"Soul Mates" are bullshit

I believe I have found my SOULMATE. We finish each others sentences, she knows what I am thinking, and she completes me in every way. I can understand why someone wouldnt believe though. I could argue that politics, organized religion,soul mates,and love are all a big scam, and that everyone just believes in some bullshit. In fact I dont think it would be that off base to prove all of these things. I personally think that organized religion is a big waste of time and money. I love GOD and I want to be in Heaven, but the commercialization of religion is just a career path for some. Just like any career someone has to financially support the church and the clergy. If we dont believe in something though, how would many people become better people and find a direction in life? Does anyone have any sentiments about this? They are welcome.

 

No one can prove a universal negative. That is illogical.

First, prove the existence of a soul to begin with.

Then, we can talk about the mating. Even if souls DID exist, "Ralph" claims "Pam" is his soul mate until she runs off or dies then a NEW person is his soul mate-- so forth and so on.

No, it's not that...it's simply that "Ralph" is just a dumb ass who can't think logically and places his confidence in superstition and denial of reality.

 

For those that believe in "Souls", the "Burden of Proof" lies on you.

On a side note, while there is some evidence to support the theory of a "Soul", the question is not how much there is, but rather, how accurate it is. At this point in time, the quality of that evidence can't be measured.

So: Souls possibly exist, but so does the magical invisible unicorn that lives in a tea shop on mars.

 

Libertine hits the nail yet again.

I bought into the "soul mate" bullshit for a long time...even thought I'd found that person. We were always happy, in love and smiling. Then she walked out one day without much of an explanation. So much for my wonderful cosmic soul mate.

The best you can hope for in this life in a monogomous relationship is finding someone that makes you happy most of the time and then hope they don't leave your ass when the next "soul mate" comes along.

 

To hear that from a 21 year old really is quite saddening.. I just hope it lasts for you..

I'm with Libertine on this one. Soul mate hole mate.

 

He said that souls cannot exist because emotion is chemical; I questioned how emotions can be derived by the laws of physics, the laws that all matter are bound to. In short he is saying that A is not possible because of B. To prove B you must first prove it's plausibility derived from the given argument, which, in this case, is disproving or constructing questioned credibility of A. I cannot begin to prove emotion if he does not even have a notion of its possibility.

Please do not act as if you are intelligible upon logic and reason, your ideas show poor constructional analysis skills. Trying to disprove my logic with flawed reasoning is quite ironic, dont'cha think?

Besides, what you posted isn't even logic, it's the rules for your highschool debate class. In the real world, nothing is that black and white.

 

If you'd like to play logic games, prove love or emotion logically.

 

Emotions derive from inside the brain (chemical-related). That's based on the scientific evidence that we have. LOVE is subjective and natural, not objective and supernatural. Why do you think they call it "chemistry"?

There is NO evidence that emotions come from Sky Daddies or "spirits."

If you think so, let's see some scientific evidence to support that. Not junk science, either... REAL SCIENCE, PLEASE.

We take what we have, examine it and come up with the most logical conclusion OR...we take something unexplained and fill the gap with the supernatural until science comes along and makes it look stupid-- as usual.

ATTENTION PEOPLE! We now know that thunder is not the voice of the gods! THANK YOU!

It boils down to filling the gap with wishful thinking (soul mates) or learning from reality (there are no soul mates, but there may be several COMPATIBLE people for you to choose from).

Now, do me a favor and answer my question I asked eariler : CAN YOU PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF SOULS??? You aren't IGNORING ME, are you?

 

As I thought, you have vast misconceptions about the brain chemistry regarding emotion. Different emotions can be recognized by chemical reactions in the brain, but the reason why is unknown. Chemicals do not actually cause the emotions themselves. If so, then why would someone feel lust for someone beautiful and not for someone ugly? If it was based on chemical reactions alone, the chemicals would not be able to differentiate between what a person thinks is beautiful or ugly. When a person feels lust, love, etc. they do release chemicals that can be associated with physical properties. But understand that chemicals are not the cause of emotion, for that cannot be explained in scientific terms. The human mind is far too complex.

And no, I cannot prove the existance of a soul, just like you cannot prove that emotion is governed by the laws of physics. But neither can you prove that there is no soul.

In contemporary physics, the mechanism of gravity has never been proved. It is theorized to be a messenger particle called the graviton, but it has not once been proved. Yet we all know that gravity very much exists.

It's the same with love and soul mates; it is possible to have an incredible connection with your partner but cannot put it into simple words. So, you call the mechanism of such emotion being 'soul mates'. Just as gravity cannot be truly defined through chemistry, so the term we use for the theorized mechanism is a 'graviton'.

Perhaps some people claim to have found soul mates and end up abusing the term, destroying its true concept. But there are some, very few indeed, who experience the relationships worthy of being called soul mates, who don't fall in and out love sporatically.

It really boils down to what your definition of a soul mate is. If you choose to think that it is a supernatural force that predetermines fate, then you know quite well that the answer you are looking for is impossible to give.

 

Gravity isn't "proven" is it? Neither is evolution, right? It's just a theory.

Hell, 2+2=4 could be construed as a "theory". It really just depends on your criteria, doesn't it?

Thanks for the subtle insult at the beginning of your post. I salute your all-knowing presence...

It just occurred to me that all these years I've been blind about brain chemistry and that really ... there could actually be tiny pixies in my brain dumping out all the information. JUST COULD BE! Can't PROVE THAT THERE ISN'T, can I?

Thanks for clearing it up for everyone here.

"Soul mates" is whatever you want it to mean, eh? It is a TERM and nothing more??

Gee, I'm really trying to figure out how your argument contradicts or defeats my "no evidence for a soul" argument?!?!?

Ok, I'll agree with you. "Soul mates" is just a nice term to make people feel better.

NOT AT ALL WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO BY "SOUL MATES" and you probably knew that, but just wanted to scrap a little and attempt to insult my intelligence. Congratulations, it didn't work.

Now, moving on...

So, you can't prove the existence of soul, right? Well, where the hell do emotions derive from if not the brain?

The ass, perhaps?

 

Well, dude. The debate's been nice.

I am going to retire for the night.

Possibly catch you, tomorrow.

Peace.

 

Agnostic? You're the one claiming that souls, as well as undefined emotion, is impossible, and you call me agnostic? I'm just being realistic and factual relevant to your standards; you wanted scientific evidence and I said there is none as physics cannot possibly derive such an answer, and I'm right.

You obviously don't understand what a theory really is. It has a very specific definition in the scientific community and you have just proven to have no more knowledge on the subject than any ordinary blue collar man does. A theory is something studied for years and years with mountains of data supporting the idea. Not just anything is given the term 'theory'. If you say "I think that cats are all brown" that is not considered a theory, it's a hypothesis, it's a guess. An actual theory is something that has been proven and accepted as fact, but the term 'theory' acknowledges the fact that if a single shred of evidence is found to disprove the idea, it loses all credibility. As far as you are concerned, gravity and evolution is proven. It's apparent you don't obtain the mental acuteness to differentiate between them or their significance so I won't go there.

Heh, no that would not be a theory because 4 can be defined by 2 plus 2. It's like saying the fact that 'blueberries are blue' is a theory; blueberries are defined by their color, if they were not blue then either 'blue' or 'blueberry' would be different than your immediate connotation.

I in no way intended to insult you, I'm currently studying towards a PhD in Physics, as well as other fields of science, and it is apparent that there is a different in knowledge. I would like to have a conversation regarding the actual topic with you but that cannot take place until the information is up to par.

Sarcasm is a beautiful defense mechanism, isn't it? If you'd like to become childish in an attempt to discredit me, then go ahead, but I will not acknowledge something so immature.

Of course I knew that. What I was pointing out is that you made this thread with a closed mind, you are unwilling to allow any encroachment upon the ideas you had before even creating the thread. You are asking a question that you know is impossible to answer yet deny the fact that even though it is unanswerable it proves absolutely nothing. I do not try and insult intelligence; such petty games are a waste of my time. If you are not up to par in terms of information, I will tell you so in an unpersonal matter in hopes that you will actually research the claims you make before conversing. If you see this as an attack, then that's your interpretation. I come on these forums for an exchange of information, not to participate in the ignorant arguing compared to cliche 'special olympics'.

If you made this thread as nothing more than to say that a soul cannot be proved in terms of science, then congratulations, you've made your point well known. Although, I think everyone knew that before reading anything you've posted.

 

I'll see ya tomorrow then, sleep well, man.

 

Libertine,

I first wanted to say that I have grown to have great respect and appreciation for you -- because of your honesty and how that manifests via your obviously well-honed intellect. You stoke me to think and that is good even if it is sometimes stressful -- makes for a stronger mind, more insight and, I believe, for a better life. Thanks.

Now on to 'Soul Mates'. First I'll say that it is my distinct sense that there are actually many meanings for the term "soul mate" and these different meanings generally depend on who is using the term. And it appears to me that there
is sometimes false or 'shallow' agreement between people using the term including people, some of or all of whom, believe that they are soul mates.

I think arguing whether or not a soul is a real entity that is at the foundation" of our consciousness (and that fulfills any other requirements for the definition of a soul) is not the only path we have to travel in order to consider whether or not the concept of 'soul mate' is valid and real. Here, by "valid and real", I mean that the concept of 'soul mate' describes a (presently) uncommon and good agreement between individuals whereby there is profound satisfation and benefit that results from the pairing or 'mating' of these people. And that aspects of this "profound satisfation and benefit" can be, but have not yet been, measured adequately enough to objectively establish the existence of these relationships. Just as we can have knowledge where the knowledge is accurate (not qualified here in this post) but has not been objectively established as being accurate; realize that these types of awarenesses in the past have lead to many of our great inventions and discoveries; and who is to say for sure that some of these people who believe in 'soul mates' are not making accurate observations that simply have not yet been objectively established as existing. Think of it this way: When we pluck an open string on a stringed 'acoustic' instrument (like a guitar or violin) a similar instrument a short distance away will begin to resonate with it; we are like a "significantly unique" 'ten thousand' string instrument in terms of realtionship compatibility (and of course other areas as well) and the possible combinations are vast. So if we are a "signifcantly unique" instrument this could mean that there are rare matches that can offer immense value to us. And although it may not seem important to mention here, there are many important qualities to human relationships two of these being honesty and integrity; or maybe I should say it this way: while I'm presently at a loss for the adequate definition for the word "love", I'll say "love the one your with".

Peace,

David

 

Never claimed emotion was impossible. Merely claimed it had to come from somewhere in the brain--as science understands it--which is, ironically, all we have to go on. Surely you don't deny that?

That's right there is NO evidence.

I am quite aware of what a theory is. I don't see a theory as "unproven" and never stated that. I said "Evolution" is a "theory" and it is, but it is also backed up by tons of evidence.

Again, lay off the personal insults or I will turn this thread over to Skip & Co. STAY ON THE ISSUE, USE SARCASM IF YOU HAVE TO, BE NO MORE PERSONAL INSULTS. THAT IS CHILDISH and not any form of debate.

If you didn't see that my comment was dripping with sarcasm as I had stated "depends on your criteria" that is your problem, not mine.

LOL!!! You think sarcasm is immature, yet you continue to ATTEMPT to insult my intelligence when, in fact, you know nothing about me and can't seem to decipher sarcasm yourself.

Thank you. I know.

That's ok, man. I forgive you.

 

In that post all you said was that I was insulting you, when I was not. This post didn't address a single topic that I had mentioned. Humans love to claim victim to forces beyond their control, as you have so proven. Even if I was insulting you, crying about it is pathetic, be the better man and prove that you are intelligent.

Your entire thread was a personal insult to the vast majority, please don't act like such an innocent victim.

 

People who often talk of logic and coming from the brain

often are disconnected to their heart chakra

I have met a lot of men like this and ususally end up marrying em...

aaaarrghhhhhhhhh.......never again

 

I don't expect sarcasm to begin with. Do you think when scientists sit around a table to debate a topic they use sarcasm? As wity as you think it is, it's childish. Trying to discredit through sarcasm is incredibly weak, try taking a stronger approach by presenting actual evidence to disprove me or support your claims. I won't treat your sarcasm as such because it's uncalled for from the start.

But what I find comical is the fact that your sarcasm didn't even fit in the conversation. The 2+2 thing had absolutely no place in the conversation at all. How you even brought theory into this is beyond me. I claimed that graviton is theorized, and somehow you brought it out to play games.

I mean, the fact that you made up a quote from me pretty much lost any hope I had for a civilized conversation.

 

I give my life to my love first, logic second.

 

Haha! Indeed.