What’s the Difference Between Physical and Spiritual Happiness?

Trailblazer said:

I have not researched this but I am wondering if the continued desire in men is psychological rather than physical.
Of course if it is testosterone that keeps the desire going that would explain it at least in part.

Click to expand...

I would say testosterone, though it's always difficult to rule out psychological effects. Men's testosterone levels stay higher for much longer than women's. And it's testosterone that drives women's desire too.

Of course there must be physical reasons why men still want to have sex but can't get an erection, and certain drugs are used to override that inability. What did men do before these drugs came on the market? I just don't know if this is a good idea to try to keep having sex after the body is saying no because of the natural process of aging. The same applies to women who go through menopause and no longer have hormones that are responsible for sexual desire.

Click to expand...

Before the drugs? Put up with it.

I don't think ejaculation does any physical harm. ED is to do with muscular weakness (the muscles don't hold the blood in the penis sufficiently), and the causes of that are many, including underlying conditions and, yes, psychological issues like stress. I'm guessing that "use it or lose it" may apply, though that's just my thought.

From that article:
In two longitudinal studies (one spanning one year and one spanning four years), the researchers found that, on average, women’s levels of sexual desire were not only lower than men’s at the beginning of their marriages, but much more variable than men’s. Men’s levels of sexual desire stayed higher and more constant than women’s throughout the duration of both studies.

I guess I am not the norm because my level of sexual desire was much higher than my husband's when we got married and for years after that.

Click to expand...

It's a fact that unmatched sexual desire can apply both ways. I've "known" women that I had to struggle to keep up with, though I tried, I tried!

It's the variability that upsets men most I think. We tend, other things being equal, to have pretty much the same level of desire from month to month and we don't understand why women are not the same.

I'll throw in a "psychological" factor. Despite all our macho and bluster, men are delicate creatures, and easily hurt. When you don't want sex with us we feel rejected.

From that article:
Furthermore, declines in women’s sexual desire predicted declining marital satisfaction for both members of the couple. Interestingly, although women’s sexual desire declined over time, couples’ sexual frequency did not, suggesting that women were likely to engage in sex even when they did not desire it.

I can understand why this might be the case, since men's hormones do not drop that much in middle and older age the way women's hormones do. I can understand why that might lead to marital dissatisfaction and even if the sex continues, as it is no fun having sex with someone who does not desire sex. I went through that early in my marriage although it did not take long for me to find a way to remedy that situation.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know what you did to "remedy" it but I'm not asking as I may be getting too personal already ....

I was not suggesting "paying for it" with household chores. I think there should be a fair sharing of these chores without involving sex as a reward. Unfortunately, in my marriage there was not a fair sharing, so over time I became resentful and that is part of the reason I no longer wanted to have sex. My late husband was also angry at me whenever I asked him to do anything and I cannot feel love for someone who is angry at me. Even if I had wanted sex, I cannot separate sex from love, I can only do it in a loving relationship.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

There's something called "love languages" which I have found to be true in a lot of cases. My primary language is "physical touch" (which is not exclusively sex), and the second is "words of affirmation". Talk to me in those languages and I'll purr like a kitten. My partner's is acts of service. The problem arises when both partners express love and expect it to be returned in their own language, and each doesn't "hear" the other because they are looking for a different expression of love.

A friend once confided in me about his marital problems. His wife had an affair because she felt starved of physical affection. She tried to explain why this had happened and said she didn't feel loved and he replied "But I put a new set of tires on your car".

Alien826 said:

I would say testosterone, though it's always difficult to rule out psychological effects. Men's testosterone levels stay higher for much longer than women's. And it's testosterone that drives women's desire too.

Click to expand...

I don't know if it was hormones or the problems in my marriage that contributed to our not having sex anymore, but I now regret that happened, because he probably wanted sex but was unable to initiate, since he had always deferred to what I wanted, except for the home repairs, housework and yard work. Now I will never know how much his not having sex contributed to his depression and ultimate demise. Needless to say, we went to a lot of counseling but we still could not communicate well at all, as he never got over his issues with his mother from childhood, so he never really trusted me. I wish it could have been different but I do not blame myself for that, because I did everything I could to help him.

I have no way of knowing how I would feel "now" if I met a man I was in love with like happened with my late husband. I may or may not have sexual desire, but I will cross that bridge if I ever come to it! One thing I have realized from all this talk about sex is that if I was lucky enough to fall in love again, I would never deprive my husband of sex. I would communicate with him and do whatever it took to make him happy.

Alien826 said:

I don't think ejaculation does any physical harm. ED is to do with muscular weakness (the muscles don't hold the blood in the penis sufficiently), and the causes of that are many, including underlying conditions and, yes, psychological issues like stress. I'm guessing that "use it or lose it" may apply, though that's just my thought.

Click to expand...

I distinctly remember that 'use it or lose it' applies to having sex as we age but I don't know if it applies specifically to ED. I think it is more of a general thing that applies to both men and women. If you don't engage in sex eventually you don't think about it and maybe it's also true that the 'unused' physical equipment won't function as well.

Alien826 said:

It's a fact that unmatched sexual desire can apply both ways. I've "known" women that I had to struggle to keep up with, though I tried, I tried!

Click to expand...

I don't think that women should put men in a position of feeling bad because they can't 'keep up' or even if they can't keep it up or get it up. There are other things that men can do to please a woman. In fact, statistics show that only about 50% of woman orgasm in intercourse, whereas 90% of men of men do. Men should know these things, and so should women. I made a point to know them and I studied human sexuality quite a bit in grad school.

Alien826 said:

It's the variability that upsets men most I think. We tend, other things being equal, to have pretty much the same level of desire from month to month and we don't understand why women are not the same.

Click to expand...

I suppose there is more variability among premenopausal women that is connected to the menstrual cycle, but I don't know why it would vary so much in postmenopausal women when hormones stabilize.

Alien826 said:

I'll throw in a "psychological" factor. Despite all our macho and bluster, men are delicate creatures, and easily hurt. When you don't want sex with us we feel rejected.

Click to expand...

That might be true for men, but it is also true for women. When you don't want sex with us we feel rejected.
That nearly wrecked my marriage in the beginning, until we went to a sex therapist. We kept that man in business for quite a while. I have never been one to give up on anything that matters to me.

Alien826 said:

I'd love to know what you did to "remedy" it but I'm not asking as I may be getting too personal already ....

Click to expand...

Well, try really hard to think of something most men really like and you will have your answer!

Alien826 said:

A friend once confided in me about his marital problems. His wife had an affair because she felt starved of physical affection. She tried to explain why this had happened and said she didn't feel loved and he replied "But I put a new set of tires on your car".

Click to expand...

That reminds me of a man on a dating site who was married but he got no physical affection from his wife, which is all that he wanted. He was not on the dating site looking for sex, just affection. I felt so sorry for him and we exchanged some messages. He told me he even did everything around the house and she did not appreciate anything he did. All he wanted was physical touch. Of course I never heard the other side of the story, only his side.

Trailblazer said:

The soul works through the brain and while we are living on earth in a physical body. The soul is associated with the brain and it directs the brain and the body. Emotions come from the brain but the soul is responsible for those emotions so the soul is not redundant.

Click to expand...

You actually find that this is an answer? All you did is insert the word soul? You are repeating stories. Why would you think it's less redundant now? You made a claim but with no evidence.
So the BRAIN already does those things - directs the body, creates emotion, sustains emotion. This is proven. We see the brain fire in different ways during different emotions. We know chemicals and hormones create all possible emotional states. We can recreate emotions to some degree with many of these chemicals. Or stop them. No soul is needed.

There have been people in accidents with brain trauma who developed split personalities. One was atheist and had a different temperment. So what, did the soul also split into 2 souls? That is so redundant and not an explanation.
During 99.99+ percent of surgeries patients experience blackout and complete loss of time. No experience. No soul.

Trailblazer said:

I am not qualified to judge other people's gods or their spiritual love. I only know about my own.

Click to expand...

Well I can tell you for a fact Hindu and Muslims claim real feelings of love regarding contact with their deities. This suggests it's just a psychological issue and not actually because of a deity being real.

Trailblazer said:

Neurologists cannot study the spirit of man (the soul) because the soul is a mystery of God that has never been unraveled.

Click to expand...

What is up with these vague statements? OR, they cannot study the soul because it's a fictional concept and they don't exist.

Neurologists know that changing the brain will result in changing the person, personality, emotions, even beliefs and attitudes.
Leaving no evidence for a soul at all.

Trailblazer said:

Yes, having thoughts about a deity gives some people happiness and that is something the physical brain is doing, since the brain is where feelings of happiness originate. If a person's brain is not functioning they cannot be either happy or sad.

Click to expand...

Which suggests the brain is the only source of emotions and consciousness.

joelr said:

There have been people in accidents with brain trauma who developed split personalities. One was atheist and had a different temperment. So what, did the soul also split into 2 souls? That is so redundant and not an explanation.
During 99.99+ percent of surgeries patients experience blackout and complete loss of time. No experience. No soul.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I am on the autism spectrum, and that comes from my brain. However, there is what is called the hard problem of consciousness:

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how humans have qualia[note 1] or phenomenal experiences.[2] This is in contrast to the "easy problems" of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth. These problems are seen as relatively easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify the mechanisms that perform such functions.[3][4] Philosopher David Chalmers writes that even once we have solved all such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist.[3]

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial. It has been accepted by philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[5] Colin McGinn,[6] and Ned Block[7] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[8] Giulio Tononi,[9][10] and Christof Koch.[9][10] However, its existence is disputed by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett,[11] Massimo Pigliucci,[12] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[13] and Keith Frankish,[14] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[15] Bernard Baars,[16] Anil Seth,[17] and Antonio Damasio

I included that it is controversial to be fair. As a Baha'i, I believe that without the soul we wouldn't "experience" anything. That cannot be proven, this concept of the soul was taught by Baha'u'llah, and to determine whether He was right you would have to investigate His claim to be Prophet of God.

Truthseeker said:

Yes, and I am on the autism spectrum, and that comes from my brain. However, there is what is called the hard problem of consciousness:

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why and how humans have qualia[note 1] or phenomenal experiences.[2] This is in contrast to the "easy problems" of explaining the physical systems that give us and other animals the ability to discriminate, integrate information, and so forth. These problems are seen as relatively easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify the mechanisms that perform such functions.[3][4] Philosopher David Chalmers writes that even once we have solved all such problems about the brain and experience, the hard problem will still persist.[3]

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial. It has been accepted by philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[5] Colin McGinn,[6] and Ned Block[7] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[8] Giulio Tononi,[9][10] and Christof Koch.[9][10] However, its existence is disputed by philosophers of mind such as Daniel Dennett,[11] Massimo Pigliucci,[12] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[13] and Keith Frankish,[14] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[15] Bernard Baars,[16] Anil Seth,[17] and Antonio Damasio

I included that it is controversial to be fair. As a Baha'i, I believe that without the soul we wouldn't "experience" anything. That cannot be proven, this concept of the soul was taught by Baha'u'llah, and to determine whether He was right you would have to investigate His claim to be Prophet of God.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with this. Problems where something is unknown are not solved by adding another unknown or supernatural thing. Especially when it's not even proven to be a real thing.

But the statement that without the soul we wouldn't experience anything is easy to debunk. Clearly mammals have emotion and experiences. This continues on to a lesser degree but lower life forms with a nervous system have some type of feedback mechanism. So do all these life have a soul as well? Did our direct ancestor H. Heidelburgensis? They had tools, language, buried their dead. They were very human like. What about early hominids? Or early mammals? Or single celled life? why does a soul interject itself at some point?
Doesn't make any sense. We see how experience started out in simple life sometime after self replicating compounds and expanded. We are still primates and experience and brain function is well explained by the process of evolution. We just don't fully understand the brain. That doesn't invite the need for a supernatural answer.

Or will you add the soul once hominids go from Heidlebergensis to H. Sapien? That just has no logic or reason whatsoever. To go back and add the soul at any random development in evolution makes the entire concept seem that much more redundant. Either way it's added supernatural baggage that has no evidence.

Notice nothing on the page about consciousness suggested a soul is responsible. You added that from a belief system.

Trailblazer said:

Well, try really hard to think of something most men really like and you will have your answer!

Click to expand...

Gotcha!

Thanks for the discussion.

What an interesting person you are!

joelr said:

Which demonstrates that emotions come from the brain. Once again the need for a soul is redundant.

Click to expand...

To strengthen your argument, it's not just the brain. There is also the spine, nervous system and endocrine system that get involved. Hormones can cause extreme mood swings. Medications can correct depression, as an example.

Another old argument (can't remember its source) is "A blow to the head confuses me, a blow to the foot does not".

Even accepting the existence of a soul (I don't), it brings into question the function of the soul. As all the thinking and feeling goes on in the body, what does the soul do? We can ask about memory too. If memory is a function of the brain, do we carry memories into the supposed afterlife? Hey, here's a thought. Maybe the brain just backs everything up into a spiritual "cloud", ready to be used by the soul on death?

Another thing (can't seem to stop myself). If both the brain and soul have cognitive functions, do they ever disagree? Which wins if one wants to go north and the other south? Could this be the explanation for epilepsy?

Alien826 said:

Even accepting the existence of a soul (I don't), it brings into question the function of the soul. As all the thinking and feeling goes on in the body, what does the soul do?

Click to expand...

Below is a short synopsis on the function of the soul according to my religious beliefs:

The soul works through the brain and while we are living on earth in a physical body. The soul is associated with the brain and it animates and directs the brain and the body.

The soul works through the brain and while we are alive on earth in a physical body, but when we die and no longer have a physical body the soul continues to live. It lives forever, and that is why it is called an 'immortal soul.'

The soul is the sum total of the personality so it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, after he dies and leaves his physical body behind remains the same person, and he goes to the spiritual world where he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. The soul takes on some kind of a spiritual body made up of elements that exist in the spiritual world.

Alien826 said:

We can ask about memory too. If memory is a function of the brain, do we carry memories into the supposed afterlife? Hey, here's a thought. Maybe the brain just backs everything up into a spiritual "cloud", ready to be used by the soul on death?

Click to expand...

Nobody really knows what happens after we die because the afterlife has never been described in any scriptures.

“The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 156

One reason it has never been described is because the next life in the spiritual world is so different from this world such that there are no words that can be used to describe it so we could understand what it is like. It would be like trying to describe to a baby in the womb what this life will be like. Until that baby is born into this world and experiences this world firsthand, that baby will not be able to understand the nature of this world. The second reason it has not been described is because if we knew what it was like we would no longer want to remain in this world, but there is a reason for us to be here so we should focus on that while we are here.

In the Baha'i Writings it says that we will remember what we did in this life, but that does not mean we will remember everything.

“It is clear and evident that all men shall, after their physical death, estimate the worth of their deeds, and realize all that their hands have wrought.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Alien826 said:

Another thing (can't seem to stop myself). If both the brain and soul have cognitive functions, do they ever disagree? Which wins if one wants to go north and the other south? Could this be the explanation for epilepsy?

Click to expand...

The soul does not have cognitive functions, only the brain has those. The soul 'animates' the brain so it is responsible for our ability to think and feel. If we had no soul the body would have no life.

Since the brain dies when the physical body dies there can be no more physical diseases such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's. Since the soul is responsible for consciousness and thought, consciousness and thought continues in the spiritual world, but it works through a spiritual body which is not subject to disease.

joelr said:

Which suggests the brain is the only source of emotions and consciousness.

Click to expand...

That is what I said.

joelr said:

But the statement that without the soul we wouldn't experience anything is easy to debunk. Clearly mammals have emotion and experiences. This continues on to a lesser degree but lower life forms with a nervous system have some type of feedback mechanism.

Click to expand...

They have an animal spirit according to the Baha'i teachings. It is not a soul, but nevertheless in the same way it causes the animals to "experience". Again, you would to verify this through investigating the Baha'i Faith fairly.

Alien826 said:

To strengthen your argument, it's not just the brain. There is also the spine, nervous system and endocrine system that get involved. Hormones can cause extreme mood swings. Medications can correct depression, as an example.

Another old argument (can't remember its source) is "A blow to the head confuses me, a blow to the foot does not".

Even accepting the existence of a soul (I don't), it brings into question the function of the soul. As all the thinking and feeling goes on in the body, what does the soul do? We can ask about memory too. If memory is a function of the brain, do we carry memories into the supposed afterlife? Hey, here's a thought. Maybe the brain just backs everything up into a spiritual "cloud", ready to be used by the soul on death?

Another thing (can't seem to stop myself). If both the brain and soul have cognitive functions, do they ever disagree? Which wins if one wants to go north and the other south? Could this be the explanation for epilepsy?

Click to expand...

Yes it would be great if there was some evidence for souls but it's just an outdated belief that doesn't hold up.

Trailblazer said:

That is what I said.

Click to expand...

Which makes the soul completely redundant and a nice fiction to make people feel like they will live forever.

Trailblazer said:

The soul does not have cognitive functions, only the brain has those. The soul 'animates' the brain so it is responsible for our ability to think and feel. If we had no soul the body would have no life.

Since the brain dies when the physical body dies there can be no more physical diseases such as epilepsy and Alzheimer's. Since the soul is responsible for consciousness and thought, consciousness and thought continues in the spiritual world, but it works through a spiritual body which is not subject to disease.

Click to expand...

None of this makes sense and effectively debunks the soul.
1)The soul animates the brain. we see brains and nervous systems animating life down to very simple life. Unless you are going to say all life has a soul than this isn't supported by what we see.
If a brain animates an insect the human brain can certainly animate us.

2) If we had no soul the body would have no life. So insects do have a soul? Chimps have a soul?
We know life started as single celled animals and evolved from there. So there is no question about how the brain gives life to organisms.

3)soul is responsible for consciousness and thought, - again, all organism with nervous systems have thought. Are you giving a soul to every organism? This concept of vitalism is long known to be pure nonsense.
Experiments with the brain show that damage to certain parts change can personality and even beliefs. Descartes claimed the soul was indivisible. But brain experiments showed that when injured multiple personalities can emerge each with completely different beliefs.
A doctor working with patients who had blockers between hemispheres was able to train different hemispheres different tasks but the experience was not available to the untrained hemisphere. Each hemisphere could process information outside the awareness of the other. In essence, this meant the operation produced a double consciousness.
Thus, Descartes cannot be correct in his assertion the brain is divisible but the soul, which can be read as the mind or consciousness, is not. In his effort to prove the existence of the soul in humans, Descartes actually provided an argument against it.
Neuroscience and psychology have rendered it basically unnecessary to have a soul


The idea of an afterlife without disease doesn't need explanation as to why that myth would be created.

Truthseeker said:

They have an animal spirit according to the Baha'i teachings. It is not a soul, but nevertheless in the same way it causes the animals to "experience". Again, you would to verify this through investigating the Baha'i Faith fairly.

Click to expand...

Yes I know the Bahai science, it's very wrong. He rejects that humans are animals. Not only are we animals we are a longer list:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species:
H. sapiens

So we are animals AND all the other, including great apes which is the class of Primates we are.

So now you have to imagine that at some point the "animal soul" (which is humans) becomes human? Was it at the emergence of Homo genus? Or H sapiens emerge and suddenly have a human soul??

It's a bunch of nonsense. We are animals. He didn't know this back than and now we do. Also neurologists are certain that brains cause experience. They have done all sorts of tests and a soul is not needed.

joelr said:

Yes I know the Bahai science, it's very wrong. He rejects that humans are animals.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. Baha'is believe that humans are animals with a spiritual nature because we have a soul.

joelr said:

Yes I know the Bahai science, it's very wrong. He rejects that humans are animals. Not only are we animals we are a longer list:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species:
H. sapiens

So we are animals AND all the other, including great apes which is the class of Primates we are.

So now you have to imagine that at some point the "animal soul" (which is humans) becomes human? Was it at the emergence of Homo genus? Or H sapiens emerge and suddenly have a human soul??

It's a bunch of nonsense. We are animals. He didn't know this back than and now we do. Also neurologists are certain that brains cause experience. They have done all sorts of tests and a soul is not needed.

Click to expand...

We certainly do accept all that you outline there. Yes, ultimately we are descended from one celled organisms. We believe in the harmony of science and religion.

What you at the bottom is false, and you know it. I cited a Wikipedia article that said that at least they don't know what causes experience. It's a mystery to them after all these years, after all of the mapping of the brain in detail.

Truthseeker said:

We certainly do accept all that you outline there. Yes, ultimately we are descended from one celled organisms. We believe in the harmony of science and religion.

What you at the bottom is false, and you know it. I cited a Wikipedia article that said that at least they don't know what causes experience. It's a mystery to them after all these years, after all of the mapping of the brain in detail.

Click to expand...

It isn't a lie because I listen to what neuroscientists have to say. The soul is considered an artifact of ancient times no longer needed. Anyone can edit a Wiki article, a quack who sources an amateur book on spirits and crystal healing.
There are many papers on how the brain produces consciousness. While there are mysteries we see all regions working together to create the experience.
But when areas of the brain are damaged the personality changes. Even causing multiple personalities with different views on religion. Descartes said the soul was indivisible. So why do these people now have multiple souls? One a believer and one an atheist?



The brain does it all
If the soul is where emotion and motivation reside, where mental activity occurs, sensations are perceived, memories are stored, reasoning takes place and decisions are taken, then there is no need to hypothesize its existence. There is an organ that already performs these functions: the brain.

This idea goes back to the ancient physician Hippocrates (460-377 BCE) who said:

Men ought to know that from nothing else but the brain come joys, delights, laughter and sports, and sorrows, griefs, despondency and lamentations. And by this … we acquire wisdom and knowledge, and see and hear, and know what are foul and what are fair, what are bad and what are good, what are sweet and what are unsavoury…

Consider one of the functions supposedly—if we listen to Plato—carried out by the soul: memory. A major knock on the head can make you lose your memories of the past several years. If the soul is an immaterial substance separate from our physical being, it should not be injured by the knock. If memory were stored in the soul, it should not have been lost.The brain is the organ with a map of our body, the outside world and our experience. Damage to the brain, as in accidents, dementias or congenital malformations, produces a commensurate damage to personality.

Neuroscience and psychology have rendered it basically unnecessary to have a soul





And the Bahai messenger said we are not animal.

"If statements and teachings of religion are found to be unreasonable and contrary to science, they are outcomes of superstition and imagination."
"WE NOW COME to the question of the transformation of species and the evolutionary development of organs, that is, whether man has come from the animal kingdom.127
This idea has entrenched itself in the minds of certain European philosophers, and it is very difficult now to make its falsity understood; but in the future it will become clear and evident, and the European philosophers will themselves recognize it. For in reality it is an evident error. "
Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library



This is 100% unreasonable and contrary to science. Except it was given to the prophet. At that time it was not known about the long line of Hominids human evolved from. So I see why he made th error. Definitely no Gods here.


"Universal existences can be likened and compared to particular ones, for both are subject to one natural order, one universal law, and one divine arrangement. For instance, you will find the smallest atoms to be similar in their general structure to the greatest entities in the universe, and it is clear that they have proceeded from one laboratory of might according to one natural order and one universal law, and can therefore be compared to one another."


Written before quantum mechanics when Newtonian mechanics thought atoms were like small billiard balls. Atoms are not at all like large entities, exist in a wave state of superimposition until observed and collapsed into a smaller wave state. The quantum realm is nothing like the macroscopic. A God might have mentioned this. A man writing stuff pretending to be a god messenger would not.

joelr said:

Anyone can edit a Wiki article, a quack who sources an amateur book on spirits and crystal healing.

Click to expand...

Wikipedia is peer reviewed for accuracy. They are supposed to cite sources.

joelr said:

But when areas of the brain are damaged the personality changes. Even causing multiple personalities with different views on religion. Descartes said the soul was indivisible. So why do these people now have multiple souls? One a believer and one an atheist?

Click to expand...

No, they don't have multiple souls. This is a result of brain disfunction, and the soul is not independent of the brain. Neither is the brain independent of the soul. You can't really separate the two on this plane of existence. Don't ask me how they operate together, because I am not a neurologist, and neurologists, as you have noted, usually don't believe in a soul any more. In todays world that is considered outdated. That neurologists consider this outdated is a result of materialism being dominant in the world right now. Materialism being dominant now is partly a result of religious people resisting the advance of science.

joelr said:

A major knock on the head can make you lose your memories of the past several years.

Click to expand...

Let me quote Baha'u'llah on this and see if this makes sense to you:

Thou hast asked Me whether man, as apart from the Prophets of God and His chosen ones, will retain, after his physical death, the self-same individuality, personality, consciousness, and understanding that characterize his life in this world. If this should be the case, how is it, thou hast observed, that whereas such slight injuries to his mental faculties as fainting and severe illness deprive him of his understanding and consciousness, his death, which must involve the decomposition of his body and the dissolution of its elements, is powerless to destroy that understanding and extinguish that consciousness? How can anyone imagine that man’s consciousness and personality will be maintained, when the very instruments necessary to their existence and function will have completely disintegrated?

Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 80

joelr said:

"WE NOW COME to the question of the transformation of species and the evolutionary development of organs, that is, whether man has come from the animal kingdom.127
This idea has entrenched itself in the minds of certain European philosophers, and it is very difficult now to make its falsity understood; but in the future it will become clear and evident, and the European philosophers will themselves recognize it. For in reality it is an evident error. "

Click to expand...

Yes, a number of Baha'is used to misunderstand this in context of the rest of what Abdu'l-Baha said elsewhere, and in the light of science. The difference between man and an animal, in essence, is not that they don't have a common ancestor, but that, but to quote Abdu'l-Baha in a different passage:

Beyond this, the members, constituent parts, and composition that are found within man attract and act as a magnet for the spirit: The spirit is bound to appear in it.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 52.5

I understand this to mean that once the organism we know as man evolved to a certain point, the soul was attracted to that organism. That's just my opinion. What is known as man is only diffferentiated from an animal because it has a soul that was attracted to it at some unknown point, otherwise the genes of man and chimps are 98% the same, or in that ballpark, and biological man can be thought as an animal.

joelr said:

"Universal existences can be likened and compared to particular ones, for both are subject to one natural order, one universal law, and one divine arrangement. For instance, you will find the smallest atoms to be similar in their general structure to the greatest entities in the universe, and it is clear that they have proceeded from one laboratory of might according to one natural order and one universal law, and can therefore be compared to one another."


Written before quantum mechanics when Newtonian mechanics thought atoms were like small billiard balls. Atoms are not at all like large entities, exist in a wave state of superimposition until observed and collapsed into a smaller wave state. The quantum realm is nothing like the macroscopic. A God might have mentioned this. A man writing stuff pretending to be a god messenger would not.

Click to expand...

This doesn't specify that atoms have electrons like billiard balls going around them like in solar systems. It is all too vague for me. In this case I don't know what Abdu'l-Baha is referring to. By the way, Abdu'l-Baha is not considered by us as being a Prophet. His Father, Baha'u'llah was the Prophet.

Truthseeker said:

Wikipedia is peer reviewed for accuracy. They are supposed to cite sources.

Click to expand...

I recently found a page on Christianity and mystery religions that has clear mis-information. The statement was not sourced.

Truthseeker said:

No, they don't have multiple souls. This is a result of brain disfunction, and the soul is not independent of the brain. Neither is the brain independent of the soul. You can't really separate the two on this plane of existence. Don't ask me how they operate together, because I am not a neurologist, and neurologists, as you have noted, usually don't believe in a soul any more. In todays world that is considered outdated. That neurologists consider this outdated is a result of materialism being dominant in the world right now. Materialism being dominant now is partly a result of religious people resisting the advance of science.

Click to expand...

Um, no it's not because of materialism being dominant? That is an apologetic designed to keep the possibility of a spirit going. It's because scientists need evidence and reason. There are none for a soul. Listen to what you are saying. You know nothing about the soul yet are explaining the way it works? You are making this up. If our personality has a soul then it would still come through when the brain was damaged. The idea that brain damage causes changes shows we are dependent on the brain. There isn't evidence for a soul. You are doing a tap-dance to explain it and it simply isn't there. What evidence is there to believe an ancient superstition?

Truthseeker said:

Let me quote Baha'u'llah on this and see if this makes sense to you:

Thou hast asked Me whether man, as apart from the Prophets of God and His chosen ones, will retain, after his physical death, the self-same individuality, personality, consciousness, and understanding that characterize his life in this world. If this should be the case, how is it, thou hast observed, that whereas such slight injuries to his mental faculties as fainting and severe illness deprive him of his understanding and consciousness, his death, which must involve the decomposition of his body and the dissolution of its elements, is powerless to destroy that understanding and extinguish that consciousness? How can anyone imagine that man’s consciousness and personality will be maintained, when the very instruments necessary to their existence and function will have completely disintegrated?

Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power.
Bahá’u’lláh, "Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh", 80

Click to expand...

Yes I understand. It's garbage. He also has no idea what he's talking about but is doing the same tapdance. Except his is worse. Why? Because his metaphor was horrible. Hey guess what happens when the light dies? When the lamp turns off? The light is gone. The energy is absorbed into the room and becomes another type of energy. Exactly. Actually without realizing it he did explain death.

Truthseeker said:

Yes, a number of Baha'is used to misunderstand this in context of the rest of what Abdu'l-Baha said elsewhere, and in the light of science. The difference between man and an animal, in essence, is not that they don't have a common ancestor, but that, but to quote Abdu'l-Baha in a different passage:

Beyond this, the members, constituent parts, and composition that are found within man attract and act as a magnet for the spirit: The spirit is bound to appear in it.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "Some Answered Questions", 52.5

I understand this to mean that once the organism we know as man evolved to a certain point, the soul was attracted to that organism. That's just my opinion. What is known as man is only diffferentiated from an animal because it has a soul that was attracted to it at some unknown point, otherwise the genes of man and chimps are 98% the same, or in that ballpark, and biological man can be thought as an animal.

Click to expand...

Oh wow, that is just terrible. Homo Sapien emerged and souls, floating around in "soul space" were like "Wow, that ape seems like he's ready to be possessed by a ghost". No sense at all?
Homo Heidelburgensis made tools, had language, buried their dead, they were very similar. Also H sapien didn't just show up. It took thousands of years to change from one species to another.

This explanation is about as compelling as alien abductions by the greys.

Truthseeker said:

This doesn't specify that atoms have electrons like billiard balls going around them like in solar systems. It is all too vague for me. In this case I don't know what Abdu'l-Baha is referring to. By the way, Abdu'l-Baha is not considered by us as being a Prophet. His Father, Baha'u'llah was the Prophet.

Click to expand...

No he said this - "you will find the smallest atoms to be similar in their general structure to the greatest entities in the universe, and it is clear that they have proceeded from one laboratory of might according to one natural order and one universal law, and can therefore be compared to one another.""

They DO NOT follow a similar structure.
They DO NOT seem like they proceed from one lab
They DO NOT follow one natural law
They DO NOT follow one universal law.

macroscopic world and the quantum world are completely different in all of these ways and is why scientists were so surprised. They cannot be compared. That is the whole thing.
He's wrong. He cannot be made to be correct. He was saying stuff and pretending to sound all knowing as if he had revelations from a deity. It's wrong. This is a new one, I didn't know he also failed to predict quantum mechanics. That's big.