Everything that exists has a soul, i mean really!?

Another word for a soul is a conscience.

"An inner feeling or voice acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior."

Time magazine had an article that said 1 out of 25 people are born without a conscience.

If that's what the Bible meant, we're already in the End Times.

a reply to: Malisa
Have a tumbleweed go by in that picture, put a hat on that guy. And you would have yourself a western.

But ok starting to get some weird vibes from this thread, maybe like the tumbleweed I should mozzy on along. Or maybe all these soulless people are like tumbleweeds, on the wrong dam continent maybe should ban them all back to Russia, or maybe tumbleweeds are just the commies of the plant world.

Or maybe there on the right continent, seeing as climate change and all. And they do need barren soil to lay there seeds, as all commies do. No offense there melisa, but your current avatar picture is kind of creepy and also I admit, kind of sexy in a way, a creepy way, also its making my eyes freaking watery trying to read what it says on your shirt, reading things in a mirror or picture with the backwards writing is bound to make people cross eyed.

Or maybe its way past time for me to get to bed, to much time online as it is, does makes things blurry.

But I leave all of you, gentelmen, ladies, and weirdos, also soul people or lack of one there in, with the mystery of the tumble weed in all its tumbling glory. A much greater mystery then the mystery of the soul, that one is lame, and in fact its much better to have swager even then to have a soul. What the funk is a soul anyways? Two dam threads on it, and still nobody has answered that yet.

Anyways...Tumbleweeds.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: SourceTruth

Or it means you’re a bot who is programmed to type everything you’ve typed.

Come on kid! Prove you have a soul.

Prove you don't have a soul, if that's your claim, or belief....

Nobody can prove it either way, so both claims fail to meet the same standards of validity.

Don't act like you have a better argument than his argument, that's just being arrogant. Nobody knows the truth until they die, so that's how we all find out, in the end. I've experienced the loss of my parents, first hand, and I now understand that we all do exist, after we die on Earth.

Love cannot be proven either, so do you think love doesn't exist, when no proof exists for it?

There are things we simply know to exist, that we all 'feel', but we cannot prove they exist. Such things as love are metaphysical in nature, not physical. The mind is a physical thing, but love is a metaphysical thing. Our brain is the vessel of metaphysical things, which we simply 'feel', throughout our Earth-bound journey.

Love connects us together after we die, that I know, from seeing it personally, while I can never 'prove' it. I'm fine with that, because my knowing it, is all that matters. Same as I know love is real, I don't need to prove it to anyone else.

originally posted by: SourceTruth

This thread is not simply about the existence of souls. This thread is about discussing the competing ideas of if everyone has a soul or not.

How do you get past the idea that it is just a human conceptional thought and nothing more? We humans are very good at living in the abstract world where we actually spend much of our time, and at times we get so good at it we see abstract as reality.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love cannot be proven either, so do you think love doesn't exist, when no proof exists for it?

We can prove that different emotions exist and love is just one that we named. We could have called it emotion_08, but it is observable. God, soul or even bigfoot etc is not observable or tangible so we have nothing but faith maybe to suggest it is there.

You either believe or not...that is about the extent of the debate...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love cannot be proven either, so do you think love doesn't exist, when no proof exists for it?

We can prove that different emotions exist and love is just one that we named. We could have called it emotion_08, but it is observable. God, soul or even bigfoot etc is not observable or tangible so we have nothing but faith maybe to suggest it is there.

You either believe or not...that is about the extent of the debate...lol

Love is only observable because of your own experience of the emotion. There is no possible method to 'observe' love, through any actual data, or actual measurements, of 'love'. We simply 'know' that love exists.

And yes, we either believe in such things, or we do not. We can do no more than that.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Had a full post about this already written up and then i got the silent treatment from ATS for like 10 minutes, then it came the page not available stuff and i lost all what i have wrote!

I'm sorry, i'll try to reply later today, if possible

But i liked your reply : )

But..

on the wrong dam continent maybe should ban them all back to Russia

Why.... Why

LMFAO!

From all countries...

Sr..... Honestly sr

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love is only observable because of your own experience of the emotion. There is no possible method to 'observe' love, through any actual data, or actual measurements, of 'love'. We simply 'know' that love exists.

And yes, we either believe in such things, or we do not. We can do no more than that.

So are you saying we can not observe emotions? We can not see happiness, sadness, compassion, sexual arousal, pain etc? Just because we named something "love" doesn't mean it is special outside of our own abstract thoughts. What we call love is just grouping certain emotions into a bucket that shows a certain result. I don't think anyone sees love as some physical substance and is more of a way to describe an emotional event that is observable. We could call it "primal instincts" instead but then that doesn't sound so nice...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love is only observable because of your own experience of the emotion. There is no possible method to 'observe' love, through any actual data, or actual measurements, of 'love'. We simply 'know' that love exists.

And yes, we either believe in such things, or we do not. We can do no more than that.

So are you saying we can not observe emotions? We can not see happiness, sadness, compassion, sexual arousal, pain etc? Just because we named something "love" doesn't mean it is special outside of our own abstract thoughts. What we call love is just grouping certain emotions into a bucket that shows a certain result. I don't think anyone sees love as some physical substance and is more of a way to describe an emotional event that is observable. We could call it "primal instincts" instead but then that doesn't sound so nice...

No, I'm saying that we observe those things, but cannot quantify them, which is required for 'proving' it exists, within the scientific world, at least.

Science has strict boundaries, and cannot operate outside of them. It cannot work with metaphysical things like emotions, because it cannot quantify them. So they don't.

Obviously, such things do exist, without 'proving' them through tangible methods.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love is only observable because of your own experience of the emotion. There is no possible method to 'observe' love, through any actual data, or actual measurements, of 'love'. We simply 'know' that love exists.

And yes, we either believe in such things, or we do not. We can do no more than that.

So are you saying we can not observe emotions? We can not see happiness, sadness, compassion, sexual arousal, pain etc? Just because we named something "love" doesn't mean it is special outside of our own abstract thoughts. What we call love is just grouping certain emotions into a bucket that shows a certain result. I don't think anyone sees love as some physical substance and is more of a way to describe an emotional event that is observable. We could call it "primal instincts" instead but then that doesn't sound so nice...

No, I'm saying that we observe those things, but cannot quantify them, which is required for 'proving' it exists, within the scientific world, at least.

Science has strict boundaries, and cannot operate outside of them. It cannot work with metaphysical things like emotions, because it cannot quantify them. So they don't.

Obviously, such things do exist, without 'proving' them through tangible methods.

That's all fine regards love but the concept of a soul is a different thing altogether. With love we can see observable behaviour as we interact with each other and we give a name to that emotion or feeling. The concept of a soul however is just a word nothing more.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, I'm saying that we observe those things, but cannot quantify them, which is required for 'proving' it exists, within the scientific world, at least.

Science has strict boundaries, and cannot operate outside of them. It cannot work with metaphysical things like emotions, because it cannot quantify them. So they don't.

Obviously, such things do exist, without 'proving' them through tangible methods.

Actually science is inherently incapable of proving anything....science deals in probabilities, not proofs. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is.

Observable events have a level of probability and so we can say something exists with or without quantifiable evidence. God or the soul has nothing outside of our own imagination and so at this point in time, the probability is very close to zero. Kind of hard to debate that, one would think. It can change, but today it has a probability of just an abstractual thought.

originally posted by: CryHavoc
Another word for a soul is a conscience.

"An inner feeling or voice acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior."

Time magazine had an article that said 1 out of 25 people are born without a conscience.

If that's what the Bible meant, we're already in the End Times.

I was born with one of those, I sometimes wish I hadn't though this life would be so much easier if I could screw over other people to get ahead.

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: turbonium1

Love is only observable because of your own experience of the emotion. There is no possible method to 'observe' love, through any actual data, or actual measurements, of 'love'. We simply 'know' that love exists.

And yes, we either believe in such things, or we do not. We can do no more than that.

So are you saying we can not observe emotions? We can not see happiness, sadness, compassion, sexual arousal, pain etc? Just because we named something "love" doesn't mean it is special outside of our own abstract thoughts. What we call love is just grouping certain emotions into a bucket that shows a certain result. I don't think anyone sees love as some physical substance and is more of a way to describe an emotional event that is observable. We could call it "primal instincts" instead but then that doesn't sound so nice...

No, I'm saying that we observe those things, but cannot quantify them, which is required for 'proving' it exists, within the scientific world, at least.

Science has strict boundaries, and cannot operate outside of them. It cannot work with metaphysical things like emotions, because it cannot quantify them. So they don't.

Obviously, such things do exist, without 'proving' them through tangible methods.

That's all fine regards love but the concept of a soul is a different thing altogether. With love we can see observable behaviour as we interact with each other and we give a name to that emotion or feeling. The concept of a soul however is just a word nothing more.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. Love CAN be observable, yes. But for the most part, love is simply felt within people, nothing shows someone feeling the love of their parents, for example, when they simply are sitting down, thinking about their mom and dad. There is nothing to observe when love is thought about like this. But love like this, which we cannot observe, is stronger than the love we CAN observe, when he later hugs a good friend of his.

Using observation, we would only think he loves his friend, and never know about how he loved his parents much more deeply, correct?

And I know that love is strongly part of our soul, as well. We connect with our loved ones after we die, that's what I found out first hand. Love is our pure metaphysical bond, within the metaphysical realm, where our 'souls' exist after Earthly existence.

I'll explain one of my experiences, briefly - my mom was drifting between our world, and what we call 'heaven', or the afterlife world. She would wake up and tell me she saw her sister or brother, or mom, like it just happened. I told her she was dreaming, and she said 'But it seemed SO REAL'. This went on for many weeks, and one day, her cousin died, but we never told my mom about it, we didn't want to upset her, in her frail condition.

The day after her cousin died, she woke up and asked me 'Where is Annette?', and she was troubled by not knowing where she was. I then told my mom that Annette died the day before, and she cried.


She'd never mentioned Annette before that day. When she came back to our world, and woke up, the first thing she said was 'Where is Annette?', like she should have been there - wherever that is.

This is one example, among others.

It was sort of a revelation to me, truthfully. It reassured me that my mom was okay to move on, and I'm not afraid to die in the least, anymore, knowing we simply move into another form of existence, with our loved ones there.

a reply to: Omniview
What if everything that appears to exist is the source?

No individual soul...just what there is... the One.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Omniview
What if everything that appears to exist is the source?

No individual soul...just what there is... the One.

Like the Borg?

a reply to: turbonium1

You say ' Love CAN be observable, yes ' that in itself shows the difference between love and the idea of a soul as an existential thing.
You give an anecdotal account which really doesn't address the concept of a soul at all. You also say ' And I know that love is strongly part of our soul ', which you don't know but merely believe. Which is fine but that's all it is really.
My point is that you cannot compare the idea of a 'soul' and 'love' as both being comparable in this context, nothing more.

a reply to: turbonium1
No.... like a dream


All is dream stuff.

Can anybody explain why it must be true that everyone has a soul? I have not seen a reasonable explanation as to why this must be true.

originally posted by: SourceTruth
Can anybody explain why it must be true that everyone has a soul? I have not seen a reasonable explanation as to why this must be true.

I posted a reply to you with a theory, you have not answered, did you even consider it?

If you know how it is wrong and can explain it with logical arguments it would be nice if you explain it here

a reply to: Malisa

Ah just messing on that Russia thing, dont take it to seriously there, on all accounts, whatever they were, as I don't quite remember what I said, and to lazy to bother looking back a page on the post. I'm only on ATS at the end of the day here,which I suppose to those other member like you would be morning or evening, or who knows.

And only when there is really nothing much else to do, would I even bother with ATS stuff, and that includes watching tumbleweed documentaries on youtube till I fall asleep. Watching grass grow, would be more entertaining and productive, then arguing in circles with most on this site. ie that truesource soul guy or whatever he is about is about.

In fact watching a grass documentary would be more interesting then more then half the # on ATS now a days. Also I would not trust the internet, its got a mind of its own, possibly a soul, more of soul then some it seems.