chaz wyman wrote:I really don't think that reincarnation is a meaningful option - or possibility for living.
Even if there is a shortage of souls - so that they are recycled, rather than not born afresh with each life (AND ASSUMING THAT THE IDEA OF A SOUL IS EVEN MEANING FUL), as no one seems to remember 'previous lives' or the experiences they ought to offer - we have to conclude that when you die you really really just stop working and a period is drawn over your life.
Shortage of souls? That sounds somewhat defunct.
In your philosophical meanderings have you come across or considered that as we progress to the maximum threshold of 'souls' that the Earth can sustain (within a semi-decent quality of life)...that ALL these souls are being brought from some distant past life into the present?
I know it does smack of judgement...
Without looking back the idea of a shortage of souls is one that I was responding to not inventing.
It smacks of sillyness. No I have never heard of such a thing.
Why would there be a limit or 'threshold' on souls (an immaterial thing) upon the earth (a material thing)?
chaz wyman wrote:Why would there be a limit or 'threshold' on souls (an immaterial thing) upon the earth (a material thing)?
Souls require a material body to manifest themselves upon our dear planet. Material bodies require the energy available on the planet. Ergo there would be a threshold to which the planet could sustain human life within a decent 'quality' of life.
chaz wyman wrote:Why would there be a limit or 'threshold' on souls (an immaterial thing) upon the earth (a material thing)?
Souls require a material body to manifest themselves upon our dear planet. Material bodies require the energy available on the planet. Ergo there would be a threshold to which the planet could sustain human life within a decent 'quality' of life.
No - you are talking about a threshold on people, not souls.
chaz wyman wrote:Why would there be a limit or 'threshold' on souls (an immaterial thing) upon the earth (a material thing)?
Souls require a material body to manifest themselves upon our dear planet. Material bodies require the energy available on the planet. Ergo there would be a threshold to which the planet could sustain human life within a decent 'quality' of life.
No - you are talking about a threshold on people, not souls.
Now you are being silly.
You already stated that 'souls' are born....(that they take on a material existence) by saying: "Even if there is a shortage of souls - so that they are recycled, rather than not born afresh with each life "
You already stated that 'souls' are born....(that they take on a material existence) by saying: "Even if there is a shortage of souls - so that they are recycled, rather than not born afresh with each life "[/quote]
No - I think the whole idea of a soul is meaningless bullshit.
This discussion's silliness proves it.
You already stated that 'souls' are born....(that they take on a material existence) by saying: "Even if there is a shortage of souls - so that they are recycled, rather than not born afresh with each life "
No - I think the whole idea of a soul is meaningless bullshit.
This discussion's silliness proves it.
Only with an atheist is a discussion about a soul\eternal life meaningless bullshit.
You already stated that 'souls' are born....(that they take on a material existence) by saying: "Even if there is a shortage of souls - so that they are recycled, rather than not born afresh with each life "
No - I think the whole idea of a soul is meaningless bullshit.
This discussion's silliness proves it.
Only with an atheist is a discussion about a soul\eternal life meaningless bullshit.
Nope. Only an atheist can have a sensible and rational discussion about the soul.
Theists have an agenda that blinds them to reason and makes the talk bollocks.
chaz wyman wrote:Nope. Only an atheist can have a sensible and rational discussion about the soul.
Theists have an agenda that blinds them to reason and makes the talk bollocks.
What is my agenda?? that is preventing me from having a sensible rational discussion re the soul?
Do tell.
chaz wyman wrote:Nope. Only an atheist can have a sensible and rational discussion about the soul.
Theists have an agenda that blinds them to reason and makes the talk bollocks.
What is my agenda?? that is preventing me from having a sensible rational discussion re the soul?
Do tell.
You can answer that question for yourself when you ask yourself what is the use of the theory of souls.
When an unnecessary theory exists, it can only be doing work for a false agenda.
attofishpi wrote:What is my agenda?? that is preventing me from having a sensible rational discussion re the soul?
Do tell.
You can answer that question for yourself when you ask yourself what is the use of the theory of souls.
When an unnecessary theory exists, it can only be doing work for a false agenda.
The theory of a soul is certainly of great use when a love-one passes away. The theory of a multiverse opens the door to a realm where souls could continue on.
attofishpi wrote:What is my agenda?? that is preventing me from having a sensible rational discussion re the soul?
Do tell.
You can answer that question for yourself when you ask yourself what is the use of the theory of souls.
When an unnecessary theory exists, it can only be doing work for a false agenda.
The theory of a soul is certainly of great use when a love-one passes away.
QED: Your agenda.
The theory of a multiverse opens the door to a realm where souls could continue on.
Ditto.
But just because an idea is attractive, does not make it true
attofishpi wrote:The theory of a soul is certainly of great use when a love-one passes away.
QED: Your agenda.
That is not an agenda idiot. Look up the term 'agenda' in a dictionary. At the least it is a THEORY...a goal to provide reason and rationality to.
chaz wyman wrote:
attofishpi wrote:The theory of a multiverse opens the door to a realm where souls could continue on.
Ditto.
Idiot.
chaz wyman wrote:But just because an idea is attractive, does not make it true
So you do admit you are attracted to it...atheist?
Gotcha!!!
Your interest in the theory is because you have a use for it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is valid it is all about your (now not so) hidden agenda.
chaz wyman wrote:Gotcha!!!
Your interest in the theory is because you have a use for it. It has nothing to do with whether or not the theory is valid it is all about your (now not so) hidden agenda.
Do you comprehend how stupid you sound? You've got naught.
Aside from the fact that a theory of the existence of a soul is not an 'agenda'...
Do NASA scientists have an agenda?
Does Hawking have an agenda?
The answer of course is, yes! Does that mean that they are compromising their ability to have a reasonable rational debate?? NO!! IDIOT!!
