Soul man?

[oldnitro]

Who came up with the idea that each of us possesses a soul, is it just a christian thing or does it go way back BC?

[naomi24]

It's difficult to say for sure who first came up with the idea of a 'soul', but it definitely wasn't the Christians. The Zoroastrian religion, which pre-dates Judaism, which, of course, pre-dates both Christianity and Islam by a long way, embraced the concept of a 'soul'. To that we must add Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and several others, including the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Greeks.

[sandyRoe]

And all wrong, utterly wrong, according to some.

[flobadob]

Does anyone know if a new soul is created each time a new life is created, or when someone dies, is that soul then passed into a new life which has been created?

[RATTER15]

In my opinion the soul does not exist at all!

[naomi24]

Flob, that depends on which flavour religion you choose to believe. Some say new, some say old.

[flobadob]

naomi, I favour none in particular. It's just something I wondered about. I think I'll post a Q in query of this thought at a later time. I'd find that interesting.

[flobadob]

yeah birdie, but don't forget that we are all a restructuring of atoms from millions of years ago.

[naomi24]

Birdie, //There's no such thing as a soul. It simply does not exist.//

//the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul').//

Both those statements are assumptions without foundation.

[chakka35]

naomi - the second of birdie's statements is not an assumption. It is a simple fact.

birdie - you express precisely the sentiments that I posted on another thread a little while ago. The soul is something invented by those who long to believe in a life after death but nevertheless realise that our bodies and brains do not survive death. There is no evidence for the soul and it is certainly not 'energy' as I have heard it called in the past.

[naomi24]

Chakka, //naomi - the second of birdie's statements is not an assumption. It is a simple fact. //

No, it isn't. A 'fact' requires proof, and in this instance, proof cannot be provided.

[mibn2cweus]

(Here we go again. This is where I am typically and unjustly accused of siding with someone else's position as well as of having endorsed the arguments they put forward in an attempt to support their position when I in fact oppose both sides of the issue as they have been presented.)

Proof of the non-existence of something asserted to exist can only be offered based on a knowledge and understanding of that which does exist which by virtue of existing makes the existence of that which does not exist untenable.

Absence of proof against non-existence is not proof of existence. It is the burden of those who assert the existence of something to provide a definition for and proof of its existence. Apart form definition and proof, assertion of the arbitrary is devoid of meaning or merit. Proposing something which in the absence of any defined known qualities makes discerning proof impossible is not justification for acceptance of or belief in that which has been proposed. Belief in or asserting the existence of the arbitrary by virtue of the absence of proof for it and with total disregard of the evidence against it, is unjustified.

Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ehMrK3itM

[naomi24]

Mibs, //Absence of proof against non-existence is not proof of existence.//

True, but just to back-pedal you a bit on your //Belief in the absence of knowledge is proof of nothing more than ignorance and a lack of understanding.//, unlike Birdie who said // the conservation of energy (the first law of Thermodynamics) – energy cannot be created nor destroyed. This has nothing to do with consciousness (or the 'soul').//, a statement supported by Chakka, who claimed it to be 'fact', I've made no claim. I've simply said that if something is claimed to be 'fact' then proof is required - and it is. Failing that, the most any of us can say is we don't know.

[Old_Geezer]

It seems to be a pretty obvious idea to me. I suspect folk living in caves came up with it.

If you choose to believe in continued existence after death, and if you see a dead person's body decaying away in this world, then you have to conclude the if the individual continues to exist then it is in some other form/body/whatever. Call that form a soul, or whatever you wish to call it.

[Old_Geezer]

"Does anyone know if a new soul is created each time a new life is created, or when someone dies, is that soul then passed into a new life which has been created?"

God might ;-)

[mibn2cweus]

Naomi, I have enough trouble keeping my own story straight without entering into any third party discussions or attempting to clarify someone else's unqualified assertions. I am prepared only to defend my own stated position to the best of my ability should what I have personally presented be found wanting in clarity or deemed lacking in validity and would hope others are willing to do the same on their own behalf.

I hope to avoid the appearance of taking sides with those whom I may or may not necessarily agree until such time as I have established the reasons for my own stance on a particular issue of contention and intend to address only those issues which I have attempted to make clear. I can neither agree with nor dispute empty assertions. I have only attempted to address and define the underlying issues making them available to rational consideration, agreement or dispute.

As for //A 'fact' requires proof, and in this instance, proof cannot be provided.// that’s an assertion I would not care to make nor attempt to substantiate until any and all such proof one might bring forward has been invalidated. The only things which are exempt from any possibility of ever being proven to exist are those that do not and the only things which can never be proven not to exist are those that do . . . and that includes proof. But in any and all cases where one has already made up their mind to the contrary, proof is merely consequential.

Anyone wishing to chew on my bone of contention is welcome. I’ll be back to respond the moment I figure out whatever the hell it is I just said. In the mean time I’ll leave you with one final thought -

To assert that an alleged ‘fact’ (true of false) can not be proven (true or false) is no less an alleged ‘fact’ until it has itself been substantiated. Of course one is entitled to and should expect and demand proof for an unqualified assertion but to declare at the onset that no proof is possible is an equally unqualified assertion equally entitled to the same expectations and demands for substantiation.

Birdie and Chakka, as you might have surmised by now . . . you're on your own. ;o)

[naomi24]

Birdie, Yes, we do all have our opinions, and I've made no claims, but you, Chakka and Mibs are claiming the non-existence of the soul to be 'fact', when in truth you know no more than anyone else. That's all I'm taking issue with.

Blimey, even the atheist bus slogan includes the word 'probably'.