help me understand the difference

[NeoSioType]

between spirit and soul.

[Sornaensis]

A spirit can be used in place of Soul, but it can also refer to an attitude, i.e. Christmas Spirit, whereas a soul is an intangible object invented by humans to grant them immortality.

[Invader]

The spirit is oftentimes viewed as a non-physical manifestation of a soul. Native American belief in regards to natural spirits of the world (wolf spirits, hawk spirits, etc) demonstrate this. If you were see a ghost, for example, the ghost is not supposed to be the actual soul of the person. The spirit is there as a manifestation of that being's soul. Does that make sense? That's only some of the theory-crafting. I'm sure it gets plenty in depth, depending on how you define spirit to begin with. As A Roxxor said, it is sometimes used interchangeably with the soul.

[Zhaylin]

To me, soul = life (example- "200 souls were lost when the plane crashed"). To do something whole-souled would be to put your everything into it. Spirit = God's active force (or, magic for lack of a better word). It can also represent a moving attitude (as in, "The School's spirit helped the team win the game"). It also represents, to me, invisible spirit creatures (or demons). I don't believe people have an immortal spirit that lives on of it's own accord.

[DeathCell]

A spirit can be used in place of Soul, but it can also refer to an attitude, i.e. Christmas Spirit, whereas a soul is an intangible object invented by humans to grant them immortality. OR better yet. Soul is inside of you that certain humans tend to ignore or write off because they have no way to prove it yet at this point.. "Hops in time machine and realizes bacteria and DNA doesn't exist because they haven't been proven." Immortal in the sense that you die.. -.-

[Carôusoul]

OR better yet. Soul is inside of you that certain humans tend to ignore or write off because they have no way to prove it yet at this point.. "Hops in time machine and realizes bacteria and DNA doesn't exist because they haven't been proven." Immortal in the sense that you die.. -.- Well you can say that as justification for belief in anything then.

[DeathCell]

Well you can say that as justification for belief in anything then. Possibly, but belief in something doesn't mean you have a belief in just anything. My point was, he really has no proof either way.

[dajo]

The spirit of someone or something is its true form. (but it does depend on the context - it's still just a word)

[Carôusoul]

Possibly, but belief in something doesn't mean you have a belief in just anything. My point was, he really has no proof either way. True, No proof either way. What reason then is there to believe it? : s

[DeathCell]

True, No proof either way. What reason then is there to believe it? : s People have reasons, personal proof perhaps but nothing one can bring forth to this website to turn everyone into a believer. (That's what I meant by proof...) Like I said, no understanding of viruses, bacteria, etc.. doesn't make them not exist.

[acatalephobic]

I always thought that the spirit was what lives on after you die (i.e. a legacy, or the Native American connotation), whereas the soul is the intrinsic part of you when you're alive. But if you believe in reincarnation (at least the Hindu form I think), the soul gets transferred when one body dies. Depends on what you believe. So...yeah, I rarely give concrete answers. I tried.

[Sornaensis]

People have reasons, personal proof perhaps but nothing one can bring forth to this website to turn everyone into a believer. (That's what I meant by proof...) Like I said, no understanding of viruses, bacteria, etc.. doesn't make them not exist. Your logic doesn't work, though... You see, people didn't say "There are little animals living in the water supply!" before the invention of microscopes, they were only known about in any sense after we had the means to observe them. What you're doing is saying souls exist with no grounds for that statement, and then you refuse to justify yourself.

[DeathCell]

Your logic doesn't work, though... You see, people didn't say "There are little animals living in the water supply!" before the invention of microscopes, they were only known about in any sense after we had the means to observe them. What you're doing is saying souls exist with no grounds for that statement, and then you refuse to justify yourself. I wasn't trying to prove souls exist, someone asked what a soul is supposed to be and you came out and said they didn't exist. I said you have no proof either way. So what nonsense are you spouting about? My logic works very well, you have no proof they don't exist, I have no proof they do exist. I'll believe in them if I want, and you won't. But I won't force my belief on this forum, like you forced your unbelief in your post. whereas a soul is an intangible object invented by humans to grant them immortality. sarcastic and obnoxious.

[really]

What you're doing is saying souls exist with no grounds for that statement, and then you refuse to justify yourself. The spirit is not something objective "out there" that is to be measured or discovered. The spirit of Reality is the essence of Reality. In a complete statement: "I".

[Serkat]

"I" isn't a complete statement, it's a pronoun.

[really]

"I" isn't a complete statement, it's a pronoun. It can be used as a complete statement of Reality. Just like "Jump" can be a complete statement while being a verb.

[Sornaensis]

I wasn't trying to prove souls exist, someone asked what a soul is supposed to be and you came out and said they didn't exist. I said you have no proof either way. So what nonsense are you spouting about? My logic works very well, you have no proof they don't exist, I have no proof they do exist. I'll believe in them if I want, and you won't. But I won't force my belief on this forum, like you forced your unbelief in your post. sarcastic and obnoxious. Souls were invented by humans to grant themselves immortality. That is just the way it is. You can't prove inexistence anyway, because nonexistence can't be demonstrated.

[really]

You can't prove inexistence anyway, because nonexistence can't be demonstrated. Similarly, that which is innate to existence cannot be demonstrated after the fact that it is already self-demonstrating.

[NeoSioType]

In the future do not reply if it doesn't have anything to do with responding to my thread's purpose. Feel free to make you own thread... I'm just tired of hearing all these arguements over proof and whatnot.

[Serkat]

It can be used as a complete statement of Reality. Just like "Jump" can be a complete statement while being a verb. No.

[Sornaensis]

Similarly, that which is innate to existence cannot be demonstrated after the fact that it is already self-demonstrating. No. It can still be demonstrated. Everything that is true has supporting evidence behind it. Nothing that you may think is 'self-demonstrating' can't be demonstrated.

[DeathCell]

Souls were invented by humans to grant themselves immortality. That is just the way it is. You can't prove inexistence anyway, because nonexistence can't be demonstrated. That's not the way it is, but you can live in your own ignorance where you think you understand everything in the world. Existence is not an attribute. Existence is not something you can arbitrarily decide what to give it to and what not.. And you speak of this soul as if it is its own separate entity... You really have no clue. It's not really your place to decide what exists and what doesn't, and to assume to know how and why souls are talked about like you could possibly know is just arrogance. And don't ask why... All that you touch All that you see All that you taste All you feel All that you love All that you hate All you distrust All you save All that you give All that you deal All that you buy beg, borrow or steal All you create All you destroy All that you do All that you say All that you eat everyone you meet All that you slight everyone you fight All that is now All that is gone All that's to come And everything under the sun is in tune But the sun is eclipsed by the moon. There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark.

[really]

No. It can still be demonstrated. Everything that is true has supporting evidence behind it. Nothing that you may think is 'self-demonstrating' can't be demonstrated. How? My point obviously alludes to that which cannot be demonstrated. E.g. Existence itself.

[O'nus]

How? My point obviously alludes to that which cannot be demonstrated. E.g. Existence itself. This is really digressing the thread into his own views about existence rather than sticking to the topic of spirit and the self. Try to bring this thread back on track. ~

[really]

This is really digressing the thread into his own views about existence rather than sticking to the topic of spirit and the self. Try to bring this thread back on track. ~ If you followed this thread, you might see that what I just said is related to my mention of the spirit. Otherwise, maybe you could contribute usefully?