Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#24174 - 05/04/09 07:16 PM The Immortal Soul
Armand Schmitz Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/08/09
Posts: 10
"THE IMMORTAL SOUL"

The concept of the "soul" is an intrinsically romantic construct. The definition and interpretation of the souls' nature has been varied throughout the history of the worlds religions. In all of the forms the soul has taken on, (In Western civilization) certainly the most popular will be the Christian version. (Excepting that there is also much variation within Christian traditions as well...)

The soul is a romantic idea, as it represents a touch of the god-head within man. As an unseen spark of pure life bestowed upon mankind by God.The soul is the core of our being, which is all that transcends the earthly plane, transported back into the heavenly paradise from where it originated. Belief in an immortal soul ensures that death is not a fatal and eternal event. It erases the unknown actuality of death and provides a comfortable enlightenment during ones' time spent alive on earth. Humans have a definite impulsive desire to sate their curiosity. Mans' common error, is that he is willing to accept the answers provided to him through custom and tradition, even if they are radical in proposition.(Often they are required to be radical in order that they be unquestioned. The more elaborate the lie,the more believable it is!)

The reason the soul has been given so many varied interpreations throughout the ages is simply because there is no absolute deffinition. No scientific evidence has yet been discovered that a soul exists, or that any part of our body or consciousness survives after death. In fact scientific evidence favors the atheistic conclusion, that death is the termination of the conscious individual. Religions and their deities are in reality created by humans. So also, has been the concept and definement of the soul. Religious authorities have felt free to inscribe them with the will of their whims.

All ideas, actions and events which bring great passions into play are romantic. The unquieted longing for answers; the numerous stumbles along the path to those answers; the blood and destruction hidden in every answer, every conclusion, every conviction, "right" or "wrong";"good" or "evil". This is an embodiment, and testament to the insatiable curiosity and creativity of the human race. These are among the healthiest of attributes in all of mankinds' history.

However noble our intentions in answering the unanswerable questions of our existence,we cannot allow this creative force to lead us astray from the necessity of logic. Emotional expression will always be at war with logical expression,however they need not be expressed simultaniously. Rather that logic should first augment our emotions then creativity can flow outward in a constructive manner. Belief in ideas such as an immortal soul have allowed for much complacency and procrastination in the realm of human creativity. One can only imagine the progress civilization could have made if it had not been continually stifled by erroneous morals and beliefs. That the idea of and belief in the soul and immortality are romantic, is no account against romanticism. Let our future ideas and beliefs be romantic also,yet let them be founded on logic and science. This is the foundation which will unlock the true power of mans' creativity!

I submit now an ameliorated deffinition of the "immortal soul",and "immortality".

The "soul" and the "flesh" are ONE, and the same. They have always been indelibly intertwined. The soul is only a romantic expression of the creativity of man. The false religious belief in the soul has persisted for thousands of years due to this original impetus of creativity! The body and soul are merged,neither is nor, yet it is the accomplishments of the creative human forces which live on after death. The soul of man's creative endeavors here on earth can truly become immortal, though only through the will of his creative power. The sole means to live "immortally" is to create earthly immortality through creativity. The God-head is truly within us after all, we are the God-head!

The power of an idea is mighty; never will there be an idea more romantic than this!

Top
#25642 - 06/14/09 02:44 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Armand Schmitz]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
"What is a soul? Can I cut it? Can I dissect it, can I see it?"
- Marry Shelley (Frankenstein, passage wherein a professor answers to docter Frankensteins question about the soul).


I keep it to the scientific view. It doesn't exist untill I find methods who let me proove otherwise.
A soul, just like a god or more gods, is just a creation of the human mind. The soul in a concept to give people a grip about the fact there might be something afterwards and their life wasn't in vain. It is a suitable and easy answer to explain "free will" by some (this because it is said science doesn't know how man "got" free will).



Edited by Dimitri (06/14/09 03:14 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#25775 - 06/19/09 10:37 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Dimitri]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Sorry, just putting in my point about 'soul' (i didnt read fully the original post, im a bit too tired)

I define the soul as the life force of the mind or the consciousness. I divide the 'soul' per say with the actual body thinking of the body as more of an inhibition but a necessity for the 'soul'. After we die the 'soul' goes back into the cosmic energy that makes the universe run. (not in a conscious form though)
Thats my idea of soul, but i dont really refer to it as soul due to its obvious connotations.

Top
#25780 - 06/19/09 12:33 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I define the soul as the life force of the mind or the consciousness. I divide the 'soul' per say with the actual body thinking of the body as more of an inhibition but a necessity for the 'soul'. After we die the 'soul' goes back into the cosmic energy that makes the universe run. (not in a conscious form though)
Thats my idea of soul, but i dont really refer to it as soul due to its obvious connotations.

So you divide the soul from the actual body..
If I'm not mistaking, you are implying that the soul is apart from the body?
Interesting, the soul is the life source of the mind.
How come your mind stops living if I suck away all the blood from your brain if the soul is the life-force? (To put it in a crude way..).

the souls goes back into the cosmic energy which makes the universe run? In an unconsious form? I very highly doubt so for various reasons....


I want to believe....., but my rational mind declines it.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#25790 - 06/19/09 02:46 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Dimitri]
Scarlett156 Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/20/09
Posts: 59
Loc: rural Eastern Colorado (USA)
Simple observation demonstrates that things in nature don't just blink into and out of existence, but either rapidly or slowly change from one form to another.

Whether there is such a thing as "soul" or not, I have never really cared. Whether my individual consciousness will survive on past my physical death is something I've given a bit more thought to, but only a bit more. From observing nature--from things so small that they can't be seen with the naked human eye to huge galaxies of stars millions of light years away--I see that things don't just appear and disappear, but go through permutations. Therefore my assumption is that something similar happens to consciousness upon physical death. The body changes to something else after death, so the consciousness must as well.

Since my consciousness does at times seem to operate independently of my physical being (for one example, when I sleep and dream realistically about walking down the street outside, though I'm not actually physically doing so), I also assume (but not very strongly) that once my body dies, my consciousness may continue to operate as an individual unit at least for a period of time. (This is also evidenced by a couple of near-death experiences I've had.)

A more materialistic description of soul as the "life force" of a living being is in my opinion just as apt--though the term is somewhat vague, it's not like we as living beings need a lot of instruction on how to recognize life from death. We generallly know them when we see them, at least in the mundane sense.

My own personal opinion is that human beings have a harder time with the notion of loss of individuality than they do with dying--thus the popularity of such after-death realms as heaven and hell, where all, the most evil and the most good, are rewarded by retention of the individual self.

~~~ yours in Chaos, Scarlett
_________________________
"I can fling poo gooder than u"

Top
#25800 - 06/19/09 07:48 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Scarlett156]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
The body changes to something else after death, so the consciousness must as well.

Not if consciousness is something the brain does. If so, the brain would simply stop doing it upon cessation, and consciousness would vanish. Much like the light produced by a lightbulb when you turn it off, or the heat from a snuffed candle.

 Quote:

when I sleep and dream realistically about walking down the street outside, though I'm not actually physically doing so

When you are awake, what you experience is sensory data interpreted and stored by your brain. Any 'realism' is a product of what your brain is telling you. All that data remains when you sleep. Most experts agree that dreams are just random neuron chains firing, which indeed can produce very realistic things to the sleeping mind.

This should not be indicative of any sort of magic or extra-physical magical detached ghost consciousness. It just is what it is.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#25803 - 06/19/09 08:40 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Dan_Dread]
Scarlett156 Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/20/09
Posts: 59
Loc: rural Eastern Colorado (USA)
 Quote:
This should not be indicative of any sort of magic or extra-physical magical detached ghost consciousness. It just is what it is.


There are a number of unprovable assumptions made in the utterance of such a statement. Naturally, you also assume that most who read this share your views, so you will never have to prove them. My observation that instead of disappearing, consciousness may undergo some sort of permutation upon death, is based on direct observation of numerous things in nature.

Similarly, if one goes outside at night and looks at the sky (er... unless one lives in a densely populated urban area, of course) one can easily see light from many stars that no longer exist. Their light still exists, and we can see it, but the stars themselves changed to something else as far as their material substance long ago.

Yes, you say, but light is a thing, and not a "magical detached ghost" blah-de-blah, and science has quantified its properties, and so on. Up until a hundred or so years ago, however, light was not popularly regarded as being a physical thing with physical properties any more than a "soul" or "consciousness".

I don't place a lot of faith in science because I don't have to--science seems to continue to figure things out pretty admirably without me having to stick up for it. (Which I like.) Therefore my guess is that within awhile--assuming that there is still a human race by the time another hundred years rolls around--there may be more scientific evidence pertaining to consciousness and what it actually IS and where it actually LIVES, as there is now for such formerly non-physical-seeming things as light, gas, and radiation.

I am quite flattered by the amount of attention my posts receive on this forum, even though there's a mildly distressing sameness and predictability to every response--the sense of addressing a COLLECTIVE when one addresses this forum was disconcerting at first, as LaVeyan Satanism places/used to place such emphasis on the individual.

Anyway, for the record I wasn't taking issue with the OP at all. I think that the original topic makes a number of interesting and valid points about consciousness and immortality, and I enjoyed reading it. xoxoxo
_________________________
"I can fling poo gooder than u"

Top
#25805 - 06/19/09 09:31 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Scarlett156]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

There are a number of unprovable assumptions made in the utterance of such a statement

Oh? Such as? I would heartily disagree.

It's not like unprovable assumptions have bothered you thus far in your posting anyway. You seem to thrive on them.

 Quote:

Naturally, you also assume that most who read this share your views, so you will never have to prove them.

Yes, for the large part Satanists tend to be realists. I make no assumptions about agreeance, however, and for the most part it is in short supply otherwise. What forums are YOU reading?

Your little rant on light was amusing, but really does nothing to further whatever meandering point you seem to be trying to drive at. Yes, our understanding of nature and how it works is expanding with time. There is in fact, an entire chapter of TSB that deals with this. Yesterdays magic is todays science, you know.
But it DOES NOT FOLLOW from this that any crazy assumption is as good as another. There is literally no evidence of consciousness surviving death, which is in fact solely a religious meme. There is a TON of evidence that links functions of consciousness to physical brain activity. The evidence certainly isn't sitting anywhere near the middle.

You are no different than one of those ID proponents trying in vain to struggle against the reality of evolution.

 Quote:

I am quite flattered by the amount of attention my posts receive on this forum

Perhaps your inane tripe just sets off a lot of bullshit detectors? Something to consider.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#25809 - 06/20/09 12:04 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Scarlett156]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
 Quote:
I don't place a lot of faith in science


good, because science is something you're supposed to empirically test, or at the very least, have a decent theory of. The words "faith" and "science" belong nowhere near each other.

 Quote:
Similarly, if one goes outside at night and looks at the sky (er... unless one lives in a densely populated urban area, of course) one can easily see light from many stars that no longer exist. Their light still exists, and we can see it, but the stars themselves changed to something else as far as their material substance long ago.

Yes, you say, but light is a thing, and not a "magical detached ghost" blah-de-blah, and science has quantified its properties, and so on. Up until a hundred or so years ago, however, light was not popularly regarded as being a physical thing with physical properties any more than a "soul" or "consciousness".


I call shenanigans. Even centuries ago, scientists such as Newton recognized the physical nature of light, and drew up extensive models to support their ideas. I'm too lazy to look it up now (provided it is (or should be) common knowledge), but a quick wiki on "scientific properties of light" or something will suffice for those interested. Do you actually know anything about scientific methodology? Or do you simply try to comfort yourself by resting on the conclusion that science can never get "the big picture", so you are free to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy-tale nonsense your imagination dreams up? Why is it that anyone appealing to "scientific progression" in relation to supernatural discoveries always end up falling back on ancient and rusty models of metaphysics? Why do those who invoke the old argument "science hasn't proven everything yet, so anything could possibly exist" use it for the old tired stories about ghosts, gods, and goblins; instead of something awesome and unpredictable like alternate realities with beer volcanoes and perpetually-virginal hookers? (But sadly, they both have the same empirical weight.)

Consciousness, on the other hand, is difficult to observe, and nearly impossible to isolate in material terms.

Similarly, the "star" story is not a good analogy. Firstly, all traveling particles eventually become a mass of jumbled, chaotic noise, reflecting the nature that everything in the universe is recycled back into itself. Secondly, nothing suggests that individual consciousness emits waves or particles like light does. And even if it did, the application of the former statement would suggest that "the soul" would simply be discharged as energy and become unrecognizable noise.

In any case, "the soul", is not a distinct object. It is simply an outdated label that humans have made for a mass of stimuli and nervous reactions going off in their brains. It is fragile. And until actual evidence suggests otherwise, it is finite.



 Quote:
I am quite flattered by the amount of attention my posts receive on this forum, even though there's a mildly distressing sameness and predictability to every response--the sense of addressing a COLLECTIVE when one addresses this forum was disconcerting at first, as LaVeyan satanism places/used to place such emphasis on the individual.


Actually, we are quite diverse in our tastes and opinions. It almost frustrates me when the majority of users here seem to disagree with each other simply for the sake of disagreeing.

But one thing we DO share in common is our uniform opposition to bullshit.


Edited by The Zebu (06/20/09 12:08 AM)
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#25814 - 06/20/09 04:10 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Scarlett156]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
My observation that instead of disappearing, consciousness may undergo some sort of permutation upon death, is based on direct observation of numerous things in nature.

Can you give evidence of your observation? If not you are making an assumption and this implies you haven't got legs to stand upon..
Be less ignorant and learn to divide your fantasies from reality. If you can't back things up I suggest to keep the mouth shut.

 Quote:
Similarly, if one goes outside at night and looks at the sky (er... unless one lives in a densely populated urban area, of course) one can easily see light from many stars that no longer exist. Their light still exists, and we can see it, but the stars themselves changed to something else as far as their material substance long ago.

Light are waves, waves keep on travelling untill they disappear (note that light waves are a special case since they can travel without a medium..). I CAN go deeper into this but it will wander off topic and am quite sure you wouldn't get a thing of the explanation.

 Quote:
Yes, you say, but light is a thing, and not a "magical detached ghost" blah-de-blah, and science has quantified its properties, and so on. Up until a hundred or so years ago, however, light was not popularly regarded as being a physical thing with physical properties any more than a "soul" or "consciousness".

Depends on what kind of waves you are talking about...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#25859 - 06/20/09 10:06 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Dimitri]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
Wasn't this topic already debated to no end in another thread entitled "Consciousness After Death"? Just sayin'.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25873 - 06/21/09 05:48 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
Expanding and perhaps modifying on my previous post (for new thinking):
I now refer to the soul as the 'will'. Obviously most of our actions, thoughts etc etc are affected by outside factors and personal physical inhibitions which inhibit our pure state of thinking which I refer to as the will.

After death the will (being simply an unexplained energy source) goes back into the energy that functions the universe which I will refer to as the life force.

Naturally I cannot prove this, like most theories, but I find this is simple and natural way the universe may work. As of yet it seems the most realistic idea rather than re-incarnation, heaven hell, immortal consciousness etc etc.

Top
#25874 - 06/21/09 05:53 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Dimitri]
Atralux Lucis Offline
pledge


Registered: 05/22/09
Posts: 79
Loc: Australia
And for dimitri's question on dividing body and soul:

I woul;d divide it the same way I would divide a liver from a kidney, or an apple and an orange. Obviously the life force and the physical body are two different things.

Also, if you doubt my idea then you may well doubt every idea and never reach any personal conclusion about the 'soul' due to the fact every and all theories are but theories and usually based on unproven speculation.

Top
#25891 - 06/21/09 12:43 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3883
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Also, if you doubt my idea then you may well doubt every idea and never reach any personal conclusion about the 'soul' due to the fact every and all theories are but theories and usually based on unproven speculation.

Ahh the crux of the issue. There are those willing to believe pretty much anything handed to them, evidence be damned, and there are critical thinkers.

The thoughts and ideas of the former aren't worth much at all to those in the latter group.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#26025 - 06/23/09 06:37 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Atralux Lucis]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
Granted the aspect of ones soul has yet to be proven or disproved it is open for interpratation. So what does doubting your opinion which isn't backed up with sources have to do with ones personal decision?

I don't agree with you and it seems to me that I am very clear on my decision of belief and that is I don't believe. That is until PROVEN wrong.

Yes all theories are based off speculation that is where all ideas and discoveries start from how does that make this topic any different? What really matters is how the EVIDENCE when presented is taken by an individual when shown. Also need I remind you your opinion is based of speculation as well.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#26102 - 06/24/09 03:11 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Armand Schmitz]
god.over.djinn Offline
pledge


Registered: 06/23/09
Posts: 75
Loc: Melbourne
 Originally Posted By: Armand Schmitz

I submit now an ameliorated deffinition of the "immortal soul",and "immortality".

The "soul" and the "flesh" are ONE, and the same. They have always been indelibly intertwined. The soul is only a romantic expression of the creativity of man. The false religious belief in the soul has persisted for thousands of years due to this original impetus of creativity! The body and soul are merged,neither is nor, yet it is the accomplishments of the creative human forces which live on after death. The soul of man's creative endeavors here on earth can truly become immortal, though only through the will of his creative power. The sole means to live "immortally" is to create earthly immortality through creativity. The God-head is truly within us after all, we are the God-head!


In response to the OP: this is not a "deffinition", ameliorated or otherwise. It is merely an assertion - no, a collection of assertions - about some undefined yet alleged entity that the English language designates with the word "soul".

The assertion - if I may take the liberty of paraphrasing - is that "body" and "soul" are words that should be held as equivalent, or synonymous with each other. But why would I regard my body as equivalent to something that doesn't exist?

G.O.D.
_________________________
SATAN, a recursive acronym invented by GOD: "SATAN: Advocating The Adversarial Nihilist"

Top
#26105 - 06/24/09 03:32 AM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: god.over.djinn]
Meq Offline
Banned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
This sounds like a semantic issue with the word "soul".

While the original poster is trying to reclaim the word from superstitious use by re-defining it (in terms of the body), your approach is to keep the superstitious definition of it and reject the concept.

This reminds me of the difference between pantheism and Atheism. While pantheists (in the naturalistic sense) wish to reclaim the word 'god' by re-definining it as the natural universe itself (something which clearly exists, at least in some sense), atheists retain the supernaturalist definition of 'god' and in turn reject the concept.

In both cases, much the same thing overall is implied, the only difference is the semantic one as to whether a particular term should be given its commonly-defined meaning, or whether it is valid to re-define its definition.

Personally, I would avoid the use of terms like "soul" and "god" (or "Satan") when they can become confusing, such as in rigorous intellectual debate.

Such terms can still possibly be useful in other contexts as a form of poetic metaphor, however, provided they are used with a disclaimer as to their meaning in order to avoid confusion (and semantic purists may still object to such non-conventional usage of language, of course).

Top
#26362 - 06/27/09 08:39 PM Re: The Immortal Soul [Re: Meq]
Demonic Moroni Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 18
Loc: Arizona
 Originally Posted By: Meq
This sounds like a semantic issue with the word "soul".

While the original poster is trying to reclaim the word from superstitious use by re-defining it (in terms of the body), your approach is to keep the superstitious definition of it and reject the concept.

This reminds me of the difference between pantheism and Atheism. While pantheists (in the naturalistic sense) wish to reclaim the word 'god' by re-definining it as the natural universe itself (something which clearly exists, at least in some sense), atheists retain the supernaturalist definition of 'god' and in turn reject the concept.

In both cases, much the same thing overall is implied, the only difference is the semantic one as to whether a particular term should be given its commonly-defined meaning, or whether it is valid to re-define its definition.

Personally, I would avoid the use of terms like "soul" and "god" (or "Satan") when they can become confusing, such as in rigorous intellectual debate.

Such terms can still possibly be useful in other contexts as a form of poetic metaphor, however, provided they are used with a disclaimer as to their meaning in order to avoid confusion (and semantic purists may still object to such non-conventional usage of language, of course).


I heartily agree here. Although in many way metaphors such as Satan and God (in the pantheistic) sense can be useful to those using them, they have the potential to become very confusing. I have been to a few naturalistic pantheistic sites that have left me scratching my head as to what they are actually saying, because they just weren't clear enough to be understood.

As for my belief about the "soul," I tend to view it as a metaphor for consciousness. When the brain dies, the soul dies with it. This is supported by my (finite) understanding of the way the human body works. Perhaps if more evidence is brought forth, I will change my view, but that is what it is for now.
_________________________
"Here I stand; I can do no otherwise."
Shemhamforash!
Hail Satan

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 31 queries. Zlib compression disabled.