• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The soul

Which do you believe is most correct?

  • The sould exists as argued by Aristotle an Aquinas

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • The soul exists as argued by Plato

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • The soul exists as posited by pantheism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The soul exists as posited by monism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The soul exists as a physical phenomenon

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The soul does not exist

    Votes: 19 57.6%

  • The soul exists as posited by animism

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Human beings have material, rather than spiritual, souls

    Votes: 2 6.1%

  • Pumpkin

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • other

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Total voters
    33
  • This poll will close: .
P

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It was nearly universally admitted among ancient and medieval philosophers that humans, animals, and plants have souls, and that the souls of humans are spiritual in nature, meaning that they are of a substance which is immaterial. Many modern philosophers, on the other hand, dispute this truth, arguing that instead man is just a body and nothing else. There is also another aberration, which is to equate a soul with a person's identity, or to otherwise detach man's essence from his physical body. This aberration most frequently occurs amongst members of certain Fundamentalist Protestant or pseudo-Christian sects, although its history can be traced back to the Gnostics of the first millennium, who believed essentially that man was a soul trapped in a body. Another common mistake is the belief that all souls are spiritual in nature. This belief was rejected by both Aristotle and Aquinas, who stated that animals and plants possessed material souls that expired upon the death of the creature in question (Plato, who wrongly considered sense to be a function rooted in a spiritual soul, believed that animals possessed spiritual souls), since they all adhered effectively to the classical definition of a soul "the first principal of life in those things in our world which live.". Another common error, is to imagine that the soul were some part of the brain, a form of physical energy, or some group of particles. This is absurd since it contradicts the very basis of believing in the existence of the soul.

Edit: In option 1 "an" should be "and" and "sould" should be "soul".
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
It was nearly universally admitted among ancient and medieval philosophers that humans, animals, and plants have souls, and that the souls of humans are spiritual in nature, meaning that they are of a substance which is immaterial. Many modern philosophers, on the other hand, dispute this truth, arguing that instead man is just a body and nothing else. There is also another aberration, which is to equate a soul with a person's identity, or to otherwise detach man's essence from his physical body. This aberration most frequently occurs amongst members of certain Fundamentalist Protestant or pseudo-Christian sects, although its history can be traced back to the Gnostics of the first millennium, who believed essentially that man was a soul trapped in a body. Another common mistake is the belief that all souls are spiritual in nature. This belief was rejected by both Aristotle and Aquinas, who stated that animals and plants possessed material souls that expired upon the death of the creature in question (Plato, who wrongly considered sense to be a function rooted in a spiritual soul, believed that animals possessed spiritual souls), since they all adhered effectively to the classical definition of a soul "the first principal of life in those things in our world which live.". Another common error, is to imagine that the soul were some part of the brain, a form of physical energy, or some group of particles. This is absurd since it contradicts the very basis of believing in the existence of the soul.
Click to expand...

So what is the soul, then?
 
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul of any sort. What we define as "you" is an emergent property of the physical brain. When that ceases to function, you stop existing.

It's not that difficult.
 
Cephus said:
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul of any sort. What we define as "you" is an emergent property of the physical brain. When that ceases to function, you stop existing.

It's not that difficult.
Click to expand...

Haven't you herd of "near death experience", Cephus?
 
Canell said:
Haven't you herd of "near death experience", Cephus?
Click to expand...

You do know that they can replicate those in a lab setting, right, Canell? :roll:
 
Souls most likely do not exist.
 
My tendency is to see "soul" as the repressed or suppressed parts of ourselves that we hesitate to express, because it may not be socially acceptable. To me, it's the creative and emotional components that make up a part of our personalities, as opposed to the rational thinking analytical traits. That's probably why there is a general belief among some religions, that a soul needs saving.
 
We are spiritual Beings temporarily in a physical body...It is not a complicated concept.
 
Cephus said:
What we define as "you" is an emergent property of the physical brain.
Click to expand...

1. The human intellect is capable of considering universals
2. Universals, not being composed of any material substance, are immaterial.
3. Therefore, since the lesser cannot contain the greater, human intellects are immaterial.

lizzie said:
My tendency is to see "soul" as the repressed or suppressed parts of ourselves that we hesitate to express, because it may not be socially acceptable. To me, it's the creative and emotional components that make up a part of our personalities, as opposed to the rational thinking analytical traits. That's probably why there is a general belief among some religions, that a soul needs saving.
Click to expand...

That is not the approach which has been taken by the religions you refer to.

Juanita said:
We are spiritual Beings temporarily in a physical body...It is not a complicated concept.
Click to expand...

So you regard the human body as being accidental rather than essential?
 
It is my view that the Soul truly IS the person. I believe that the sole purpose of individuals being here is for their SOUL to have the opportunity to prove to the Higher Powers that it is capable of living a good and proper life. Our physical form and the world itself exists merely as a means to provide the Universe with a platform to view the Souls interactions with each other as a means to determine which Souls have and have not learned the proper lessons and should therefore be allowed to move on to a better place of existance for Eternity. Those which have not but which it is felt can be rehabilitated are given additional opportunities to learn and those which have proven an unwillingness to learn, are simply discarded.
 
Juanita said:
We are spiritual Beings temporarily in a physical body...It is not a complicated concept.
Click to expand...

No we're not, that's nonsense.
 
Paleocon said:
1. The human intellect is capable of considering universals
2. Universals, not being composed of any material substance, are immaterial.
3. Therefore, since the lesser cannot contain the greater, human intellects are immaterial.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how incoherent that is? Really?
 
Paleocon said:
1. The human intellect is capable of considering universals
2. Universals, not being composed of any material substance, are immaterial.
3. Therefore, since the lesser cannot contain the greater, human intellects are immaterial.



That is not the approach which has been taken by the religions you refer to.



So you regard the human body as being accidental rather than essential?
Click to expand...




Is the human body accidental? Of course not. How did you get that out of my statement? A physical body is essential in order to live in a physical world..
 
Juanita said:
"Potential" underpinnings?
Click to expand...

Which is a lot better than the delusional theist has, they just have absurd claims without a shred of evidence or justification. We can demonstrate how near-death experiences operate, we can replicate them, we know that they have a purely physical cause. So why would anyone in their right mind still believe they prove anything about an imaginary supernatural?
 
Juanita said:
Is the human body accidental? Of course not. How did you get that out of my statement? A physical body is essential in order to live in a physical world..
Click to expand...

Define "accidental". I find nothing accidental about the human body, it came about through millions of years of evolution and every feature came about because it provided either a positive or neutral benefit in the evolutionary sphere. Of course, it wasn't planned from the beginning because there was no planning, evolution has no goal, it simply takes the best characteristics of the time and sees which one gives a better survival benefit. The winner survives, the loser does not.
 
Cephus said:
Which is a lot better than the delusional theist has, they just have absurd claims without a shred of evidence or justification. We can demonstrate how near-death experiences operate, we can replicate them, we know that they have a purely physical cause. So why would anyone in their right mind still believe they prove anything about an imaginary supernatural?
Click to expand...



"You" can demonstrate nothing...That science thinks it has an answer for every aspect of the universe is ludicrous..I need no scientific evidence for or against to justify to anyone my own personal experiences. We don't really care what you do or do not believe or accept...
 
Cephus said:
Define "accidental". I find nothing accidental about the human body, it came about through millions of years of evolution and every feature came about because it provided either a positive or neutral benefit in the evolutionary sphere. Of course, it wasn't planned from the beginning because there was no planning, evolution has no goal, it simply takes the best characteristics of the time and sees which one gives a better survival benefit. The winner survives, the loser does not.
Click to expand...



Does this forum have a reading comprehension problem? Please reread my post if you are confused..
 
Juanita said:
"You" can demonstrate nothing...That science thinks it has an answer for every aspect of the universe is ludicrous..I need no scientific evidence for or against to justify to anyone my own personal experiences. We don't really care what you do or do not believe or accept...
Click to expand...

Nor do rational people really care what you do or do not believe or accept. Reality is reality. It exists for everyone. You're welcome to believe whatever you want, it doesn't change what's demonstrably true in reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom