I believe in a soul in the religious sense (infinite). (1.75%)
I only believe in my physical body and thoughts. (71.93%)
I believe in a sorta inner being, self-consciousness, etc. (in a scientific way?) (19.3%)
I am not sure where I stand on this topic. (agnostic) (7.02%)
Maybe I'm mixed up believing in something you can say what it is rather than why it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
And a hell of a lot more concrete than air fairy notions of a "soul"
Explainable by cause
a "soul" is:
.... not a lot really.
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.
So why not use the word "person"?
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.
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.
What is "lifeforce"?
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.
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.
I would believe that the trinity doctrine has spurious origins myself.
the ability to live.