What is the Soul?

[sandorski]

That has not been established. Impossibility suggests a logical inconsistency of definition. As the "soul" is not defined inconsisencies are difficult to establish. As for what prompted the first humans to concieve or percieve the existence of a soul, that is lost in prehistory, but becomes rather moot, since the concept was postulated mostlikely before human speech. We have no history of a time before the concept of a soul. Conversely, the concept of "atheism" is quite young in comparison, so the metaphysical arguments havent had as much time to mature as the religious doctrine.

No, being unable to Observe it in any fashion makes it an Impossibility. You can not Know something that is Unknowable.

Everyone is Atheistc about some God(s). It precedes Religion/Spirituality.

 

[mattpegher]

As for the statement that religious organizations fail to live up to the concepts they preach, there is no argument. However, the metaphysical concepts discussed, all be it moronicly, are no less valid simply because those who chose to profess these beliefs fail to live by them.

 

[sandorski]

We see "evil" yes but to define evil becomes more difficult. Most students of metaphysics will state evil as "any act that causes suffering of a sentient being". This definition is rather incomplete. We seek a universality of evil, which i'm not so sure exists. Its like the tree in the woods analogy, can evil happen without humans being involved (see chimp masturbating with frog) or even if society doesnt know about it. Should material consequence be required for the definition of evil?

Defining "evil" is difficult? Really? The vast majority of the time it is very obvious. Those times when it is not so obvious are the times when Social structures have changed, making a previously accepted action into an "evil" action. This usually occurs despite Religious/Spiritual teachings, not due to them. See the issue of "Slavery" as such an "evil".

 

[sandorski]

As for the statement that religious organizations fail to live up to the concepts they preach, there is no argument. However, the metaphysical concepts discussed, all be it moronicly, are no less valid simply because those who chose to profess these beliefs fail to live by them.

What can not be Validated can not be Valid.

 

[mattpegher]

No, being unable to Observe it in any fashion makes it an Impossibility. You can not Know something that is Unknowable.

Everyone is Atheistc about some God(s). It precedes Religion/Spirituality.

That is the "empiric" argument, yet the empiric argument cannot be used to prove the impossibility of a phenomenon. It works to prove the existence but to prove nonexistence, one must prove impossibility and this can only be done with logical inconsistencies of definition. Ie, a solid helium block will not exist at standard room temperature, and pressure.
Because we define helium as a gas that has certain physical properties.
A better example is that there exists on mars some form of life. To date this has not been empirically demonstated, and although we would accept that this life would be significantly different than terrestrial life, it is possible that it may be found.

 

[mattpegher]

What can not be Validated can not be Valid.

Not true. Valid implies the possibility, Validated implies empirically observed. Given an infinite ability for science to observe all possibilities this would be true, but science is not nor ever will be limitless.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Well from a bible perspective, it teaches that man has a spirit, a body, and a soul. The soul is defined as being the mind, will, and emotions. The body self explanatory. The spirit is the eternal part of man and is the part of man that gets "saved".

Thats closer than most people get . But your discription of the Mind/Brain/Flesh is the root of the problem. The living Word did say the Spirit resides between the heart and Mind Both of which are flesh. The debate of Soul Vs, Spirit was Won by the HRCC there in lies the problem. Another topic here on Rome earlier was so full of lies and misteachings that it wasn't worth the read.
A friend of mine as a child went to same catholic school as I did . I was horriable at everthing other than History Religion and science were I was actually the stand out . That doesn't change the fact that at best I was a D pupil. Except for the 3 subjects that I adderessed were I was a student. My friend was as dumb as a rock with about same amount of common sense. He was a true F pupil . He beginning highschool went to public school and was suddenly a B student . Go figure, Whats shocking is publics schools have degraded since that time. Scary as all hell is what it is.

 

[sandorski]

That is the "empiric" argument, yet the empiric argument cannot be used to prove the impossibility of a phenomenon. It works to prove the existence but to prove nonexistence, one must prove impossibility and this can only be done with logical inconsistencies of definition. Ie, a solid helium block will not exist at standard room temperature, and pressure.
Because we define helium as a gas that has certain physical properties.
A better example is that there exists on mars some form of life. To date this has not been empirically demonstated, and although we would accept that this life would be significantly different than terrestrial life, it is possible that it may be found.

To claim the Existence of something requires some form of Empirical Evidence. Without it, you are left with only a BS Argument.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, the "Soul" is merely an attempt to explain something. That's it, it's just a philosophical exercise that got out of hand.

 

[mattpegher]

Defining "evil" is difficult? Really? The vast majority of the time it is very obvious. Those times when it is not so obvious are the times when Social structures have changed, making a previously accepted action into an "evil" action. This usually occurs despite Religious/Spiritual teachings, not due to them. See the issue of "Slavery" as such an "evil".

If it is not so difficult to define, please do so. Evil is...........
You percieve something as evil, I do not doubt that you are right, but entering a definition that encompasses all facets can be more difficult.

The Classic as I said is "that which causes suffering to a sentient being" even that requires defining sentience and suffering. Is all life sentient, are any other creatures on this planet sentient. I kill billions of living things every day, in order to say just a few. Do those few out value the billions. I think so, but other species may feel differently. Does the act need to be intentional? What cognitive ability is required of the actor?

Please give me your definition, I would like to consider it in concert with mine. You may have additions that I have not yet thought of.

 

[Nemesis 1]

To claim the Existence of something requires some form of Empirical Evidence. Without it, you are left with only a BS Argument.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, the "Soul" is merely an attempt to explain something. That's it, it's just a philosophical exercise that got out of hand.

The whole point of Empirical Knowledge is the Fact that only the rulers had access to certain information the word as you used it is a lie . The same as the Gay word and hundreds more. Empirical knowledge is exactly what I described it as being in its orginal form . You only know the new gay meaning.

 

[mattpegher]

To claim the Existence of something requires some form of Empirical Evidence. Without it, you are left with only a BS Argument.

Like I said in my very first post in this thread, the "Soul" is merely an attempt to explain something. That's it, it's just a philosophical exercise that got out of hand.

You are right, they have not proved the existence of their phenomenon. Yet to prove the impossibility is more difficult. At this point, neither side has been able to extend the discussion beyond this point. I do not blame you for sticking to the Empiric argument. AFAIK no one has been able to further this discussion since the "birth" of modern atheism.
And IMHO, this is what I refer to as a prime postulate, a point at which if two sides do not agree, there is likely no further argument possible. Its like two people speaking different lanquages, both will get frustrated and more likely than not someone still won't know where the bathroom is. (a poor tribute to my favorite atheist, Douglas Adams)

 

[sandorski]

Not true. Valid implies the possibility, Validated implies empirically observed. Given an infinite ability for science to observe all possibilities this would be true, but science is not nor ever will be limitless.

Anything is a Possibility, Validity is a complete different matter. You implied validity, not Possibility. If this thread was about Possibilities, it would be a whole different discussion, but it is not. The thread is about Certainty and the assumption of the Validity of that. Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Evidence. Yet the evidence offered is that no Evidence can be offered. That's enough to convince a Child to believe in Santa Claus, but shouldn't be enough to convince a Thinking Adult.

An Invisible Unicorn created the Universe and it wants you to send me $50.

I look forward to my $50.

 

[sandorski]

If it is not so difficult to define, please do so. Evil is...........
You percieve something as evil, I do not doubt that you are right, but entering a definition that encompasses all facets can be more difficult.

The Classic as I said is "that which causes suffering to a sentient being" even that requires defining sentience and suffering. Is all life sentient, are any other creatures on this planet sentient. I kill billions of living things every day, in order to say just a few. Do those few out value the billions. I think so, but other species may feel differently. Does the act need to be intentional? What cognitive ability is required of the actor?

Please give me your definition, I would like to consider it in concert with mine. You may have additions that I have not yet thought of.

An act that causes harm to Others.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Evil and sin are very easy to discribe. Sin is going against ones nature. Marriage is a good example is it a sin? No! Not until you commit adultry. Than marriage becomes the sin. It does not come from God but man and it goes against nature.

 

[mattpegher]

An act that causes harm to Others.

Great, this is a good start.
Lets extrapolate: Harm - does it have to be physical, is mental stress enough? pain? Does there have to be long term sequelae. Can the harm be quantified, is there little evil and great evil. Do extenuating cercumstance mitigate the evil, ie killing to eat. Killing bacteria or some other entity trying to kill you.

Others - Humans only? what of other mammals, insects. Is it a greater evil to kill a dog then a insect. What about plants?

What about intension? If you didnt mean for it to happen is it still evil. If you lack a need is it worse? Is it worse to kill for fur than to kill for food. Does technology make it less acceptable if alternatives are present.

It can be said that modern humans can survive as vegitarians. Is it our nature to do so. Are there detriments to vegitarian diet, that are not overcomable.

If a nonsentient creature performs an action can it be deemed evil. Wolf eats a human baby? Is it more evil if it is done to a sentient being?

Can acts of nature ie hurricane, cause evil, even if sentient beings are harmed.

As you see there are serious conceptual and perceptual difficulties to the definition of evil.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Great, this is a good start.
Lets extrapolate: Harm - does it have to be physical, is mental stress enough? pain? Does there have to be long term sequelae. Can the harm be quantified, is there little evil and great evil. Do extenuating cercumstance mitigate the evil, ie killing to eat. Killing bacteria or some other entity trying to kill you.

Others - Humans only? what of other mammals, insects. Is it a greater evil to kill a dog then a insect. What about plants?

What about intension? If you didnt mean for it to happen is it still evil. If you lack a need is it worse? Is it worse to kill for fur than to kill for food. Does technology make it less acceptable if alternatives are present.

It can be said that modern humans can survive as vegitarians. Is it our nature to do so. Are there detriments to vegitarian diet, that are not overcomable.



If a nonsentient creature performs an action can it be deemed evil. Wolf eats a human baby? Is it more evil if it is done to a sentient being?

Can acts of nature ie hurricane, cause evil, even if sentient beings are harmed.

As you see there are serious conceptual and perceptual difficulties to the definition of evil.

Can a hurrican, cause evil . Without a doubt yes . Looting be an example is a hurrican evil no . Unless its man made with the intent of causing suffering . If it is natural there be no evil involved. Its all very simple and easily understoodd threw cause and effect

 

[sandorski]

Great, this is a good start.
Lets extrapolate: Harm - does it have to be physical, is mental stress enough? pain? Does there have to be long term sequelae. Can the harm be quantified, is there little evil and great evil. Do extenuating cercumstance mitigate the evil, ie killing to eat. Killing bacteria or some other entity trying to kill you.

Others - Humans only? what of other mammals, insects. Is it a greater evil to kill a dog then a insect. What about plants?

What about intension? If you didnt mean for it to happen is it still evil. If you lack a need is it worse? Is it worse to kill for fur than to kill for food. Does technology make it less acceptable if alternatives are present.

It can be said that modern humans can survive as vegitarians. Is it our nature to do so. Are there detriments to vegitarian diet, that are not overcomable.

If a nonsentient creature performs an action can it be deemed evil. Wolf eats a human baby? Is it more evil if it is done to a sentient being?

Can acts of nature ie hurricane, cause evil, even if sentient beings are harmed.

As you see there are serious conceptual and perceptual difficulties to the definition of evil.

Maybe.

How does all that relate to a Metaphysical "Evil"? Or. for that matter, a Metaphysical "Good"? In the end, it is We very Material beings who decides all those things. There are no Needs for a Metaphysical explanation, in fact, such explanations fail as our Societies grow beyond any scope the original crafters of those philosophies could imagine.

Again, see "Slavery" as just such a thing. Do any Metaphysical/Philosophical entities condemn Slavery? Certainly Abrahamic based ones don't, yet the Metaphysical Being behind them is accepted by the majority as some sort of authority on the Good/Evil issue.

How can this be? Where was this Morality? We declared it Evil, not some being postulated by an Ancient person.

 

[mattpegher]

Evil and sin are very easy to discribe. Sin is going against ones nature. Marriage is a good example is it a sin? No! Not until you commit adultry. Than marriage becomes the sin. It does not come from God but man and it goes against nature.

Nemesis 1, It would be unfair of me not to point out your inconsistencies as I discuss inconsistencies with sandorski. You are speaking in a rhetoric that we do not understand. This goes back to the statement I made about speaking the same lanquage.
You equate evil and sin. You define sin as going against one nature. However it is completely natural for any species to attempt to procreate with as many mates as possible. Therefore you see that Nature and ethics/morals (or even gods will) are not synonymous. Your statement that "marriage becomes the sin", implies that once adultry takes place the pair bond between partners is somehow evil. This I dont see. I believe you are speaking within a deep form of rhetoric that is meant to confuse and ellicit emotional responses rather than intellectual ones. As for your definition of evil, does evil exist without God? Are you stating that it has no definition that does not include God's will. I will refer you to a very good wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Evil must have a definition seperate from god. I can hardly blame you for your rhetoric, as it is likely that those who taught you knew no better discussion.

 

[mattpegher]

Maybe.

How does all that relate to a Metaphysical "Evil"? Or. for that matter, a Metaphysical "Good"? In the end, it is We very Material beings who decides all those things. There are no Needs for a Metaphysical explanation, in fact, such explanations fail as our Societies grow beyond any scope the original crafters of those philosophies could imagine.

Again, see "Slavery" as just such a thing. Do any Metaphysical/Philosophical entities condemn Slavery? Certainly Abrahamic based ones don't, yet the Metaphysical Being behind them is accepted by the majority as some sort of authority on the Good/Evil issue.

How can this be? Where was this Morality? We declared it Evil, not some being postulated by an Ancient person.

In a sense you have illustrated, a concept that I am currently wrestling with. Evil as a perception, without any universality.

I think that slavery is not so strong an example though because, no matter what time in history you talk about, the slave would most likely classify the concept of ownership as immoral. Sure the slaver would not, and today society deems it so, but this concept at least on a human to human level has little redeemable argument.

I think vegitarianism may be a better example. There will come a time in the future when it is no longer necessary to raise or kill other animals for our survival. Sometime in the future it may even be considered barbaric by all human societies. We will at that time consider it evil to do so. Hopefully we will have learned to controll wild populations to maintain balance and no longer need hunting.

In my mind evil certainly can be quantified and mitigated, but that too is subjective to my perception.

But back to the original question, how do these evil acts become something to suppress in ones actions, without transcendence of the physical, nevermind post-mortem punishment, in a purely materialistic world.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally Posted by sandorski
Defining "evil" is difficult? Really? The vast majority of the time it is very obvious. Those times when it is not so obvious are the times when Social structures have changed, making a previously accepted action into an "evil" action. This usually occurs despite Religious/Spiritual teachings, not due to them. See the issue of "Slavery" as such an "evil".

By your own words. Are you sugjesting that slavery is over with in the USA . Thats a laugh. Every man who works a job that he hates is a slave and goes against his nature . But because mans nature is to survive doing that job is not a sin . But he has made himself a slave to society. This is exactly why the enlightened ones who do as they please LOL at us. They are the slavers and they tighten their grip on our spirits with every passing moment. This is were the danger lies, Nature(GOD) has away of producing men in a new nature that is not common but uncommon and he is viewed by those who lack his nature as evil when in reality his nature coming from God is the new nature and the old nature passes away. Your living in such a period . Such a man will not have any remorse in what the new nature has instore for the old nature as such a man can likely control frequency and that would be a nature at work . Out with the old in with the new. Earth history is full of such evolutions. You go against nature (God) and God will replace you as nature, like man has survival instincts

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nemesis 1, It would be unfair of me not to point out your inconsistencies as I discuss inconsistencies with sandorski. You are speaking in a rhetoric that we do not understand. This goes back to the statement I made about speaking the same lanquage.
You equate evil and sin. You define sin as going against one nature. However it is completely natural for any species to attempt to procreate with as many mates as possible. Therefore you see that Nature and ethics/morals (or even gods will) are not synonymous. Your statement that "marriage becomes the sin", implies that once adultry takes place the pair bond between partners is somehow evil. This I dont see. I believe you are speaking within a deep form of rhetoric that is meant to confuse and ellicit emotional responses rather than intellectual ones. As for your definition of evil, does evil exist without God? Are you stating that it has no definition that does not include God's will. I will refer you to a very good wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Evil must have a definition seperate from god. I can hardly blame you for your rhetoric, as it is likely that those who taught you knew no better discussion.

The word was asked what is Sin . The word replied there is no sin . But man creates sin . He went on using adultry as an example . So was the act of a adultry the sin which you and I agree it is mans nature to spread the seed. So that leaves the act of marriage as the sin because of the act of adultry which we both agree is natural. Arranged marriage by a father for personnel gain . Which act is the sin . The marriage or the desire for perssonal gain . Your understanding of the laws of nature are vary limited.
The living word did say Make not laws least yea be bound by them . I know were my authority comes from . I also know we do not share that authority you and I.

As for your debate with the other . You guys are debating without using exceptable examples. your only talking to assure others as to your genius . were as I speak as simply as possiable so there is NO mistake in what I tell you . No excsre for not understanding . Keep it simple stupid.

 

[sandorski]

Just to change up the discussion somewhat and perhaps clarify my position somewhat as well, the problem, as I see it, is that the concept of Soul and all the side issues around it is very limiting. Such concepts become too rigid resulting in Dogma and relying on an Authoritarian acceptance of Good/Evil being what the Deity(in most cases) proclaims it is. There is no need for clarification or any kind of explanation, it just is because it is what the Authority proclaims it is.

That's not to say that a Secular/Humanist/Atheist(one, a combination, or all) Construct can't fall into that same trap, but the vast majority of people have fallen into that trap through Religion based Metaphysical Philosophies. At this point in History anyway. Good/Evil need to be separated from Ancient Constructs in order to remain relevant. Fortunately, to some extent they have, however, the resurgence of Ancient Religions is troubling. When I speak of that I'm discussing mostly the 3 Abrahamic philosophies, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the ones I'm most familiar with. Most people with these 3 are mostly Traditionalists, by that I mean they are rather benign in the sense that they observe certain traditions that have little consequence(celebrations such as Christmas, Hannukah(sp), Ramadan for eg). Yet in all 3 there have been disturbing growth in Fundamentalist elements which dredge up practices that are not benign and are clearly harmful if not outright dangerous. These are people who would, given the opportunity, reverse our understanding of Good/Evil and go even beyond that to reverse our understanding of Science.

This is why these discussions always raise my cackles. I'm not saying that these Ancient Philosophers/"Prophets"/Founders were "Evil", in fact I'm sure at the time they were very admirable and deserving of the praise/position in History given to them. However, clearly, despite how revolutionary their ideas were at the time, they were simply unable to grasp how far their Concepts of Good/Evil could be or should be taken. I really don't blame them for that, it is always difficult to foresee such things given the limited scope one has at any given point in time. That said, it is foolish for us to limit ourselves by their limited scope and indeed to accept their scope as the final authority on Morality and/or Good/Evil. At best, IMO, one could argue that their views are a good starting point to view such complex subjects, but I think there are also some serious flaws in their thinking, again as a consequence of their limited view.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Nemesis 1, It would be unfair of me not to point out your inconsistencies as I discuss inconsistencies with sandorski. You are speaking in a rhetoric that we do not understand. This goes back to the statement I made about speaking the same lanquage.
You equate evil and sin. You define sin as going against one nature. However it is completely natural for any species to attempt to procreate with as many mates as possible. Therefore you see that Nature and ethics/morals (or even gods will) are not synonymous. Your statement that "marriage becomes the sin", implies that once adultry takes place the pair bond between partners is somehow evil. This I dont see. I believe you are speaking within a deep form of rhetoric that is meant to confuse and ellicit emotional responses rather than intellectual ones. As for your definition of evil, does evil exist without God? Are you stating that it has no definition that does not include God's will. I will refer you to a very good wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

Evil must have a definition seperate from god. I can hardly blame you for your rhetoric, as it is likely that those who taught you knew no better discussion.

I would also like to point out that Gods will was to give man freewill . So God stepped aside in mans case to see if man could handle his own nature. That is Gods will to make you a free man . He made us stewards over the earth and ts creatures not masters or owners . Stewards. Present man has failed that task that God did ordain . All failed except 1 tribe. The North American indians. Be thankful for that if you live in N america . Your done and those like you are done . God words are simple until you try to add to or take away from them .

 

[coreyb]

did dinosaurs have souls? do monkeys have them? at what point did we evolve a soul?

 

[coreyb]

where's the human soul after severe brain damage and the person basically isn't "there" anymore" aren't we all just our brains and biology?