Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

lookinforpicnic · 26-07-2007 1:00pm

JimiTime wrote:

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.

If you want to say that a soul is a non supernatural entity akin to live, well you can't argue with that, don't be surprised though if you get strange looks while in a microbiology lab looking though a microscope saying something like "look at all those souls replicating on the petri dish". In the english language soul has certain connotations, one of which is usually that it is supernatural, whether it is a mistake or not i can't comment on, but you might have to end up qualifying your use of soul every time you use it, so people don't misunderstand.

JimiTime · 26-07-2007 1:12pm

lookinforpicnic wrote:

If you want to say that a soul is a non supernatural entity akin to live, well you can't argue with that, don't be surprised though if you get strange looks while in a microbiology lab looking though a microscope saying something like "look at all those souls replicating on the petri dish". In the english language soul has certain connotations, one of which is usually that it is supernatural, whether it is a mistake or not i can't comment on, but you might have to end up qualifying your use of soul every time you use it, so people don't misunderstand.

And that is precisely my point. I avoid using the word because of those very conotations.

lookinforpicnic · 26-07-2007 2:29pm

JimiTime wrote:

And that is precisely my point. I avoid using the word because of those very conotations.

Why you want to use the word soul is another matter...your not a modern day vitalist are you? a biological chauvinist? You know that for over the last hundred years or so we can make organic compounds (the biochemicals associated with life) in the lab, and one of the ingredients was not lifeforce, ki energy, or some other god damn "energy" of sorts!

Zillah · 26-07-2007 4:08pm

Wait a second...this isn't even a discussion on metaphysics. Jimitime just has bad English.

Tar.Aldarion · 26-07-2007 4:16pm

I said that posts ago!
It's not that he has bad English really, it's that he is confused about a word having more than one meaning.
Yes a soul is a person, but it is also a kind of music and a mythical(or is it??? den den den) thing a lot of religious people believe in. Plus, some more things.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

JimiTime · 26-07-2007 4:38pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I said that posts ago!
It's not that he has bad English really, it's that he is confused about a word having more than one meaning.
Yes a soul is a person, but it is also a kind of music and a mythical(or is it??? den den den) thing a lot of religious people believe in. Plus, some more things.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/soul

Ehhh, i think I gave a backround on the 'Soul' I was speaking of. I.E. the soul mentioned in the bible, which is from the hebrew 'Nephish', which means 'the ability to live'. So I've been saying, and I said it from a christian perspective, that there is not a biblical basis for the belief in 'the immortal soul' or that the soul is somehow seperate from the person. And that this pagan myth ended up in the realm of christianity. Man this happens way too much on boards, I must be really bad at explaining things.

Ross_Mahon · 27-07-2007 2:12am

I'm the only real person on this planet, maybe im here...and your not!

Zillah · 27-07-2007 7:13am

Ross_Mahon wrote:

I'm the only real person on this planet, maybe im here...and your not!

Welcome to 2000 years ago. You propose the exemplar of redundancy.

Tar.Aldarion · 27-07-2007 9:12am

JimiTime wrote:

Ehhh, i think I gave a backround on the 'Soul' I was speaking of. I.E. the soul mentioned in the bible, which is from the hebrew 'Nephish', which means 'the ability to live'. So I've been saying, and I said it from a christian perspective, that there is not a biblical basis for the belief in 'the immortal soul' or that the soul is somehow seperate from the person. And that this pagan myth ended up in the realm of christianity. Man this happens way too much on boards, I must be really bad at explaining things.

If christians did not and should not believe in a soul, what is judged by god?

PDN · 27-07-2007 9:24am

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.

Thank you. I have now found an atheist equivalent to plankton-eating lions living on mountain tops. The little "logic gates" in my brain are being overloaded with mirth.

robindch · 27-07-2007 11:41am

PDN wrote:

I have now found an atheist equivalent to plankton-eating lions living on mountain tops.

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

JimiTime · 28-07-2007 12:05pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If christians did not and should not believe in a soul, what is judged by god?

We are. If he has the ability to create, recreate, resurrect etc etc, all you need is to be remembered. Lazarus was 'dead' for days and was resurrected. Nothing indicated that he was in heaven, and if he was, I think he would have been a bit disappointed to be sent back down to earth.

PS. I believe in a soul just not the floaty off immortal one. but I think I've been clear enough on the Soul I speak of.

Galvasean · 30-07-2007 3:31pm

robindch wrote:

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

I too would like to know this. Although the concept of such a complex artificial brain is somewhat in the realm of science-fiction at the moment I don see how it compares to the plankton eating lions (which seem to have been made up on the spot).

MooseJam · 30-07-2007 8:08pm

The human body has been 100% mapped now right down to the genome and we do not have a soul, fact, we simply do not have one

PDN · 30-07-2007 10:07pm

robindch wrote:

Could you let us know exactly what's the equivalent of the plankton-eating lions bit?

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Attractive Nun · 30-07-2007 11:20pm

JimiTime wrote:

We are. If he has the ability to create, recreate, resurrect etc etc, all you need is to be remembered. Lazarus was 'dead' for days and was resurrected. Nothing indicated that he was in heaven, and if he was, I think he would have been a bit disappointed to be sent back down to earth.

PS. I believe in a soul just not the floaty off immortal one. but I think I've been clear enough on the Soul I speak of.

So wait, then what goes to heaven? If our 'soul/life/consciousness' isn't immortal but instead dies with our body, and our body quite obviously hangs around on earth long after its lost life, then what's left for the afterlife? Logically, if there is to be an afterlife then there are only a few options in this regard:
1. Our bodies physically move into heaven/hell, like Jesus'. Clearly this is preposterous.
2. There exists a supernatural part of us that would conventionally be described as a 'soul'. Upon our physical death, this goes to heaven/hell and lives on independently of our decomposing bodies. You seem quite plainly to have rejected this idea.
3. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that could be conconcted, perhaps a 'copy' of our 'soul/life/essence/consciousness' exists, or is created on our death, in heaven/hell, for example. But beyond option 1 or 2, you would really be talking about a radically unusual theology - one that could scarcely be called biblical and certainly not Christian.

Or perhaps I am missing something?

JC 2K3 · 30-07-2007 11:45pm

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

You're not saying you don't believe in AI or that medical nanotechnology isn't possible, are you???

aidan24326 · 31-07-2007 1:15am

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

And why do you think you'd be raining on anyone's parade? There's no telling what kind of technology will be available in the future. What Zillah described is obviously highly speculative but it is (more than likely) theoretically possible and given enough time for technological advancement who knows what will be achieved? Much of our modern technology would have been undreamt of only 1000 years ago.

The point is that advances in AI will blur the lines between what we consider alive and inanimate and may some day raise some thorny questions for those who believe in a soul. But there is no such thing as a 'soul', it's just a convenient bypassing of death, a ticket to the next life since nobody in their right mind would suggest that we actually ascend bodily into heaven as Jesus supposedly did. Why can't people accept that we're just very complex biochemical machines and leave it at that? Is that not wondrous enough in itself? that little bits of stardust (us) have become aware of themselves and may one day be capable of creating new types of lifeform?

robindch · 31-07-2007 1:30am

PDN wrote:

After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Ah, the "everything is a religion" argument! I believe I've heard it before

PDN wrote:

If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me.

You don't need to "believe in" engineers being able to replicate the functionality of neurons, since they already exist here:

http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/ and http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/page18924.html (the FAQ)

There are other folks doing similar things elsewhere.

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 2:39am

Attractive Nun wrote:

So wait, then what goes to heaven? If our 'soul/life/consciousness' isn't immortal but instead dies with our body, and our body quite obviously hangs around on earth long after its lost life, then what's left for the afterlife? Logically, if there is to be an afterlife then there are only a few options in this regard:
1. Our bodies physically move into heaven/hell, like Jesus'. Clearly this is preposterous.

2. There exists a supernatural part of us that would conventionally be described as a 'soul'. Upon our physical death, this goes to heaven/hell and lives on independently of our decomposing bodies. You seem quite plainly to have rejected this idea.

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'. As for you describing the soul as a supernatural part of us. Well, thats not what the biblical translation of the word is. The hebrew word nephish means the ability to live. This is what is translated soul in english biblical translations. Now God gives us the ability to live, and he can give us the ability to live again, i.e. resurrection. If there was an immortal soul, there would be no resurrection, merely a new state of being. to be resurrected one must first be dead. the idea of the immortal soul is not something that i would consider biblial at all. in fact I would categorically state its a pagan idea!

3. There are an infinite number of alternative explanations that could be conconcted,

I would beg to differ. i think the options are quite finite. And with prayer and meditation the answer can be quite definite.

perhaps a 'copy' of our 'soul/life/essence/consciousness' exists,

Perhaps, but one thing is certain, we are not immortal! The fact that God knows how many grains of sand there are on a beach. the fact that he knows how to create and recreate and all the secrets of creation, the belief in the immortal soul is not only false, but completely unnecessary!

But beyond option 1 or 2, you would really be talking about a radically unusual theology - one that could scarcely be called biblical and certainly not Christian.

I'm glad you think so, it means I'm doing something right. Religion dopes the mind with doctrine IMO. Saying my view is not christian, would certainly be true to a catholic etc. However, Christ is my lord and mediator not man. I trust my own honesty in seeking truth. I accept that i am a flawed man that makes mistakes, but what I do know, is that I am Christian. many would disagree, but I'm safe in the knowledge that they don't matter, Christ is my King. So by all means debate the immortal soul on the basis of scripture, but refrain from the 'your view is not christian' talk until you actually show that it isn't. It may be against alot of denominational doctrine, but I would argue that it is not against Christ. I am open to be shown the error of my ways, so by all means proceed.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 3:32am

PDN wrote:

Look guys, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. If you want to believe in exact computerised replicas of people's brains, complete with little logic gates and neuron transplants, then that's fine by me. After all, everybody has to believe in something.

Uh, you clearly don't understand what a logic gate is. Everything I proposed is theoretically possible, and as Robindch pointed out is being worked on already. Here's an exerpt in case you didn't bother following the link:

"At the end of 2006, the Blue Brain project reached an important milestone -- the proof of principle that the brain can be simulated at the cellular level. Biologically accurate neurons can now be reconstructed, based on detailed experimental data, at the push of a button. And the neurons can be automatically connected in a biological manner, a task that involves positioning around 30 million synapses in precise 3D locations. These neurons and their connections have been used to reconstruct the basic functional unit of the brain, the neocortical column."

The kinds of technology we have now are the result of a bare few hundreds of years of advancement. The kind of technology I propose for the future is a rather tame and conservative estimate compared to what is proposed by other men, all of whom are far more educated in relevant fields than you or I. Ever heard of the Kardashev Scale?

Your lack of technological understanding is not a convincing basis for an argument, nor is your inadequate grasp of the potential of our species.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 5:04am

JimiTime wrote:

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'.

Ok, let me try and describe your position so far:

1 - Hell is dying without being ressurected.
2 - There is no such thing as immortality.
3 - When Christians die they will eventually be ressurected.

Then what? Do they live forever? They're immortal...? If not, do they die again, forever? Are we all doomed to "Hell"? What about heaven, where does that factor into all this?

(I'll point out that Jehovah's Witnesses kind of agree with you, that Hell is somewhere where sinners are destroyed forever rather than tortured forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism).

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 9:50am

Zillah wrote:

Ok, let me try and describe your position so far:

1 - Hell is dying without being ressurected.

Well actually, There are 3 words which are translated to hell. Gehenna, Sheol and Hades. I believe Hell is the grave. When John talks about the lake of burning sulphur in revelation, he proceeds to literally say 'which means the second death of which there is no resurrection'.

2 - There is no such thing as immortality.

Not quite. I said no such thing as the immortal soul. God can destroy us completely making us mortal.

3 - When Christians die they will eventually be ressurected.

Yes.

Then what? Do they live forever? They're immortal...?

This is a topic in itself. We have been told only so much. You mentioned the JW's. They believe in a heavenly class based on the 144,000 mentioned in the bible, and and an earthly paradise resurrection. Revelation mentions a new earth as well as heaven. Adam had everlasting life, but was not immortal, the difference being that everlasting life does not mean you 'cannot' die. TBH, this is something that requires study, something that I really could not give you an absolute concise answer on in this moment in time. please accept my apologies for this, as I am still in the process of studying myself. I'm sure you'd appreciate me not spouting out stuff in ignorance.

(I'll point out that Jehovah's Witnesses kind of agree with you, that Hell is somewhere where sinners are destroyed forever rather than tortured forever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism).

Indeed, they agree with alot of what I'm saying and disagree with others.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 10:44am

JimiTime wrote:

TBH, this is something that requires study, something that I really could not give you an absolute concise answer on in this moment in time. please accept my apologies for this, as I am still in the process of studying myself. I'm sure you'd appreciate me not spouting out stuff in ignorance.

Well of course, but this is the point at which you completely lose me. How can you possibly accept this extraordinary cosmology/metaphysics when its not even internally consistent and complete? How can you bring yourself to accept the incredible claims that this book* makes when its not even thorough? The things its says are true completely lack evidence and I just cannot empathise with a person who can take it at face value.

You truly believe that the omnipotent Creator of the universe will physically resurrect all the dead human beings that obeyed him at the end of time? Leaving tens of billions of humans and proto-humans to oblivion because they didn't read/hear of the Bible? Or existed before it was written? What about all the species of sentient aliens that science tells us are very likely to be out there? You think perhaps they got a visit from Jesus too? Will they be resurected when God has his synchronised time of judgement across several galaxies? Its all just so ludicrous, I'm sorry. As a hypothesis it is deeply, truly, inescapably flawed.

*Thats really all there is, a book. No miracles and prophets and Godly actions, just a book that talks about these things.

JimiTime · 31-07-2007 12:38pm

Zillah wrote:

Well of course, but this is the point at which you completely lose me. How can you possibly accept this extraordinary cosmology/metaphysics when its not even internally consistent and complete? How can you bring yourself to accept the incredible claims that this book* makes when its not even thorough? The things its says are true completely lack evidence and I just cannot empathise with a person who can take it at face value.

Indeed, that is why you are an atheist, and I am a Faithful Christian. You can rant about it, but I don't claim to be basing my Faith on scientific method etc. Nor do I expect you to empathise with me.

You truly believe that the omnipotent Creator of the universe will physically resurrect all the dead human beings that obeyed him at the end of time? Leaving tens of billions of humans and proto-humans to oblivion because they didn't read/hear of the Bible? Or existed before it was written? What about all the species of sentient aliens that science tells us are very likely to be out there? You think perhaps they got a visit from Jesus too? Will they be resurected when God has his synchronised time of judgement across several galaxies? Its all just so ludicrous, I'm sorry. As a hypothesis it is deeply, truly, inescapably flawed.

a) All will be resurrected to judgement, including those who predate the scriptures.
b) I don't believe in proto-humans. I am one of those 'idiots' who believes in Adam and Eve.
c) Sentient aliens? If they do exist, it is not important enough at this point of time to be revealed to us by God. Nor was it relevant for them to be mentioned in scripture. So, if they exist, they are completely irrelevant to us at the moment. Also, 'very likely to be out there', is just guessing. No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning. In fact, I think its quite ironic that it is.

*Thats really all there is, a book. No miracles and prophets and Godly actions, just a book that talks about these things.

Thats how history was recorded before TV, Photographs and audio recording. This book tells of 'the Godly actions' and the signs of the prophets and of the Christ. It has prophesy that came to pass E.G. Daniel prophesying the order of world powers before they happened.

Attractive Nun · 31-07-2007 1:16pm

JimiTime wrote:

I have categorically denied the existence of the immortal soul! I reject the idea of us all being immortal. i reject the idea of hell being a place of eternal torture. I rather believe in Johns actual explaination of it being 'the second death of which their is no resurrection'. As for you describing the soul as a supernatural part of us. Well, thats not what the biblical translation of the word is. The hebrew word nephish means the ability to live. This is what is translated soul in english biblical translations. Now God gives us the ability to live, and he can give us the ability to live again, i.e. resurrection. If there was an immortal soul, there would be no resurrection, merely a new state of being. to be resurrected one must first be dead. the idea of the immortal soul is not something that i would consider biblial at all. in fact I would categorically state its a pagan idea!

That's fine, I'm not trying to argue with you on theology - I am not equipped to do that - I am just trying to understand what you believe.

So far, I gather you believe something along the lines of - those of us who have 'found God'/whatever will be resurrected upon our own death, and those of us who haven't will not. I understand that this creates an important distinction between us having 'immortal souls' and us simply living at God's behest for as long as he decides. My question is this: if I am follow God's teachings and live a good life, and God judges that I deserve resurrection, then what is resurrected? It can't be our physical remains, surely, because we can observe these decomposing slowly, so it must be some description of a 'soul' (please do not think I intend to bring up any of the connotations associated with that word, I simply mean a part of us - maybe something that is merely associated with us in the cosmos somewhere - that exists independently of our earthly bodies).

So, in regard to the questions posed by this thread, you believe that we don't have 'immortal souls', but we do have 'souls/lives/beings' that effectively might potentially become immortal, or at least have everlasting life?

JimiTime wrote:

I would beg to differ. i think the options are quite finite. And with prayer and meditation the answer can be quite definite.

Well, I only mean 'infinite' in the most technical sense, i.e. if a copy of our soul is created, it could be created in another universe - the characteristics of which could vary to an infinite degree, for example.

JimiTime wrote:

I'm glad you think so, it means I'm doing something right. Religion dopes the mind with doctrine IMO. Saying my view is not christian, would certainly be true to a catholic etc. However, Christ is my lord and mediator not man. I trust my own honesty in seeking truth. I accept that i am a flawed man that makes mistakes, but what I do know, is that I am Christian. many would disagree, but I'm safe in the knowledge that they don't matter, Christ is my King. So by all means debate the immortal soul on the basis of scripture, but refrain from the 'your view is not christian' talk until you actually show that it isn't. It may be against alot of denominational doctrine, but I would argue that it is not against Christ. I am open to be shown the error of my ways, so by all means proceed.

Fair enough, I only meant 'Christian' in the sense of conforming to one or other of the contemporary Christian churches. Further debate on the issue is best left for the Christianity forum.

Zillah · 31-07-2007 7:13pm

JimiTime wrote:

b) I don't believe in proto-humans. I am one of those 'idiots' who believes in Adam and Eve.

Oh wait...you're a young-Earthist? Oh for the love of...

You're just wrong. There are millions and millions of reasons why you're wrong. La la land. Looper dooper town. Nonesense.

Thats how history was recorded before TV, Photographs and audio recording. This book tells of 'the Godly actions' and the signs of the prophets and of the Christ. It has prophesy that came to pass E.G. Daniel prophesying the order of world powers before they happened.

Its also how utter nonesense, such as creation myths, were recorded.

Also, 'very likely to be out there', is just guessing. No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning. In fact, I think its quite ironic that it is.

Theres a big difference between an educated estimate and a guess. People who dismiss the likelihood of alien life are usually people who grossly underestimate the sheer mind blowing scale of the universe. Our planet is a dot within a dot within a titanic ocean of existence. Here, try this on for size: http://www.co-intelligence.org/newsletter/comparisons.html

Oh, and this is fantastic.

robindch · 01-08-2007 12:45am

JimiTime wrote:

I don't claim to be basing my Faith on scientific method etc [...] No proof or evidence of such beings exist, so really at this point of time they are not even worth mentioning.

Er, so let me get this straight -- we have to provide "evidence", but you can believe what you like and still expect to have your beliefs taken seriously?

JimiTime · 01-08-2007 1:23am

robindch wrote:

Er, so let me get this straight -- we have to provide "evidence", but you can believe what you like and still expect to have your beliefs taken seriously?

Ehh no. i don't expect much from you guys at all. its fairly clear of not only your views, but your contempt for Christianity. You don't have to provide me with anything. It just seemed odd, that your whole reason revolves around the scientific method and not believing in something you don't have evidence for. So that is why i said it was Ironic, that the existence of aliens was mentioned. I don't base my beliefs on science, you do, so its you who are being inconsistent not I. Ok, so the universe is vast and you think its highly unlikely that we are the only living planet, but there is no evidence for this claim. Similarly, i don't believe a person can exist without a creator.

coffee_cake · 01-08-2007 1:28am

why do you and jakkass always insist anyone arguing has "contempt" for the religion

Atheism, etc. and the existence of the soul

Comments