Souls

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:42 pm

Note: The Germans had different results and more exact data unlike MacDougall. Thank you for your time, but it's not the same exact study, and the results are not the same. Also, the last one is a lot more recent and thus, more relevant to the discussion at hand.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:46 pm

Hyuuu wrote:Guys, saying that souls don't exist based on the fact that there is no evidence is called the fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

Yes, which is why I haven't said that.

It doesn't sound like you guys are debating at all. It sounds like you are just bashing others for showing evidence of their belief.

What evidence? No one has shown any, besides jagjanker who's pushing an old, very unreliable, fallacious experiment.

Expand on the idea and provide evidence yourselves as to why they do not exist

As the skeptic in this debate, that's not my job. Those on the believing side must produce evidence they exist.

jajganker · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **jajganker** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:50 pm

The last one is not old as I have already pointed out. It is actually from around 2006-2007. Also, I shall now leave before I start acting rude and swearing like you have already kindly done to me. Thank you, and good day.

Hyuuu · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hyuuu** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:52 pm

I must ask, are you a local or a global skeptic? I believe that to claim something is not true, something needs to be known about it. Why do you believe that souls do not exist? I believe in the first post you said you didn't see evidence for the existence of souls. Is that the only premise for you conclusion? I am not trying to target on you, but you seem the most active poster here so I am just curious as to why you believe that.

Also, jajganker only posted some sites to prove her point. That doesn't automatically make her a troll. Even if they are unreliable sites, it is suffice to say that a better study must be presented.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:56 pm

jajganker wrote:Note: The Germans had different results and more exact data unlike MacDougall. Thank you for your time, but it's not the same exact study, and the results are not the same. Also, the last one is a lot more recent and thus, more relevant to the discussion at hand.

You mean a study by some 'Noetic Science' group that found that humans lose 1/3000th of an ounce when they die and that must be a soul? Yeah, that's a lot more credible.

All your links have been from crazy pseudoscience groups, and even if they weren't, the conclusions are all fallacious. Okay, so humans lose some weight when they die -- why must that be a soul? If it weighs something and is therefore material, why can't we detect it, and doesn't that defeat the whole fucking point of a soul (that it's immaterial)?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:01 am

Hyuuu wrote:I must ask, are you a local or a global skeptic? I believe that to claim something is not true, something needs to be known about it. Why do you believe that souls do not exist? I believe in the first post you said you didn't see evidence for the existence of souls. Is that the only premise for you conclusion? I am not trying to target on you, but you seem the most active poster here so I am just curious as to why you believe that.

I've never claimed that souls do not exist. I just do not see any sort of evidence for them, which is why I don't believe in them and am very doubtful of them.

Also, jajganker only posted some sites to prove her point. That doesn't automatically make her a troll. Even if they are unreliable sites, it is suffice to say that a better study must be presented.

My bad. I tend to assume people are trolling if I suspect it, to save me the trouble of feeding them.

Hyuuu · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hyuuu** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:10 am

That still sounds like you are denying them because you don't know about it.

Regardless, back to the actual topic before we really get into debates about fallacies.

Souls very well could exist. Just because we do not know for sure yet doesn't mean they don't. We currently do not have the tools yet to really really provide evidence for or against them. Maybe in a couple of years, we'll have a better grasp on the topic and ways to test it out.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:35 am

Hyuuu wrote:That still sounds like you are denying them because you don't know about it.

I'm not 'denying' them; I'm saying I don't believe in them, and have very serious doubts about their existence. Those two things are not the same, although, really, in the end it just boils down to technicalities.

Regardless, back to the actual topic before we really get into debates about fallacies.

I thought we were on the actual topic. :?

Souls very well could exist. Just because we do not know for sure yet doesn't mean they don't. We currently do not have the tools yet to really really provide evidence for or against them. Maybe in a couple of years, we'll have a better grasp on the topic and ways to test it out.

As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for the existence of souls. Nothing in neurobiology points to their existence; in fact, our brains are evidence against souls, because everything we think and feel has its basis in physical matter. That's not to say that souls couldn't exist, but that's a pretty worthless statement; for all we know, Santa Clause could exist.

Hyuuu · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hyuuu** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:55 am

Maybe I am hooked on the technicalities of the words since I view "deny" to mean "don't believe". As for the drawing back to the souls argument, I said that because I was going to start going into more technicalities of the argument rather than the subject.

As I said above, we don't have the tools yet to really decide if souls exist or not. In the future years to come, we may develop new studies to really question this and provide evidence for it or against it. We don't have that right now since we can only really speculate. And who is to stay that Santa Clause doesn't exist? We don't know if he does or doesn't so we cannot say we have the knowledge that he doesn't. We can doubt it, but we can't say doesn't exist or does.

The more I think about it, the more another question comes to mind. How would you define the soul anyway? What is the properties of a soul? People view souls differently. What is your definition so we may center on that instead of view it differently and come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:10 am

Hyuuu wrote:As I said above, we don't have the tools yet to really decide if souls exist or not. In the future years to come, we may develop new studies to really question this and provide evidence for it or against it. We don't have that right now since we can only really speculate. And who is to stay that Santa Clause doesn't exist? We don't know if he does or doesn't so we cannot say we have the knowledge that he doesn't. We can doubt it, but we can't say doesn't exist or does.

Actually, souls are, by definition (at least most definitions I've heard of), a supernatural concept, so we can never know for one-hundred percent certain that they don't exist, just like we can never know with one-hundred percent certainty a deistic god doesn't exist.

The more I think about it, the more another question comes to mind. How would you define the soul anyway? What is the properties of a soul? People view souls differently. What is your definition so we may center on that instead of view it differently and come to a conclusion that doesn't make sense.

I view it as your guy's job to define what a soul is. Mostly, I'm referring to the theories of it being supernatural and immaterial.

Hyuuu · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hyuuu** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:17 am

My guy's job to define what a soul is? What do you mean 'my guy's'? As for the definition, I meant, what makes a soul? Okay so we have it being supernatural and immaterial. Is that the only 'ingredient' for being a soul? There are many things we can prove and disprove by simply listing off all the conditions and then deciding if the conditions are necessary or sufficient for the topic and if there is a relation between each condition. If they aren't related, then it is more readily discarded because the reasoning doesn't add up. Everything has to have some kind of definition or else everything is ambiguous and we won't be able to really debate it since we have no base to start off with and the thing we are arguing isn't clear to all those involved in the debate.

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:20 am

Might I suggest we start from St. Thomas Aquinas' argument?

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:30 am

Hyuuu wrote:My guy's job to define what a soul is? What do you mean 'my guy's'?

Don't be an ass.

As for the definition, I meant, what makes a soul? Okay so we have it being supernatural and immaterial. Is that the only 'ingredient' for being a soul? There are many things we can prove and disprove by simply listing off all the conditions and then deciding if the conditions are necessary or sufficient for the topic and if there is a relation between each condition. If they aren't related, then it is more readily discarded because the reasoning doesn't add up. Everything has to have some kind of definition or else everything is ambiguous and we won't be able to really debate it since we have no base to start off with and the thing we are arguing isn't clear to all those involved in the debate.

Like I said, it's not my job to provide a definition. I'll let the people arguing for the existence of souls actually define what they are.

Hyuuu · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Hyuuu** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:34 am

I wasn't trying to be an ass. I was asking what you meant. I don't understand what you meant by that statement. Oh! Never mind. I just reread it again. I am a little off. It's getting late.

Also, I wasn't asking you to give a definition that we should all follow. I was just asking for your thoughts.

And now I bid adieu.

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Tue Sep 27, 2011 1:43 am

Hyuuu wrote:I wasn't trying to be an ass. I was asking what you meant. I don't understand what you meant by that statement. Oh! Never mind. I just reread it again. I am a little off. It's getting late.

Ah, I thought you were making fun of grammar/noun choice.

Also, I wasn't asking you to give a definition that we should all follow. I was just asking for your thoughts.

Well, I usually view the concept of a soul as an immaterial, immortal supernatural entity that's attached to every human being and travels on to an afterlife after you death, holding all the contents of your brain.

Shané · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Shané** on Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:55 am

Fallacy- Depends on what you see as evidence. It seems to me that the evidence I find factual alot of non-christians don't count it, but for me that is enough. If you are seriously looking for evidence and all you could check out creation.com Just a thought, they convinced me <shrugs>

Sheoul- Don't worry, I am not like the other people you've met. Getting angry never helps. I am sorry to hear that you've had bad experience with Christians, unfortunately you are always going to find people like that no matter what group you talk to.

Okay, I said a soul is a spirit. Obviously that wasn't helpful...sorry. Umm if this helps clear it up:
I define "spirit" as the essence of a person. As in their character, their personality. A soul for me is the mixture of a spirit and body- so basically a complete person. I kind off messed up in my first post. The spirit is the one that leaves your body, the soul is the complete person.

Anyway like I said before just my opinion. You don't have to like it or believe it, I just wanted to share it, after all there are other people who think the same or similiar.
I have been dissed a little for being a Christian, and I understand if you guys think it is dumb or strange or whatever, but I feel as though I still am entitled to an opinion. Plus I love debates, by the way Fallacy - This is a very interesting topic ;)

Fallacy · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Fallacy** on Wed Sep 28, 2011 9:54 am

Shané wrote:Fallacy- Depends on what you see as evidence. It seems to me that the evidence I find factual alot of non-christians don't count it, but for me that is enough. If you are seriously looking for evidence and all you could check out creation.com Just a thought, they convinced me <shrugs>

You can't just point me to an entire website. What 'evidence' in particular do you find appealing?

I define "spirit" as the essence of a person. As in their character, their personality. A soul for me is the mixture of a spirit and body- so basically a complete person. I kind off messed up in my first post. The spirit is the one that leaves your body, the soul is the complete person.

That goes against everything we know in neurobiology. Your personally, your thoughts, your feelings, all of that -- it all comes your material, physical brain. What's the use of a spirit, then?

dealing with it · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **dealing with it** on Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:46 pm

Shané wrote:I define "spirit" as the essence of a person. As in their character, their personality. A soul for me is the mixture of a spirit and body- so basically a complete person.

What is your opinion about mentally ill people; for instance, a schizophrenic (or Alzheimer's patient) who undergoes a complete personality change? Has their spirit changed or abandoned them?

Vivalavida · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Vivalavida** on Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:01 pm

It troubles me how people can bring themselves to believe in a "Soul."
I just can't get my head around all these arguments upon which people base such a strong belief.
Some guy measured a potential weight loss upon the moment of death, and suddenly everyone's convinced that conclusive evidence of the "soul" has been confirmed?

Gah.

Mr. Crow · **Tips:** 0.00 INK by **Mr. Crow** on Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:53 pm

Honestly, this thread seems to revolve more around whether or not God exists. From what I've researched, all religions that believe in the soul correlate and branch further into the soul somehow being connected to God/some omnipotent being.

That's really the debate going on here. So, IN MY OPINION (it's a little irritating that I have to say that, lest someone contradicts me), this thread might as well be re-named/closed and started anew to fit the greater discussion. We all know it will lead into this, because some posts have already utilized it. (Don't ask me to look them all up just because you want me to prove a point. Do it yourself.)

Unless someone allows themselves to write up a slightly narrow-minded reply to me, then I will not say anything more on the subject.

Souls

a topic in Discussion & Debate, a part of the RPG forum.

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Re: Souls

Post a reply

Make a Donation

Who is online