Do you believe we all have souls? (exodus, Buddhism, eternal)

[painted wolf]

Q....
there are some religions that honor rocks and trees. As I said in my earlier post.
I believe that we all have souls, down to every animal, plant, rock, and river.
everything in creation is connected.
If you call that energy, sub-atomic physics or what have you then so be it.

wa:-do

[painted wolf]

oops put it up twice.... ops:

[(Q)]

there are some religions that honor rocks and trees.

Does any part of the honor to the rocks and trees include prayer?

If you call that (soul) energy, sub-atomic physics or what have you then so be it.

The various forms of energy can be detected, measured, tested, and understood. Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?

[Runt]

Should I take that as a confirmation you're not interested in learning about energy but would rather remain ignorant and speculative?

Is there a house of cards that may come crashing down if you do learn?

You think I'm not interested in learning about energy and would rather remain ignorant? It would be pretty funny if you were right, since that would mean that I've wasted the last three years of school studying the sciences because I THOUGHT I liked them...

I've spent more time and energy than most high school students taking science classes BECAUSE I find science so interesting... and I managed to do well enough in studying them that I don't have to take Biology, Chemistry, or Physics in college because I scored so high on the AP exams... So, while I may not know as much about science as people who have been studying it for years and years and years, I would not exactly call myself "ignorant" or "not interested"...

And, that "nevermind" was the decision not to argue with you about whether or not there is a God or isn't a God. If you don't want to believe in God, then fine. I don't think it will hurt you any. But you argue in favor of atheism with the same single-minded persistence of a religious fanatic trying to convert people to their own version of truth...and frankly it is starting to annoy me. I have my beliefs, you can have yours. There are plenty of smart, educated, happy individuals out there in the world who believe in a higher power... there is no need to try to convert us to your beliefs!

The various forms of energy can be detected, measured, tested, and understood. Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?

Why not? Calling this energy the "soul" or "God" does not change the nature of the energy at all; it merely changes the value an individual places upon it.

[(Q)]

Runt

So, while I may not know as much about science as people who have been studying it for years and years and years, I would not exactly call myself "ignorant" or "not interested"...

First of all, I used the word ‘ignorant’ because it was proper grammar and was not meant to offend, sorry if I did offend.

Secondly, energy is usually tackled in first year high school science classes and is considered prerequisite for further college level courses. It doesn’t take years to learn the basics about energy.

But you argue in favor of atheism with the same single-minded persistence of a religious fanatic trying to convert people to their own version of truth...and frankly it is starting to annoy me… there is no need to try to convert us to your beliefs!

I don’t think I’ve made any attempts to convert anyone, can you cite an instance?

And I don’t argue in favor of atheism so much as I argue in favor of critical thinking. I would gladly accept the concept of gods, but as yet no evidence of gods has come to light. Until then, that concept can be ‘shelved’ in favor of more interesting and productive activities.

As far as being annoyed, that’s your own personal problem.

Why not? Calling this energy the "soul" or "God" does not change the nature of the energy at all; it merely changes the value an individual places upon it.

You’re redefining terms. It is thought that people agree on definitions in order to properly and accurately communicate.

How would one describe a moving object – kinetic soul? An object at rest - potential divinity? Or how about temperature gradient – thermal god?

If we can’t agree on definitions, how are we supposed to understand one another?

Of course, it is an entirely different subject if you are suggesting intelligence or design is behind your definition of energy.

If that is not the case, the definition of energy should not be misconstrued as souls or gods. In doing so, you defeat the purpose of trying to explain concepts and ideas and rob yourself the necessity of being understood.

After all, who wants to be misunderstood?

[Runt]

First of all, I used the word ‘ignorant’ because it was proper grammar and was not meant to offend, sorry if I did offend.

If you did not mean to offend, then I am not offended. Anymore. :P

Secondly, energy is usually tackled in first year high school science classes and is considered prerequisite for further college level courses. It doesn’t take years to learn the basics about energy

Fine... then I have a basic understanding of energy (AP classes are technically second year high school classes that can earn you credit in college as first year college classes if you score high enough on the AP exam...so does this give me an intermediate understanding of energy?) and I STILL believe in a God.

I don’t think I’ve made any attempts to convert anyone, can you cite an instance?

You never outright say "Come on, be atheist!", but you clearly hold the spiritual beliefs of others in scorn because you believe that you have discovered higher knowledge (science), and believe if everyone else studies science as well they will realize that they were wrong all along and start seeing the world your way (which you believe to be right). This is how people trying to convert others to their religion go about things.

If you really weren't, then fine... but to me it really seemed that you wanted me to realize I was wrong, you were right, and view the world in your way...

As far as being annoyed, that’s your own personal problem.

I guess it is.

You’re redefining terms. It is thought that people agree on definitions in order to properly and accurately communicate.

IDEALLY we want to agree on definitions in order to communicate...but because there are so many different views as to the "true" nature of various things, there are also many different definitions. Who gets to decide which one should be the ONLY definition by which everyone else should view the world? Take art, for example. I seriously doubt any two people can both agree on the proper definition of "art".

How would one describe a moving object – kinetic soul? An object at rest - potential divinity? Or how about temperature gradient – thermal god?

Ever heard of synonyms? Different languages? They all define the same thing in subtally different ways. In one culture the word for the sun may simply be "star"... in another culture the world for the sun may be "bright light in the sky"...or "God of Light".

Is an object in motion a "kinetic object" or "moving object" or "traveling object" or "shifting object"? Shouldn't we chose one term and agree on it since it is easier to communicate when we agree on definitions?

How about this: That which one man calls the "soul" is the energy actually making up a body (each atom is energy, therefore each cell, each biological system, the BODY is energy). That which one man calls "God" is all the energy in reality. That which one man calls the "electron" is energy contained in its smallest form (I won't deal with fields and such now...we'll pretend the electron is the smallest form of energy). That which one calls a "human" is energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism.

If we can’t agree on definitions, how are we supposed to understand one another?

Somehow we do anyway... My friend Kati speaks of "art" when she speaks of cars... and even though I don't agree with her definition of art, I still know what she speaks of when she refers to "art". I, personally, think she should call it a "car"... that is the term I use and it is much more accurate!

Of course, it is an entirely different subject if you are suggesting intelligence or design is behind your definition of energy.

If that is not the case, the definition of energy should not be misconstrued as souls or gods. In doing so, you defeat the purpose of trying to explain concepts and ideas and rob yourself the necessity of being understood.

Energy behaves strangely. When we observe matter at the sub-atomic level we often find that it begins to behave in unexplainable ways can challenge our beliefs on the behavior of matter. For example, scientists will generally tell you that matter is not "conscious" or "aware" in any way... yet here is an interesting instance in which matter appears to be aware in some unexplicable way... when an electron and a positron (the electron's antimatter equivalent) collide they destory one another and create two photons that (following the normal laws of physics) fly off in opposite directions upon impact. Neither of them have spin or velocity (who knows why?) until one (it only has to be one of the two) is observed by the people doing the experiement. At that point they suddenly start both acquire identical velosity and spin, but opposite of one another. It doesn't matter how far apart they are...they ALWAYS do. But what is the connection between the two? Why does one photon gain spin and velocity when being observed, and why does the other photon seem to be "aware" of what the other is doing so that it instantaneously starts behaving identically to the other photon? And what does this imply about the nature of energy as a whole? If matter is vastly more interconnected and "aware" on the subatomic level than we thought possible, then IMAGINE (or rather, use logic to form a conclusion) the implications for ALL energy everywhere in the universe!

This could possibly give you SOMETHING that has some sort of "awareness" (not the equivalent of human or biological awareness, but awareness like what two seperated photons seem to have of one another but spread out across infinity). We could call it God. We could call it energy. But there are possibilities that whatever it is, its nature is far more incomprehensible and complex than modern science ever dreamed.

After all, who wants to be misunderstood?

Not me... but sometimes it is SOOO hard! :P

[Master Vigil]

Of course quarks didn't appear from nowhere. I didn't mean that at all, what I meant was that they weren't known to exist. Or even proved to exist.

What you use as a label could be construed as a useless label to someone else. Who knows which label is correct? Your label can be just as speculative as gods existence.

And what is wrong with using your imagination? If you never use yours, I fear your life to be very boring. But then again, I am an artist, so to me, it would be very boring. (opinion of course)

And I find it very selfish and greedy to say that humans can figure out everything about the universe themselves. Like we are the greatest things in the universe. And sometimes things are supposed to be complex, and the simplicity of it is that its too complex to know.

I agree with runt, you do seem to be on a mission to convert. This of course can be a noble mission, but it also can be an annoying mission. In the end, I hope you find what you are looking for, but while you are looking, I have already started understanding. May the spirits be with you. (Even if you don't believe them to be)

[painted wolf]

Q-
Yes, I offer prayers and tobacco when I must use something in a way that will alter/harm it. Ie. cutting down a tree to build a house or using a rock for cerimony or flint knapping.
Its only right to ask permission and honor the spirit who will help me. And yes, if it says no, I don't do it.

>>Why bother attaching esoteric labels (soul) to that which is already well defined?<<

Why define something that already had a label to begin with?
The esoteric label came first... the definition came later as a way to explore the label... IMHO.

wa:-do

[Alaric]

Time to rant at Runt!

Originally Posted by Runt

That which one man calls "God" is all the energy in reality.
That which one calls a "human" is energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism.

When people ask you whether you believe in God, I really hope you don't reply 'yes'!

See, the funny thing is that in an effort to understand and compromise with everyone, you are telling others what they mean! That 'one man' would probably NOT agree with you about God, because God must be a power that is completely involved in humanity, loves them etc, and your version does not. Calling God all energy is as different from most people's interpretations of God as declaring your hamster God. Being 'human' is being energy in a specific arrangement forming a particular biological organism, but that is not what we're talking about when we use the word, because it applies to all organisms equally.

When people speak of God, they are speaking of perfection, or love, or purpose, or justice, or sacrifice, or a million other things, and associating it with a conscious power with whom they can identify. When people pray to God for the soul of a lost loved-one, or invoke God in the condemnation of certain acts, or blow themselves up in His name, or try to live according to His will, or cry out to Him in times of distress, they are refering to the will of some deity that they believe has power over their situation, and wants them to act in a certain way. God is many things, but simply an unthinking lump of energy with no purpose or will or love or connection with humanity is a contradiction of every version of God ever invented.

Same with the soul - of course we're all made of energy, and the matter of which we are formed is transferred to something else upon death, but the soul refers to your immortal personality that lives on in some form after death, either being reborn, living as a ghost, or going to some kind of heaven or hell. If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in souls.

Originally Posted by Runt

This could possibly give you SOMETHING that has some sort of "awareness" (not the equivalent of human or biological awareness, but awareness like what two seperated photons seem to have of one another but spread out across infinity). We could call it God. We could call it energy. But there are possibilities that whatever it is, its nature is far more incomprehensible and complex than modern science ever dreamed.

No we could not call it God. Let's admit that nature is indeed far more complex than we can dream of, and call it Nature, the Universe, the Great Cosmic Stew - and they are atheist terms. God represents the antithesis of this 'naturalist' view. And before you suggest it, God is not the Unknown, either!

Oh, and I'm not trying to offend or convert either - just teaching you English!