cuchulain

So a brief recap of the conversation to date: I ask if anyone thinks a soul exists, and what evidence or reference do they have. Someone says it does, someone else thinks it might, but no tangible proof. Someone else entirely has a problem with there being no working definition of soul. I give a definition of soul. Several people seem offended that I didn't include everyone's definition, and some suggest that it is not definable. It is specified that for the sake of this particular debate, soul can be defined as in the dictionary. Someone argues that the dictionary definition isn't good enough for whatever reason. I point out that a debate needs to have two sides agree on a definition. At this point, I am starting to think it's a ludicrous proposition to debate the existence of a soul, if we are going to get sidetracked about what definition to use and whether it's definable, and point that out. Then I get told that definitions are important when asking for proof, and never mind that I have provided a definition. This feels very circular, you know?

Did you really just ask for evidence that something doesn't exist?

Or conversely we can say that the soul that meets our definition does not exist.

I do not intend to define God, or god, or gods or Gods for everyone in every single discussion ever. I meant for the terms of this discussion, or topic...since the question was asked which God, and people wanted a definition for soul. I never said there wasn't a place on this board for polytheists, or anyone else. It certainly wouldn't be my call to make in the first place It certainly doesn't strike me as difficult, since it was asked for, to limit this particular discussion to one definition of God and soul, but apparently I am vastly mistaken. Funny...since the reset, I had a topic split by mods because a response went off topic...but there are literally pages devoted to definitions in the topic of whether there is a human soul. Just a thought...

When did definitions of words become optional? When I went to school, I had a set list of words to define. If I put whatever I wanted in the blank, I got it wrong. I just don't get what's so difficult about this. If a person wants to use their own personal definition, they certainly shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to it.

I think of myself as a full time minister. The way I define minister agrees with the dictionary under verb(go figure): attend to the needs of (someone) I generally tend to the needs of many people, sometimes people I know and sometimes strangers. But like John Lennon said, "Better recognize your brother, everyone you meet" I think of myself as a passive minister. Strange sounding, now that I type it. I am what I am on a regular basis, and if there is nobody around that I can tell is in need, then I am not actively ministering. If I see someone who needs help, I try. I guess I am semi active in that I volunteer my services and time on a regular basis. I help out at food pantries. Church doctrine means absolutely nothing to me. I am a stoic, which really doesn't have ministers of the "faith" that I can determine. Generally speaking, stoics act in accordance with what they believe to be right. If I see someone drop a $20 I tell them, if I find money in the parking lot of Walmart(and I did recently, like a month ago) I take it to the service desk(at Walmart, they have a policy of holding on to the funds for a certain amount of time then if nobody claims it they donate the money to Children's Miracle Network). If I see someone with a flat tire and it looks like they might need help, I stop and help. I have jump started many a car, and have pushed a few off the road so that someone could try to fix a problem as well.

God: (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: an adored, admired, or influential person Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal : the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal That wasn't difficult at all. Addendum : Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic: (of a number, quantity, or expression) expressible, or containing quantities that are expressible, as a ratio of whole numbers. When expressed as a decimal, a rational number has a finite or recurring expansion

The discussion has become about definitions, and how they differ, and how that difference can lead to misunderstandings. Case in point. I say that it's like comparing apples and oranges. I mean it in the terms of the phrase... idioms.thefreedictionary.com/compare+apples+and+oranges : to examine the similarities of things that are completely different. Usage note: Usually used to explain that two things cannot be compared. I think mererdog misused the phrase, or misunderstood it at the least, or deliberately altered it's common usage to make a point. He used it as an actual comparison of fruit, instead of the common usage. So when I say case in point, we disagree about this because of differing definition, it's because he just exemplified my point that we are debated two separate things with the same words, and getting no where as a result. You are quite right that we could discuss the differences and come to an understanding. mererdog appears to me to be a very able person in communications terms, at least so far as explaining himself. I believe myself capable of altering my definition...but if you read up a ways, we were discussing the difficulty of defining the soul if everyone used different definitions and I suggested as a compromise to use an arbitrary source such as a dictionary...and then we are right back where we started. There are several topics that people are simply not willing to concede any points on, which makes defining the subject of discussion difficult. Christians would most likely define the soul differently than an Atheist, who would define it differently than a Wiccan, and they each might insist that theirs is the correct definition. In a case like that, we can either agree to an arbitrary source, change our own definition to match someone else's, or understand that the debate will not progress. Maybe there are other options, but I don't see them.

Case in point: we disagree about this, because of differing definition.

How do we define anything? We come to a consensus about it's meaning. How do we come to a consensus about it's meaning? It gets discussed, it gets considered, and when a definition is agreed upon it is added to the dictionary.( merriam-webster.com/help/faq-words-into-dictionary ) So...the dictionaries definition is accurate(in terms of the definition of the word accurate). It is other people's definition which might be flawed. They should be willing to conform their definition to the standard of a dictionary, in my opinion. But that is their own choice. To me it seems simple. To you perhaps it does not, or maybe you are simply debating for the sake of testing my theories? Or some other reason. I understand that. To debate something, we need a working definition of that something, in this case Soul. Now, I could use my definition, and you could yours. They might not match. How to make sure they match? Use an outside, relatively arbitrary source, such as in a dictionary. If the one or both people absolutely refuse to conform their definition, then they have no basis for a debate as to the existence of the soul. They are each debating a different thing. And that means the debate is pointless. In order to have a point, they must agree on a definition of the term they are debating. Otherwise it's comparing apples and oranges, so to speak.

Understanding may be different, that is mere perception though. A rose is a rose, whether we call it a tuna fish sandwich or not. It may be true that not everyone gets it, that people view things differently. I simply fear the argument that it is unknowable. That argument can lead to much harm if followed through, I believe. But, those are merely my perceptions.

I think the biggest misconception in all of this is that any of us require understanding from others in order to be what we are. I am certain to misconstrue others in the future, and I believe others will misconstrue me. Whether deliberate or accident, it really is irrelevant to what I consider myself. And yet, I find myself discussing such things with others on a regular basis...kind of contradictory to myself, I guess.

Then for simplicities sake, let's use the dictionary definition. If someone would like to interject their own definition into the conversation they are welcome to do so, if they will kindly spell out what they mean by God or Soul. So far as unknowable...it's either hogwash or irrelevant. If it truly is unknowable, then it is irrelevant to discuss anything concerning God or the soul, since by your very definition you cannot possibly know anything relating to it. If it is not unknowable, then it's simple hogwash. We can discuss and discern what the soul is, God is, and anything else if we put our minds to it and apply enough effort and time. Just my thoughts about it. So far as the definitions the dictionary gives, I do not believe in such a soul because nobody has provided any means of verifying or falsifying such a claim, nor evidence of such a claim. I do not believe in God for the same reasons. I am still open, of course, to new evidence.

The dictionary has no problem at all defining soul. I don't know why the big hoopla? Soul: the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as being immortal. Now with that as a working definition, and it's in the dictionary...I don't see a way to measure something immaterial. But simply because I do not does not mean it is immeasurable, or unprovable. I simply at this time don't believe in the soul because I haven't seen the evidence as yet. The dictionary has no problem defining God, either. God: (In Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes. I cannot understand why some things are claimed as undefinable when I can google a definition within seconds. I get that some religions alter those definitions to suit, but for purposes of study and scrutiny it makes sense to me to use the most common definitions available, hence the dictionary. Am I mistaken?

It amazes me sometimes how pervasive certain traditions are world wide. The laws of hospitality, the offering of bread and salt, things that simply seem to be integrated into all walks of life(probably not all, but it sometimes seems that way). Thanks for sharing.

I GREATLY fear the argument that humankind isn't capable of knowing...because if we aren't capable, what's the point of further exploring? No...I reject this as an exploration killing argument. I believe there is no bounds to what humans can learn, eventually. I do not know whether the question will be solved in my lifetime, or another. Can you imagine if this argument had been heeded by the earliest scientists, such people who discovered the world is round, the earth revolves around the sun, that bacteria cause illness?

I have often visited the public library and read non fiction works. What's the pay off? Knowledge, plain and simple. Perhaps not accredited in any university or school, but knowledge for it's own sake. On the other hand, I attended college for two years, took such wonderful classes as Art appreciation and P.E., which were still requirements, and got a piece of paper that is accredited. Which also does me absolutely no good in the jobs market.

And so with the alteration of one word in modern translations, I have to wondered what other words may have been altered in previous times, and how many times those words were altered. And how many of those alterations were further altered after that...and thus, how much of the bible is written the way it was originally intended. This is a large imperfection, from my perspective. If God is capable of inspiring the book to be infallible in the first instance, why not the translations?

The ministry was the sole province of the educated in large part because of the ministers. When a group chooses to write their book in one language that very nearly no laypeople spoke or read, even if they could read in the first place, that says something. The Christian religion, which is what I reference in these comments, was primarily Catholic I believe. Historically, I don't see a lot of change, a lot of diversity, in denomination...until the bible becomes written in other languages. Until other people are able to look at the book and interpret it differently than the minister tells them. Now there are massive amounts of denominations. I take my wife to work occasionally at Walmart. I happened to notice a religious writing on something there, it was 1 Corinthians 13 13, or so it claimed. I looked it up when I got home, and it was different. The object at Walmart had love in place of charity. Of course, looking at the various translations of the bible when googling this verse, one will notice that the word has been changed in some translations to love instead of charity. Just look at the interpretational differences there. If love is the highest standard, one could argue for tough love, that is not giving to others so they have to toughen up and learn to do for themselves. The opposite of charity, which is the KJV. One simple word altered...

A danger can be real whether realized or not, but not every realized danger is real.

It has been said that differences should be celebrated. I think that "many paths" argument erases that, as well.

I agree with the sentiment. Approach everyone as if they were your brother(or sister) and you shouldn't go too far wrong.

I be

I guess I am the nerd, eh? I found a use for Math outside of school, for entertainment purposes. I played Dungeons and Dragons, and Math was useful in determining the formulas for the charts used in the books so I no longer needed to reference the books as often. The shame, the shame...

I found out a bit about her religion after she passed through journals. I can understand the idea of living within a certain radius of where you were born being a comforting thing, my Mom lived within fifty miles of where she was born in the end. However, she was a military wife for a good number of years and traveled extensively. I think this may have been a strong contributor for her beliefs and ideas. She simply went back to where she started from, in the end. I myself live currently in Georgia, was born in Fort Hood TX, and resided most of my life in Southern Illinois. I have been from Washington state to New York, south from Texas and North as far as Buffalo, and many points in between. My Grandmother came from the stix in Missouri, and ended up in Southern Illinois. So far as sharing religion and bonding, I think we did that anyway without my knowing what her religion was. It's after the fact and it still feels like that bond was there.