|
|
#101 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Um...where in the past like, 40 posts has anyone said anything about the world being flat? (I only looked back from post 60-100, so if it was further back than that, why did it get brought up anyway?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#102 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Sorry, I get a bit carried away and my thoughts were in the God thread. This thread just seems a little bit similar in certain aspects like the type of proof needed to prove that souls exist or don't exist. The idea of a theory should be used to better understand the universe as shown on your flow chart in the God thread instead of an assumption with no evidence (the Earth is flat) which didn't accomplish anything. I don't know if a theory could be made on souls because it's hard to know what the idea of a soul is getting at considering a soul can be used by society to represent an actual being, (perhaps) to condemn certain people in society, or any other definitions of a soul. Even if there is a definite definition of a soul as in it's like a person's body (which isn't physical), no one knows if that exists or doesn't because of what seems like the lack of any evidence. However, if a soul is used as a way to condemn others, then I guess the definition is pretty clear and straightforward. For example, "you do not have a soul" would probably be interpreted as "you are not "normal"".
Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 06-11-2007 at 11:02 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
The law of Gravity usually refers to the observed phenomenon of gravity itself. Different explanations for what causes gravity and how it works are still debated. However, the math behind, say, the inverse square law has remained almost the same even when notions about gravity progressed from a Newtonian to modern physical perspective. Because of this the observed natural process known as gravity is known as a natural law, models explaining gravity, which are less readily confirmable, are not known as law. I hope that answers your question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
FFR Player
|
Q-Whats a soul
A-It what makes your pp get hard
__________________
![]() ![]() ![]() Style-One hand two fingers (index/middle) ![]() Average Rank:2,262 FC-135+38 skill/token AAA-14+3 skill/token |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
It might mean both "you are not normal" and "you are a threat". Also, while it is true that the concept of a soul can be used to demean and condemn certain individuals as well as to rationalize this and worse, the nature of human interactions period is such that this will occur with or without the concept of the soul. In fact, moving away from vitalism towards modern psychology, we still find that the terms used to describe proposed distinct psychological conditions are pejorative rather than neutral, which is to me perhaps the biggest sign that we have a long way to go before we gain meaningful understanding of how the human animal actually works. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
I haven't really taken a stance on the issue at hand, so I'll do that. I'm not sure if we all agree that souls do exist, because though the topic asks "what is a soul", most of the discussion seems to be centered around if there is in fact such a thing. I believe they do exist in each and every one of us, though it is not a tangible part of our body. I would say it's what makes us unique. Without souls, we are all basically the same person, just with different physical characteristics. Now, I can't say that souls are responsible for every person in the world having a unique fingerprint; I don't know why that is. I don't think souls are responsible for that, despite my argument. I think the soul is what makes us who we are. It's what drives Kilroy_x to post in the CT thread so much. It's not just his intelligence, but his enthusiasm in doing so. I think it's what makes Jim Carrey such a funny guy. If we don't attribute the unique personalities of many people to their individual souls, then what do we attribute them to? To their intellect? If we do that, then why aren't there millions of Jim Carreys running around? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
We attribute the unique personality of people to their unique personality. they need not possess some seperate "personality giver" that you call a soul.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#108 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, there is still the issue of how a soul comes about, and the properties of a soul if they vary at all from the properties of a given individual. If they don't, then "soul" is a redundant description or a sweeping uniform label of already existing, explainable phenomenon. In the case that using the label prevents understanding of the phenomenon there is a problem. Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
Genetic variance defeats your ability to say that souls are made up of unique personalities, because the scientific explanation doesn't necessitate souls, as devonin said. I do believe, however, that above all, human beings do have souls.
For example, have you ever thought about why you are you? Why can't you be someone else? Why isn't you me? Why isn't me you? Why aren't you a more primitive animal? Don't you ever feel lucky to be the mind of one of the 6.5 billion living human beings, rather than the trillions of bugs and apparently lesser-thinking creatures? Each person has the amazing ability to observe this world from his own viewpoint. No one else has your viewpoint; your perceptions are indefinitely stuck inside you. My reasoning is that we are souls experiencing a physical boundary; otherwise, there would be no consciousness. If you say consciousness is imaginary and an illusion arising from the sum of various mechanical processes (I don't deny these processes, but rather discredit their ability to explain everything you are thinking right now and why you have the right to perceive the way you do), then you are discrediting yourself, because what you are thinking right now is meaningless and imaginary. From that logic, why trust what you are thinking when consciousness is only an illusion? If consciousness is not an illusion, then we are still able to think as a whole creature regardless of what each individual cell in 100 trillion cells is "thinking." Last edited by ledwix; 06-13-2007 at 06:45 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 | |||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
No
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#111 | |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
I never said I knew how thought works, but it is more complex than anything we'll be able to explain.
How am I a hypocrite? Does the regarding of something as scientifically unnecessary make it unreal? "Science does not necessitate the internet realm to exist for the world to exist; therefore, the internet does not exist." Quote:
Just because you ARE HUMAN NO MATTER WHAT does not mean that you are not lucky to have been made a human. Though everything you have ever been has been human, this does not mean your state of consciousness couldn't have been in some other animal. Animals other than us exist. I am examining something you are not even considering, merely because at any point in your history you have existed in human form....might as well be saying, "Why should I feel lucky to be rich? I was BORN rich." Okay so you think my reasoning is silly, because souls are silly, and even acknowledging their possibility deserves ridicule. I also think yours is. All right, but I can easily say that although also nonobective, the soul is real, given that you consider your purpose in life real. You have no more right to say that than I do to say the soul is real. Having goals in life does not mean you can say you serve a real purpose, from your explanations. Last edited by ledwix; 06-13-2007 at 07:47 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Just look outside your window
Posts: 102
|
i think your soul is like everyting inside your mind. kind of like your personality and who and what you care for. but i cant really explain it well. thats just what i think
|
|
|
|
|
|
#113 | |||||||
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
That ties in to answer your question about people who have few or no differences. Last year, I dated a girl named Colleen who had a twin sister, Maureen. They looked exactly alike except for their hair length, so people could distinguish between them. While I dated Colleen, I got to know Maureen very well, but I realized that while they lived under the same roof and were twins, they had very separate personalities and life goals. Colleen was more reserved and laid-back about doing things. She was also very shy. Maureen, on the other hand, was very outgoing and active. No, I don't think that makes them lesser. There was something about Colleen that I was attracted to more than Maureen, and it was her personality. What makes them different is that they each have a unique soul, a unique personality. That's what I'm saying makes us who we are. Quote:
That's a huge difference between you and me, we believe differently. I don't think you can contribute that to genetic variance. Strictly genetic variance. Environmental factors, yes, I can see how you might contribute that difference to environmental factors. However, I don't think I'm ever going to be able to sway you on the subject of Christianity and faith, and I think your personality makes it that way. Am I equating personality with the soul? Yes. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#114 | |
|
FFR Veteran
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
No, it just makes it not scientific, which means it is speculative and lacks any concrete evidence, which in turn makes your argument lose all credibility since it is based on the assumption that souls exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 | |||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't care. I don't think you particularly do think. Quote:
I really, really don't think you understand my explanations, certainly not well enough to make the statement in your last sentence. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
#117 | |||||||||||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with interpretation is we're doing it with the very same tools that we don't understand and are trying to interpret the functions of. Quote:
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|