What exactly is a soul?!

[BillyShakes]

Souls are a great, wonderous thing, shaped like pie.
You see, a soul is best in apple, cherry, or blueberry.
Also, pies are frequently mispronounced as "soul."

 

[Frankydee]

*warning church lesson ahead*

we were taught that a soul is like a hand inside of a glove. Your hand goes in the glove and can move it around much like a soul enters a body. The soul then leaves at death and well, you get the idea.

 

[Legion]

Why, precisely, would you be a douche bag for saying souls don't exist? If you asked me what The Force consists in, who can wield it an how it might lead to the dark side, I would promptly inform you that The Force is made up.

Souls, are made up.

We might talk of the "self", the complexities of which blur the line. We may have some essential force at the center of us, but "souls" as we know em don't exist, as far as we are aware.

It would be being a douche because the topic doesn't ask for your opinion on whether you believe they exist or not.

He wasn't saying those who disbelieve are douches, just those who come into the topic stating that opinion.

The same way if I made a topic asking "What PS3 version should I buy?" and someone comes into it and says "None, the 360 is better".

Souls are unprovable, that could be seen as similar to being made up but is not the same.

*snip*

See my reply to the above.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

It would be being a douche because the topic doesn't ask for your opinion on whether they exist or not.

Then why is it titled "What exactly is a soul" and not "A theological discussion which takes the soul as true-for sake of argument-and investigates the implications."

To the question "what exactly is a soul", my answer is "nothing". Don't ask questions and then simply label a certain subset of answers "douche-bag". If you want a specific discussion about a religious concept, rather than an actual thing, say so.

It's more like asking "what's a PS3", and then having anyone who wont say "an amazing, magical console" discluded.

 

[Legion]

Then why is it titled "What exactly is a soul" and not "A theological discussion which takes the soul as true-for sake of argument-and investigates the implications."

To the question "what exactly is a soul", my answer is "nothing". Don't ask questions and then simply label a certain subset of answers "douche-bag". If you want a specific discussion about a religious concept, rather than an actual thing, say so.

The title is an indicator about the content, and the OP is what you actually discuss. He doesn't need to be explicit about the exact discussion because he can elaborate in his original post.

If I made the topic, I may have well put something similar as the title. Not everyone assumes that people will come into their topic and try to change the discussion.

Let's take Labyrinth's thread "The artist in thee" for example: You wouldn't tell her that she can't claim you are off-topic, simply because you decided to make a point about how people don't have artists actually living inside themselves would you?

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Let's take Labyrinth's thread "The artist in thee" for example, you wouldn't tell her that she can't claim you are off-topic because you decided to make a point about how people don't have artists living inside themselves would you?

No, because I have a grasp of how language works.

I don't agree with your argument. If you got into a discussion with a Marxist about how to bring about communist utopia, and you pointed out that you thought no such thing was possible, would that make you a douche? How can you have a debate when those debating ring fence off any answer they dislike? I'm not a total pedant, I can hypothesize when needed. I can certainly imagine what a soul may be like, but the question "what exactly is a soul" broachs no such space. Its straight up emperical, and my straight up emperical answer is "nowt".

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

It's meant to be the spiritual part of the living being which dictate our emotions and whatnot, at least that is the belief. People believe this is what drives us to do many of the things of which we can't explain the motives. So I guess based on popular belief

1. The Spiritual part of the living being
2. People
3. No

"Soul" is ironically enough the kind of music played and enjoyed by people that haven't got one.

Spoken like a true ignoramus, whether it was sarcastic or not. So you're implying Ray Charles never had one?

EDIT: Yes, I C wut he did thar, I'm tired and it's been a long day, leave me be to bask in my idiocy.

 

[Legion]

Let's take Labyrinth's thread "The artist in thee" for example, you wouldn't tell her that she can't claim you are off-topic because you decided to make a point about how people don't have artists living inside themselves would you?

No, because I have a grasp of how language works.

I don't agree with your argument. If you got into a discussion with a Marxist about how to bring about communist utopia, and you pointed out that you thought no such thing was possible, would that make you a douche? How can you have a debate when those debating ring fence off any answer they dislike? I'm not a total pedant, I can hypothesize when needed. I can certainly imagine what a soul may be like, but the question "what exactly is a soul" broachs no such space. Its straight up emperical, and my straight up emperical answer is "nowt".

If you and I were having a debate then I'd agree with your point entirely.

The fact is that the OP made the topic, and has the right to say what he does and does not want discussed in it. It may be biased, but it's his discussion effectively.

 

[Tourette]

Souls are awesome. All my shoes rely upon them totally.

 

[Mr Wednesday]

If you and I were having a debate then I'd agree with your point entirely.

The fact is that the OP made the topic, and has the right to say what he does and does not want discussed in it. It may be biased, but it's his discussion effectively.

Well, fair point, it is after all, his party, and he can cry if he wants to.

That wont stop me stealing the small sausages on sticks.

 

[Legion]

If you and I were having a debate then I'd agree with your point entirely.

The fact is that the OP made the topic, and has the right to say what he does and does not want discussed in it. It may be biased, but it's his discussion effectively.

Well, fair point, it is after all, his party, and he can cry if he wants to.

That wont stop me stealing the small sausages on sticks.

As long as you leave me a few, as well as some Twiglets then all is good.

 

[orangebandguy]

It's a way of separating us from the beasts I suppose. Traditional belief states animals have no souls and we have dominion over them. I think it's a way of making ourselves seem more grand and important.

Of course it could always be a little white ball of light too, who knows?

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

"Soul" is ironically enough the kind of music played and enjoyed by people that haven't got one.

I like this answer...

Personally: if it wasn't for my rule on talking about my belief on religion I would fill pages with energy types, questions on if plants can have a soul, on if inanimate objects can contain or hold souls and all the fun stuff that comes from having decades of thinking on that very question 'what is a soul?'

Sadly, or probably luckily, all here will be spared that.

 

[archvile93]

Let's take Labyrinth's thread "The artist in thee" for example, you wouldn't tell her that she can't claim you are off-topic because you decided to make a point about how people don't have artists living inside themselves would you?

No, because I have a grasp of how language works.

I don't agree with your argument. If you got into a discussion with a Marxist about how to bring about communist utopia, and you pointed out that you thought no such thing was possible, would that make you a douche? How can you have a debate when those debating ring fence off any answer they dislike? I'm not a total pedant, I can hypothesize when needed. I can certainly imagine what a soul may be like, but the question "what exactly is a soul" broachs no such space. Its straight up emperical, and my straight up emperical answer is "nowt".

If you and I were having a debate then I'd agree with your point entirely.

The fact is that the OP made the topic, and has the right to say what he does and does not want discussed in it. It may be biased, but it's his discussion effectively.

Wouldn't that mean no one's a douchbag and he's a narrow minded moron? A soul is your conciousness; the chemicals that flow in your brain that make you self aware. And yes, you can survive without one. I highly doubt that bacteria,viri, or insects have one and yet they seem to function just fine.

 

[martin's a madman]

Soul I would say, is something that humans gave themselves the idea of, when we developed complex consciousness. It isn't tangible, you can't measure it, it is something that humans decided they have to make them inherently different from any other animal. It basis itself on moral fiber in our society which is why when someone does something that one might think is "Evil" they say "you have no soul". Which is funny considering that morality is subjective and you can't necessarily be wrong about believing something is good or evil. As long as you think you are doing "Good" or think you are doing "Evil" you are correct.

 

[AgentNein]

Let's take Labyrinth's thread "The artist in thee" for example, you wouldn't tell her that she can't claim you are off-topic because you decided to make a point about how people don't have artists living inside themselves would you?

No, because I have a grasp of how language works.

I don't agree with your argument. If you got into a discussion with a Marxist about how to bring about communist utopia, and you pointed out that you thought no such thing was possible, would that make you a douche? How can you have a debate when those debating ring fence off any answer they dislike? I'm not a total pedant, I can hypothesize when needed. I can certainly imagine what a soul may be like, but the question "what exactly is a soul" broachs no such space. Its straight up emperical, and my straight up emperical answer is "nowt".

Maybe he could've worded things better, but in the end it's all understandable. This ISN'T a debate about whether or not the soul exists, and for some reason a group of atheists feel the constant compulsion to point out their views, while in the same moment making backhanded knocks on the religious forum goers. This statement was meant to prevent that.

 

[The Anhk24]

I think a soul is basically who a person is mentally. anyone can pretend to change personality but what you think and what you feel is a soul. I believe anything living has one, and you can't survive without it

 

[Mr Wednesday]

This ISN'T a debate about whether or not the soul exists

Well, then say so. That would be perfectly legitimate. Don't just ringfence of an area as "douche".