[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Hmmm…Interesting take on it. I always thought that the only purpose of a soul would be to have something for god to take when you’re done with it. In other words, I’ve never heard of a “soul” outside a religious context; therefore, you could only discuss it within a theist/atheist context.
[/QUOTE]
Atheism doesn’t mean non-religious either. For example, you could have a religion that believes souls are naturally generated by sentient minds and that after death they detach from the body and drift into, say, an afterlife that is a consensual reality/hallucination generated by the souls inhabiting it. That would be a religious belief, yet no god is required for any of it.
And of course their are real world religions that don’t have gods.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Atheism doesn’t mean non-religious either. For example, you could have a religion that believes souls are naturally generated by sentient minds and that after death they detach from the body and drift into, say, an afterlife that is a consensual reality/hallucination generated by the souls inhabiting it. That would be a religious belief, yet no god is required for any of it.
And of course their are real world religions that don’t have gods.
[/QUOTE]
By religious, I mean beliefs that employ a god. Religions that don’t? I call 'em clubs. Unitarians, for instance.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Now, I don’t believe this necessarily, I bet there are Atheists who are into the Parliament Funkadelic and I wouldn’t presume to know this to be true.
What I am more interested in here is what people think the social implications of this statement are. What does it mean to say this? Obviously from an atheist point of view it is merely a statement of fact. What would it mean if a theist said it?
[/QUOTE]
It would mean that they have drunk the KoolAid of whatever sect they chose to belong to.
The statement really has no meaning, no matter who says it. And it won’t, until someone can conclusively prove the existance of a soul of any kind.
It…it means exactly nothing to me. Telling me that I don’t have something I don’t believe in in the first place is a self fufilling prophecy.
I believe I don’t have a tail (I don’t see a tail back there). Someone tells me I don’t have a tail because I’m not a tiger. I shrug and go about my merry way.
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
It…it means exactly nothing to me. Telling me that I don’t have something I don’t believe in in the first place is a self fufilling prophecy.
[/QUOTE]
Fine. If you’re so sure about that, why don’t you sell your soul to me?
[/Milhouse]
[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
By religious, I mean beliefs that employ a god. Religions that don’t? I call 'em clubs. Unitarians, for instance.
[/QUOTE]
You mean Buddhism is a club ?
[QUOTE=mswas]
No, I haven’t heard of it. It was inspired by atheists who say no one has a soul. I was wondering about the notion of a theist accepting that. “Ok, so you don’t have a soul.”
[/QUOTE]
Theists, upon hearing an atheist say “we have no souls” would not agree, but say (or think, if polite) “you do, you just don’t realize it.” The typical theist would no more agree that atheists have no souls than agree that theists have no souls. This is why you’ve never heard a theist make the claim.
To make a hypothetical statement supposing what if they did agree is a lot like posing this question: what if a theist said “God is watching over us” and atheists accepting that? Nonsensical, isn’t it?
[QUOTE=elfkin477]
To make a hypothetical statement supposing what if they did agree is a lot like posing this question: what if a theist said “God is watching over us” and atheists accepting that? Nonsensical, isn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily - for instance, the athiest might accept that statement out loud simply because he or she didn’t want to possibly get into an argument with the theist at that point. In which case, it doesn’t really mean much.
When a person dies,some say his soul went to Heaven or Hell; if this is true then the souls imust be the life of the person. The punishment for sin according to Genesis was death, no soul or loss of one was suggested. It seems that as years passed and some people came out of a coma or after fainting etc. they were thought to have ressurected so people figured they must have some other life to go to. It also brings up the subject that if we are souls(or spirits) in a body why is the body responsible for the soul?
Didn’t President Bush look into Putin’s soul? Isn’t Putin an Atheist?
[QUOTE=mswas]
Now, I don’t believe this necessarily, I bet there are Atheists who are into the Parliament Funkadelic and I wouldn’t presume to know this to be true.
What I am more interested in here is what people think the social implications of this statement are. What does it mean to say this? Obviously from an atheist point of view it is merely a statement of fact. What would it mean if a theist said it?
[/QUOTE]
It is an insult. All humans have souls - the Bible clearly says this. (I think “humans” here can be broadened to include extraterrestrials.) Non-humans (in the general sense) have no souls. Thus the atheist is being called an animal (not in a good way - but in the actual literal meaning - like the beasts on Dr. Moreau’s Island).
Of course, one might ask the theist what they mean by that? Or perhaps, "how do you know, do you see into people’s souls? Do you have “soul-vision”?
[QUOTE=mswas]
Now, I don’t believe this necessarily, I bet there are Atheists who are into the Parliament Funkadelic and I wouldn’t presume to know this to be true.
What I am more interested in here is what people think the social implications of this statement are. What does it mean to say this? Obviously from an atheist point of view it is merely a statement of fact. What would it mean if a theist said it?
[/QUOTE]
Atheists and theists are physiologically the same, so how can one set have a soul and the other set not?
[QUOTE=LivingDog]
It is an insult. All humans have souls - the Bible clearly says this. (I think “humans” here can be broadened to include extraterrestrials.) Non-humans (in the general sense) have no souls. Thus the atheist is being called an animal (not in a good way - but in the actual literal meaning - like the beasts on Dr. Moreau’s Island).
Of course, one might ask the theist what they mean by that? Or perhaps, "how do you know, do you see into people’s souls? Do you have “soul-vision”?
Hmm, I think I once heard the theory (I think it was on this forum, but I’m not certain and certainly don’t remember who pos(i)ted it) that amongst the spiffy souled people on earth, there was also a liberal salting of literal demons from hell, packaged into human bodies for the purpose of leading the good souled people astray.
Such a theory can only serve the purpose of vilifying and dehumanizing persons not of the theorist’s religion, of course. Presumably for the purpose of legitimizing evil actions against them. Scary stuff.
And, aside from persons with such extreme and horrifying viewpoints as that described above, I would be greatly surprised to ever hear a theist stating the unqualified “Atheists have no souls”, even in an explanatory or theoretical context. “Atheists believe they have no souls”, yes. “Atheists have no souls”, no. Most theists I’ve met are not willing to verbalize unqualified opposing positions to their core beliefs, even for the sake of argument. (Lest they offend Somebody, I suppose.)
[QUOTE=Lobsang]
Atheists and theists are physiologically the same, so how can one set have a soul and the other set not?
[/quote]
I agree with the principle, but just to be nitpicky; souls are usually defined as something distinct from physiology.
In which case, it doesn’t really mean much.