have also been familiar with the first and second ruling Triumvirates in Rome (the last one finishing in 33AD), so it's quite reasonable to suspect too that the holy ghost was invented to make the numbers up to a round and auspicious three.

    Holy ghost I don't like. I believe the Holy Spirit is the accurate translation. The opening of genesis says Gods holy spirit was moving about the earth, so it didn't just appear in the greek scriptures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote:
    As good a summary of the atheist position as I could imagine -- welcome :)

    Thats just it though, one doesn't need to belive in the immortal soul to believe in ressurection or heaven or God. Although my views would be rejected by most denominations.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Jimitime wrote:
    Thats just it though. He didn't claim he was. In fact he said that 'The Father is greater than I'. He says the Father sent him.
    Yes, that's what John 14:28 says. But if you go back a page or two, John also says in 10:30, "The Father and I are one". Which one is it to be? He can't be the same as the father and less than the father a the same time, can he?
    JimiTime wrote:
    You in your reading believe the doctrine of the trinity has creedence.
    As I said before, I think you're getting hung up on the word "trinity" and something called the "doctrine of the trinity" which you haven't defined and I don't know what you mean by it (or at least, I don't know how you differentiate it from "trinity" as I've written up above). The text clearly (ie, Matthew 28:19) indicates that there are three entirely separate entities running the show and "trinity" is a common word for this kind of thing. If you can tell me what you understand by "the doctrine of the trinity" and how this is different from a group of three entities, I'd be interested to try to understand.
    JimiTime wrote:
    You'd be wrong so. I object that they are all God. The Father is God, Jesus is his Son. The Holy Spirit is something that God can 'pour out' according to scripture.
    So, from this do I understand correctly that you believe that the holy spirit is an agent of god and not an independent entity with separate decision-making powers?
    JimiTime wrote:
    The opening of genesis says Gods holy spirit was moving about the earth, so it didn't just appear in the greek scriptures.
    The translation is very ambiguous, as are most of the appearances of the holy spirit in the NT. In this bit of genesis, the text is either saying that the HS isn't a part of god (contradicting Jesus), or the text is simply referring to the lifeforce of god. I'd go with the latter, as it's the straightforward reading of the text.
    JimiTime wrote:
    one doesn't need to belive in the immortal soul to believe in ressurection or heaven or God.
    Aye, but heaven or god and retribution and resurrection are all pretty pointless if the soul (as thought of by most religious people) doesn't exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote:
    Yes, that's what John 14:28 says. But if you go back a page or two, John also says in 10:30, "The Father and I are one". Which one is it to be? He can't be the same as the father and less than the father a the same time, can he?

    Here is John 10.30 in context.

    25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."
    31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
    33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
    34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'[e]? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.


    And the real clanger is in John 17:11 while Jesus is praying to God he says the following relating to his apostles:

    Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

    Now if that doesn't define the oneness he talks about I don't know what does. Its certainly not some mysterious, we are actually the same but different mysterious way. He relates his oneness with God to a oneness that the apostles can have. Even language about all being part of the body of Christ. There need not be a mystery.
    As I said before, I think you're getting hung up on the word "trinity" and something called the "doctrine of the trinity" which you haven't defined and I don't know what you mean by it (or at least, I don't know how you differentiate it from "trinity" as I've written up above). The text clearly (ie, Matthew 28:19) indicates that there are three entirely separate entities running the show and "trinity" is a common word for this kind of thing. If you can tell me what you understand by "the doctrine of the trinity" and how this is different from a group of three entities, I'd be interested to try to understand.

    well the doctrine of the trinity says that God is the father the son and the holy spirit. Whereas, The Father is God, Jesus is his son whom he has given kingship and authority to, Jesus is not the most high God. For some reason, most Christendom makes them all equals. So when you use the term 'trinity' this is the doctrine that it refers to. If you mean something other than what I've just explained, then you are not using it as Christendom does.
    So, from this do I understand correctly that you believe that the holy spirit is an agent of god and not an independent entity with separate decision-making powers?
    the fact that God 'pours out' his spirit. the fact that his sprit was 'moving about the earth'. The fact that one can be 'filled with holy spirit'. the fact that it has a residual effect, like the incident I described regarding Elishas bones. That would lead me to believe it maybe refers to Gods power. Just for reference. 2 Kings 13:21:

    21 Once while some Israelites were burying a man, suddenly they saw a band of raiders; so they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet.

    Aye, but heaven or god and retribution and resurrection are all pretty pointless if the soul (as thought of by most religious people) doesn't exist.

    As I said the soul does exist. Soul = Life. I'm pretty sure I exist. Jesus could resurrect the dead, and will again. No immortal soul(life) needed, just Faith in Gods memory.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭stereoroid


    There's a problem with all this Bible quoting: it's completely lost on your target audience - atheists. Over our heads, under our Radar, in one ear and out the other... :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    stereoroid wrote:
    There's a problem with all this Bible quoting: it's completely lost on your target audience - atheists. Over our heads, under our Radar, in one ear and out the other... :rolleyes:

    Hmmmm. 14 posts under your belt and you know all the folks here well enough to speak for them. Not only that, but you know them well enough to say that its all over their heads, under their Radar etc. Dang Newbee:D Honestly though, if you observe the conversations here and over in the christianity pages, you'll see that your atheist friends are not so ignorant to scripture and the like. see ye round.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    When is the soul supposed to leave the body, are people who have been revived souless ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    MooseJam wrote:
    When is the soul supposed to leave the body, are people who have been revived souless ?

    If this is a question to my explaination of what a soul is, then you didn't get the jist of it. Soul = Life. If someone dies they're dead ie lifeless or soulless. If they are revived or resurected, they have their life/soul back again.

    If this was not a question aimed at my explainations, then just pretend I never posted:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    JimiTime wrote:
    they threw the man's body into Elisha's tomb. When the body touched Elisha's bones, the man came to life and stood up on his feet

    Probably been eating fugu Sushi :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    JimiTime wrote:
    If this is a question to my explaination of what a soul is, then you didn't get the jist of it. Soul = Life. If someone dies they're dead ie lifeless or soulless.

    Soul=life? Define no longer alive? Stopped breathing? Stopped heart beating? A thousand years ago either one of those would without a doubt be considered "dead". Now we can keep people alive indefinately in lots of cases where the heart stops beating. A lack of brain activity? If yes, then what about when we develop new technologies to reactivate the brain? Were we murdering all those people when we turned off life support? Lets say someone is dead and gone and we seal them in a tomb.

    They're dead, yeah? What if, one month later, we use incredible nanite technology to rebuild their bodies exactly as they were and reactivate the brain. Is this now some sort of zombie? The walking dead with no souls? Why it is a fanciful notion, in theory there's no reason to believe that such technology is possible in the distant future.

    One of the biggest problems with this whole "soul" thing is the fact that "life" is not as descrete a definition as people like to think. Here's a little brain teaser for you:

    I'm me, I'm alive. We then scan my brain and make a computerised copy of my brain using advanced technology. This artificial brain is created using little logic gates that fully replicate the fuctioning of the neurons of the human brain. But, this thing of course doesn't have a soul, its not "alive".

    Well, lets say a doctor takes out one of my billions of neurons and replaces it with one of these artificial neurons. I notice no change, in any way shape or form, its just one of billions. I'm still alive, right? I still have my soul. Well, lets replace ten of the neurons. Still no change, my personality and everything are completely unchanged. So, one by one we swap my neurons for identical, but artifical neurons.

    By the end of it I am essentially identical to the artifical brain I mentioned at the start. Do I still have a soul?


    There isn't really an answer because frankly this wishy washy soul nonesense is just that. As science allows us to blur the lines between life/death, natural/artificial then all those outdated easy explanations for such things are revealed for the silliness they are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Zillah wrote:
    Soul=life? Define no longer alive? Stopped breathing? Stopped heart beating? A thousand years ago either one of those would without a doubt be considered "dead". Now we can keep people alive indefinately in lots of cases where the heart stops beating. A lack of brain activity? If yes, then what about when we develop new technologies to reactivate the brain? Were we murdering all those people when we turned off life support? Lets say someone is dead and gone and we seal them in a tomb.

    They're dead, yeah? What if, one month later, we use incredible nanite technology to rebuild their bodies exactly as they were and reactivate the brain. Is this now some sort of zombie? The walking dead with no souls? Why it is a fanciful notion, in theory there's no reason to believe that such technology is possible in the distant future.

    One of the biggest problems with this whole "soul" thing is the fact that "life" is not as descrete a definition as people like to think. Here's a little brain teaser for you:

    I'm me, I'm alive. We then scan my brain and make a computerised copy of my brain using advanced technology. This artificial brain is created using little logic gates that fully replicate the fuctioning of the neurons of the human brain. But, this thing of course doesn't have a soul, its not "alive".

    Well, lets say a doctor takes out one of my billions of neurons and replaces it with one of these artificial neurons. I notice no change, in any way shape or form, its just one of billions. I'm still alive, right? I still have my soul. Well, lets replace ten of the neurons. Still no change, my personality and everything are completely unchanged. So, one by one we swap my neurons for identical, but artifical neurons.

    By the end of it I am essentially identical to the artifical brain I mentioned at the start. Do I still have a soul?


    There isn't really an answer because frankly this wishy washy soul nonesense is just that. As science allows us to blur the lines between life/death, natural/artificial then all those outdated easy explanations for such things are revealed for the silliness they are.

    You are the one defining the soul as something other than life. Soul is just a word that is defined the ability to live. I understand that the word 'soul' has been given this supernatural meaning in religious circles, but there is nothing supernatural about it. If a person is alive then they are a soul. Not 'have' a soul. They are a soul. I.E. They have the ability to live.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Don't be silly, soul is music that arose out of the black experience in America through the transmutation of gospel and rhythm & blues into a form of funky, secular testifying.

    You are simply referring to a different meaning of the word JimiTime.


Advertisement