Life and Death

[shredingskin]

I'll add this, I am open to the possibility that each individual has their own after life destiny, and that something different could happen for each person.

Religions kinda have that, heaven/hell, karma, different onis, valhalla/hel, etc.

I see it as a way to manipulate population to not do shit that will harm the society.

We think too much of ourselves I think.

I suppose it has to do with how I feel people come to exist as being virtuous people and the nature of their personalities. Of course, I do believe this on faith, because I can't prove it to be the case that these traits are of the result of a soul, but it seems the most likely to me -- and I believe it through faith. But I don't think it really makes anything more difficult to understand. Which things in particular are more difficult?

We can understand (we are starting to) understand how brains and dna works. There's nothing on "a soul" to be studied, and gives a lot of more questions like: Where do those come from ? Do they replicate ? Can we make living things (for example clones) with or without that ?, etc.

Also thinking that a person is virtuous "because virtuous soul" seems a bad way to try to tackle the problems we have today. Does kill those that don't have them makes a better world ? Should we set aside certain inequalities because "shitty soul will shitty soul" ? etc etc.

[Thief]

Well, I believe that a person's virtue and personality have partly to do with the soul, but not entirely -- I also believe things are learned from others and through our environment. But even still, what would it matter if we punished those who have a less moral soul? The only way we would know this to be the case is if their actions caused them to reveal the nature of their soul -- in which case, it would be no different then how we punish people nowadays -- through their actions.

Anyway yes, as a result of a current scientific ability, things that cannot be observed are going to be difficult to understand. But believing in something that cannot (or currently cannot) be observed does not "create" problems. It is either the case that souls exist or they do not. I believe souls to exist, and if that means more unknowns, then that is an unfortunate side-effect of what I believe to be true.

[shredingskin]

But even still, what would it matter if we punished those who have a less moral soul? The only way we would know this to be the case is if their actions caused them to reveal the nature of their soul -- in which case, it would be no different then how we punish people nowadays -- through their actions.

That is why creates more questions than answers.

I understand that "X's soul" is a lot easier to say "X and it's circumstances". And circumstances are a lot of variables.

Same with life, it's easier to say "god knows" than actually understand what the fuck is happening, it's good for people at an individual level, we don't know it all (and probably never will), and are things that we just don't want to know because they don't really affect us in most ways (like pretty much 99% of human knowledge).

[Thief]

I'm not advocating people to not try and understand, and I'm not taking an easy way out, I'm just saying that I believe souls to exist. I don't understand why that's easier to say than "souls don't exist".

[OmegaDawn]

deleted

[Thief]

^I don't understand how that response is relevant to what you quoted, but either way, neither am I stating that souls definitely exist, but rather that I believe them to exist.

[OmegaDawn]

deleted

[shredingskin]

I'm not advocating people to not try and understand, and I'm not taking an easy way out, I'm just saying that I believe souls to exist. I don't understand why that's easier to say than "souls don't exist".

I said what those "questions" could be, and that by responding to what you think that answered.

I'm not judging you for trying to convince me, since I don't judge me of trying to convince you. I actually like asking, because I find it interesting how different people see different things.

[OL]

In regards to the soul, I believe that if someone kills you, they're able to take your soul from you. They can then use that soul to increase their dexterity, strength, intelligence, or agility. Or they can use it to make a sweet-ass sword, or some other type of useful equipment.
So if you want to live a worthwhile life, you better start killing. That tower shield +5 isn't going to make itself.

[shredingskin]

Is that from darksouls ? (Another game I think I should play, but seems too damn long).

It relates pretty well to life itself, but instead of killing you convince them.

[Thief]

^I don't understand how that response is relevant to what you quoted, but either way, neither am I stating that souls definitely exist, but rather that I believe them to exist.

it was meant to be an analogy to this statement:

"I don't understand why that's easier to say than "souls don't exist"."

Because nobody told you that it doesn't exists. Rather that it makes no sense to assume that there is a soul (it is equivalent to assuming that there is a god in terms of that they are both not sensible, falsifiable, detectable like with most metaphysical things).

Oh, well that was not intentional -- even before that I used "believe souls to exist", so I did not mean to use any definite language. It was a mistake.

Regardless, we hold every belief on some amount of faith. A belief in God is not any less sensible than any other unprovable belief.

[shredingskin]

Regardless, we hold every belief on some amount of faith. A belief in God is not any less sensible than any other unprovable belief.

To me "god" is not even a real word. Some interpretations for the world "god":
- Love.
- Man in the sky.
- Woman on the sky.
- Universe.
- A force.
- Balance.
- Kill all the other gods believers.
- Stuff that happens.
- Chance.
- Myself.
- Some phycho from some books.

etc. etc. That's the reason I don't really care for the word god. There are more accurate words.

But also I find that most people like to say that there is a "god" that created the universe, but that no one created "god", why some things need a creator while some don't. That's kinda weird to me.

The same problem I have with the word "art", it's so flimsy that doesn't really matter to use while trying to be understood.

[Mr357]

Nobody ever bothers explaining the creation of God because there isn't one, just like how it's never explained what existed before the Big Bang. The past and future are both infinite. Whatever your belief, God/the universe had always and will always exist in some form.

[shredingskin]

just like how it's never explained what existed before the Big Bang.

There are some theories though, multi-universe, extarvation or universe from nothing:

phpBB [video]

It's not like people don't care about how big bang happened. But apparently "god" doesn't.

And no one answers a "what happened before the big bang ?" question saying "the big bang said so in a book wrote billions of years after (for the religious)/"closeminded" (by the new-age).

[Thief]

And no one answers a "what happened before the big bang ?" question saying "the big bang said so in a book wrote billions of years after (for the religious)/"closeminded" (by the new-age).

One can believe in a God and not believe in the abrahamic God. There are people called Deists (like myself) who don't adhere to any bible or religious texts but have come to believe in the existence of God through argumentation and philosophy and reason.