Simple enough question.

And if they do, how can you tell them apart?

If the soul exists, it likely does not have a gender. Gender is more attached to a physical being, not so much a spiritual one.

If the soul exists, it likely does not have a gender. Gender is more attached to a physical being, not so much a spiritual one.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
Yes, I answered it even though it's likely a troll.

Yes, I answered it even though it's likely a troll.

What I mean is that souls most certainly do have a gender. Gender is a definitive characteristic of a person's personality and emotional existence, it's not just a physical thing.

As if anyone had a fucking clue...

Anyone who answers that question is talking out of their ass. Enter Rolloffle, Totse troll extraordinaire.

As if anyone had a fucking clue...

Anyone who answers that question is talking out of their ass.

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner.

Was going to ask to have a description of what a soul looks like also in OP but that woulda gave it away.

If souls don't have genders, is there a special soul pronoun, or is it just it?

I suppose gender would follow through with a state of mind. I can't help but think it would be harder to tell when there is no body present, though.

Better question... Do souls really exist, and what are they?

From what little I managed to understand of it souls are basically an intangible imprint of a person. A person consists of both body and any supra-corporeal intellect. Bodies have genders (in the vast majority of cases), so if souls exist I would expect them to have a gender, a gender corresponding to the originating person.

I would think the soul to be androgynous. Maybe it's more complex then male and female... I'll post my reasoning later and expand on the idea, but right now I'm hungry.

Better question... Do souls really exist, and what are they?

From what little I managed to understand of it souls are basically an intangible imprint of a person. A person consists of both body and any supra-corporeal intellect. Bodies have genders (in the vast majority of cases), so if souls exist I would expect them to have a gender, a gender corresponding to the originating person.

But what if that soul came from somewhere else first i.e. reincarnation

One's soul, one's essential Self, is pure intelligence/energy/spirit and hence transcends gender.

Over the years, of course, one will reincarnate as various genders and/or sexual orientations.

One's soul, one's essential Self, is pure intelligence/energy/spirit and hence transcends gender.

There is zero evidence to show that "One's soul, one's essential Self..." exists as anything more than a figment of one's imagination. Claiming that it "transcends gender" can be nothing more than an unsupported assertion, based on wishful thinking.

Over the years, of course, one will reincarnate as various genders and/or sexual orientations.

Arms, you are making assertions that are impossible for you to support. There is no logical reason to consider that a *soul* , or any form of consciousness can exist independent of a living being.

A soul has whatever else you can imagine it having. Fantasy land is good like that.

if your soul is you then wouldn't it have your characteristics? how could it be androgynous unless your personality was androgynous? furthermore if a soul is pure knowledge why the hell isnt everyone geniuses?

There is zero evidence to show that "One's soul, one's essential Self..." exists as anything more than a figment of one's imagination. Claiming that it "transcends gender" can be nothing more than an unsupported assertion, based on wishful thinking.



Arms, you are making assertions that are impossible for you to support. There is no logical reason to consider that a *soul* , or any form of consciousness can exist independent of a living being.


I speak from personal experience.

No offense intended Arms, but it is much more probable that your *personal experience* falls under the category of delusion, or simply misinterpreting an experience as being something more than it was.

*Move to make Arms the moderator of Half Baked* If he made such claims that weren't religious in nature, he would certainly be labeled clinically insane. Unfortunately, religious nutjobs get a free pass on delusional experiences...

*sigh*What unevolved people...

^ I share your frustration... Belief in souls is so archaic!

True, we all create our own reality. But in mine, I have the sure and certain knowledge that everyone who argues with me now will agree with me later--they may not attain unity consciousness until after they die, but hey--better late than never.

I remember some of my past lives as clearly as I recall what I had for breakfast yesterday--but I have no proof, no evidence for either.

Over the years, I have done many past life readings for clients, some of which were rather amazing. If I am deluded, it is a delusion shared by many.

One of the HUna principles stets that effectiveness is th measure of truth. The ideas that I espouse work for me, and work for everyone else I know who accepts them. As some of you know, my living circumstances are austere. Iresdie in a 10x12 foot cabin with no running water, drive a seventeen year old car, eat food and wear clothing I get out of a dumpster, and live with pain, poverty, disablilty and squalor on a daily basis. Yet I am far happier, more fullfilled than I was when I had a high-paying job, health insurance, and many expensive toys that so many consider essential for happiness.

On an almost daily basis, I get evidence that the universe itself is conspiring to fulfill my every desire--sometimes in small ways, sometimes in larger ways.

But it is essential to transcend the superstition of materialism.

Those asking for scientific proof of reincarnation have probably never heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson (http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm)

"Either he [Dr. Stevenson] is making a colossal mistake. Or he will be known as the Galileo of the 20th century." Dr Harold Lief in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease


"Probably the best known, if not most respected, collection of scientific data that appears to provide scientific proof that reincarnation is real, is the life's work of Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life. Dr. Ian Stevenson uses this approach because spontaneous past life memories in a child can be investigated using strict scientific protocols. Hypnosis, while useful in researching into past lives, is less reliable from a purely scientific perspective. In order to collect his data, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements of a previous life. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories."


If this doesn't allow you people to realize that something amazing is occurring here, then I'm sorry that you are unable to adapt your beliefs to adjust to the reality of this information.

Those asking for scientific proof of reincarnation have probably never heard of Dr. Ian Stevenson (http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm)

"Either he [Dr. Stevenson] is making a colossal mistake. Or he will be known as the Galileo of the 20th century." Dr Harold Lief in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease


"Probably the best known, if not most respected, collection of scientific data that appears to provide scientific proof that reincarnation is real, is the life's work of Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life. Dr. Ian Stevenson uses this approach because spontaneous past life memories in a child can be investigated using strict scientific protocols. Hypnosis, while useful in researching into past lives, is less reliable from a purely scientific perspective. In order to collect his data, Dr. Stevenson methodically documents the child's statements of a previous life. Then he identifies the deceased person the child remembers being, and verifies the facts of the deceased person's life that match the child's memory. He even matches birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records. His strict methods systematically rule out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories."


If this doesn't allow you people to realize that something amazing is occurring here, then I'm sorry that you are unable to adapt your beliefs to adjust to the reality of this information.


Something amazing does appear to be occuring here. This is not proof of reincarnation or proof of a soul by any stretch of the imagination. This is evidence or a symptom of something we do not understand yet. It could be genetic memory and nothing more. It is interesting to read, and I feel it deserves more scientific study before anyone jumps to conclusions, but you're on the right track trusting in science such as this.

Yeah, it's that they can't adapt to the "reality of the information", not that the evidence is lacking and has many problems with it... :rolleyes:

1. We can observe cultural trends in what people reported to him. That is, we observe that in cultures where certain phenomenon of reincarnation is a common belief that phenomenon is reported, in places where it isn't a belief, is isn't reported! Does reincarnation magically conform to our culture? It's much more reasonable to say that these people are being biased by their culture into reporting falsehoods than it is to say for example, that Indians magically have different reincarnations than the Chinese, or Americans.

One example of such cultural beliefs is whether the souls await some time in a different plane or dimension, or do they reincarnate immediately.

2. Many times he investigates these claims years after they supposedly occurred (sometimes even more than a decade afterwards). While that is not something he's doing on purpose - I imagine it's hard to hear of the claims, track down the people and properly interview them - it still means there is a pretty big window of opportunity for someone to fake the claim by feeding the child information.


3. He provides absolutely no valid explanation of how reincarnation can possible work or why we should believe in reincarnation and not some other equally paranormal explanation.


There are many other objections to his research. You can find some of them here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n5_v18/ai_16334412


Sorry but critical thinking trumps your obvious desire to believe these things. If you read his research critically you'd see there are many reasons to doubt this so-called "evidence".

^ I share your frustration... Belief in souls is so archaic!

I was actually commenting on the two posts above me. There's not much reason to argue about whether or not souls exist, good research won't be done anytime soon. This also calls into question why you shouldn't trust personal experience. Ultimately you can't really verify anything.

I assumed as much. I was turning that silly one liner you made against you.

In other words, if anyone here is not "evolved" it sure as fuck isn't those who wan actual evidence for beliefs.

Well duh, i'm just saying that Arms does have experience, so it's fine for him to believe this stuff.
I'll reserve judgment until later, but it's certainly possible that Arms is right. If I saw a ghost(poltergeist) and it actually physically damaged me I wouldn't assume that it somehow transcended scientific laws or that I was hallucinating unless I had a good reason to do so.

Duh? Then why the hell are they "unevolved" ( :rolleyes: )? Because they doubt what AM said, given that absolutely no evidence has been provided?

Biological sex is thought to attribute to gender as society believes, thats not the case why else on certain sites do they ask your gender and there maybe an option for "Not Sure." Biologically you know your male or female but gender is more so how you act even that is stereotypical for me to say. However, a soul is androgynous attributing both qualities of masculine and feminine.

When I say Masculine I dont mean he has a dick and a pair I mean Masculine attributes such as Reasoning and Protection. When I say Feminine I dont mean she has a puss and a pair o' boobs I mean Feminine qualities such as Intuition and Caring.

Arms, you are making assertions that are impossible for you to support. There is no logical reason to consider that a *soul* , or any form of consciousness can exist independent of a living being.

"Truth is truth. It can be neither proven nor disproven. It just is." -- Neil Donald Walsch

Spirituality transcends logic. Logic uses words, the language of the mind. Spirituality is more about feelings and intuition--the language of the soul.

"Truth is truth. It can be neither proven nor disproven. It just is." -- Neil Donald Walsch

Spirituality transcends logic. Logic uses words, the language of the mind. Spirituality is more about feelings and intuition--the language of the soul.

Yes, truth is truth. That it cannot be proven nor disproven is not true when applied to positive assertions (such as your remembering "some of my past lives as clearly as I recall what I had for breakfast yesterday".

If your memories of past lives are anything more than simply figments of your imagination, you should have little trouble proving such to be the case. You would know many, many facts about your previous life that could be verified today to demonstrate the truth of your assertions. I could continue on with more examples, but I'm sure you get the point.

If an assertion (such as the existance of the soul or any other similar claim) cannot be proven true, and there exists no emperical evidence in support of said assertion, any claim of truth to such assertion is useless and is not worth consideration.