Do people have souls???

Recommended Videos

Kurokami

New member
Feb 23, 2009
2,347
0
0
Danzaivar said:
Rhymenoceros said:
Hmm. I have never actually thought about it before...
I guess there is no evidence for people having souls so really there isn't anything for me to think that, however I find the idea that we're just slaves to chemicals in our bodies slightly disturbing.

I'm gonna go sit in a corner and think now
possibly going insane
Slaves to chemicals is a harder pill to swallow than being slaves to some energy plasma goop thing (a soul)?
I assume he just believes in 'free will', not that a soul carries us around and tells us what to do. Course there's no reason why being controlled by biological factors reacting to external factors such as the way we were raised and whatever situations lie before us has to be seen as 'being controlled' instead of simply 'operating'. It is who we are.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,153
0
0
WaderiAAA said:
DarthFennec said:
I don't see why people would have souls. As OP stated, we can explain everything that goes on in the mind and body without referencing the soul. There's no evidence for or against a soul, to the point where we can't actually describe what it is without referencing the afterlife. So whether you believe in souls or not really depends on whether you take comfort in the idea of an afterlife or not. I personally would not like to live forever after I die, so I don't believe in souls.
For some reason, this doesn't seem right to me. If you had said that you don't believe in an afterlife, thus you don't believe in a soul it would make sense, but what you are basically saying is that you don't believe in it because you don't want it to be true.
I don't see how those arguments differ. You're suggesting that `I believe in an afterlife, therefore I believe in souls' is a more sensible argument than `I believe in an afterlife because I want to, therefore I believe in souls'?

I see only one reason for me to believe in an afterlife or not, and that is the fact that I may want to or not. Do you profess belief in or against things, against your will? I don't see why you would.

Also, there is no reason that I can conceive where belief in an afterlife could be advantageous to someone, besides of course if they take comfort in the idea. To put it simply, the afterlife doesn't affect us until we die. After we die, on the other hand, we'll know for sure if there is an afterlife, so there is no longer an argument about it. At no point does the question of the afterlife matter at all, and therefore there is no reason to believe in one except for the fact that you might want to.

I hope that made sense.
 

The Austin

New member
Jul 20, 2009
3,367
0
0
I think of the soul as a mental state. Kinda like Inception. (Christopher Nolan stole my idea, dammit!)
 

Gamblerjoe

New member
Oct 25, 2010
322
0
0
Im going to try to actually be philisophical here, but thb i dont think i even know what that means. as a typican layman, i know what i THINK it means, but i have never taken a class on it or even spoken to anyone who claims to be an expert on the subject. anyway im just going to do some critical thinking.

If we have sould why do we need bodies? If we have sould, what becomes of our conciousness and memories after we die. Lets start by assuming that everyting we know about anatomy and phisiology is correct (just to simplify things). We know that memories are stored in the cerebral cortex. Though we dont really understand the nature of this storage medium, we know that memoris form chains, linking to similar memories. As we store more and more memories, our brains have to work harder to move down the chain of memories to get to the one we want. This is food for another topic all together: if our physical bodies where immortal would we go crazy or develop mega-alzymers due to the overwhelming number of memories our brains would eventually have to sift through to remember how to tie our shoes? this seems extreme, but its a fact that a 3rd stage alzymers patient can enter a room and forget how to get out. From what iv been told, alzymers, like most brain diseases, isn't well understood. The basic theory is that over a lifetime the brain gets jammed up like a PC full of porn thats never been defragged or had its regisry repaired.

So, what if we live on after casting away our capable but obviously flawed brains? Do we keep our memories, and transfer them into some other storage system? Do we keep learning and observing, adding more to this new and infinitely superior storage system? Do we still feel? Do we still have a sense of smell without a physical nose? Do we care? Do we even retain any kind of conciousness or do we just turn into Mako energy? All of our experiences, motivations, and outlook are based on our physical bodies and brain chemicals. Because of dopamine, eating is something we look forward to, rather than being a tedious daily routine. etc. etc. you get where im going with this.

im a big fan of Occam's Razor. the idea of a soul was invented by man, along with many other myths that by now have been debunked. even though we cant disprove the existence of a soul, its still sitting in a category of far fetched ideas which served a very real and practical purpose for the people spreading them. Its not a guarantee, but the most likely scenario is fairly obvious when the concept came from the lips of the same people who excommunicated scientists for trying to learn through experimentation rather than reading scripture.
 

Caliostro

Headhunter
Jan 23, 2008
3,253
0
0
Tsaba said:
There is "Scientific Proof" and then there are "theories," science has theories for darn near everything, but, it doesn't mean it has the answers
Bad "theory" there. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove souls don't exist, or god doesn't exist, or that I'm not wearing a gigantic 60 ft tall hat made entirely of platinum and diamonds. That's why we take the different approach: we prove things exist. Burden of proof falls on the claimer. "Innocent till proven guilty" wasn't randomly decided.

That said, science has carefully constructed theories based on meticulous and replicable evidence... Religions have...... ? Oh yeah, nothing.
 
Sep 9, 2010
1,597
0
0
Coudln't it be said that ones soul is the compalation of all those chemicals, feelings, ones upbringing, etc. mashed together and what comes out is a sum greater than the total of its parts?
 

Karakasa

New member
Nov 13, 2010
25
0
0
Well the proper Hebrew translation of the soul is person. So people don't have souls they are souls.
 

Zigot66

New member
Aug 21, 2009
49
0
0
First I should note that, I have done a lot of thinking about multidimensional existence, so my argument is based heavily on the idea that there are dimensions beyond the ones we are aware of, and that they interact with us in ways that we do not yet understand. If you have trouble wrapping your mind around the idea of dimensions beyond our own, I would suggest taking a look at Edwin A Abbott's "Flatland", even if you're not interested, it is still a great read.

Second, in this argument I assume that living matter is somehow different from inanimate matter.

Third, the English language is very poorly suited to this sort of discussion, so some words are not truly accurate, but are the best approximation that I can think of.

Fourth, though I will state that this is my opinion or that it is my belief, what follows is just an idea that I have tinkered with for a while, it just comes out better if I write it as a personal profession of belief rather than a statement of theory or fact.

Okay, so, it is my opinion that everything since the initial creation of the our known universe has occurred in its own time and by its own method, that is, without the willful intervention of any higher beings. Eventually, life formed, whether here first (I find that very unlikely) or elsewhere, matter elevated itself (or was elevated), from inanimate to animate. When this happened, or perhaps because it happened, extra-dimensional consciousness was able to permeate our physical dimension and (Again, I believe that this is not a willful act but a sort of natural order. Think water bleeding through tissue rather than fingers poking through.) become linked to the newly formed organisms.

Every living being is linked to this entity (or entities, but the concept of one vs many may not apply). This is what forms the "observer" part of our own consciousness, the part that sees through our eyes, hear through our ears, and so on, but is also able to "look" back through our memories and perhaps to deal with emotions. The observer is present in all living beings, but is restricted by the tools it is given, smaller brains would mean less complexity, which would mean less capability, along with other factors like sensory organs and "output" methods (fingers capable of fine motions, vocal chords capable of a range of sounds, bio-luminescence, etc).

When an organism dies, the consciousness is forced back out, or perhaps simply recedes, leaving dead matter, the shell of the being. Since the memories and personality are stored physically, I would assume that they are lost at death, though it could be possible that something would be transferred along with the receding consciousness.

So to finally address the point, the soul of an individual is just a part of a much larger entity that exists beyond us, but forms our own consciousness and the consciousness of all other living organisms.


I will not make any attempts to say that this idea is ironclad (It is anything but), but I find it an interesting thought experiment if nothing else. I would like to say that any debate over complex ideas, is good, anything that gets your brain working in a way that it normally wouldn't. However anyone who answers immediately and without serious thought is doing themselves and all of society a great disservice, you owe it to yourself to entertain the idea, even if it's just to get the gears moving, but who knows, you may have a revelation, that gives you new insight on the world.
 

ANImaniac89

New member
Apr 21, 2009
953
0
0
loc978 said:
ANImaniac89 said:
To me your logic is flawed and pointless.
Even if the soul is just an idea. its a good idea, It keeps people human and prevents a cold machine like existence. It makes men in to brothers and allow for
sympathy to the downtrodden. It prevents me form reaching over the counter and stabbing that fucking clerk at the gas station that makes comments and gives me shit every time I buy smokes.
...so long as you realize that you're basically decrying logic itself (at least in the case of this one argument), I can respect that opinion.
but thats just it the concept of the soul is illogical because it deals with pure emotion (at least in my view) and emotions are some of the most illogical concepts in all of existence. they are the force that lets you love the one who betrayed you or hate the father you never knew.

but in all that illogical chaos the concept of a soul has meaning, and when all is said and done its all you have, when all the bullshit of this modern world is peeled away and you are left with nothing but the purest feelings known to the human heart and the cold ugly truth underneath it all reviled and you know without a shadow of a doubt just how meaningless human life is.
I like to think that the concept of the soul would keep you sane.
 

MetalGenocide

New member
Dec 2, 2009
494
0
0
The discussion cannot start, until it is explained, what a soul is in the first place.
Since a clear definition has never been analyzed/agreed on/discovered, ever, by anyone, It is most likely, non existent. Therefore the shortest answer is:
We don't have them, since such a thing has never been proven to exist. Also the word has no actual meaning.
 

SuperSuperSuperGuy

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,200
0
0
We are just animals at the core. No more. We do what we're programmed to. However, our intelligence and complex mental development kind of change our programming. We are individual and we have a personality, but we are still slaves to our hormones and mental programming.
 

Snake Plissken

New member
Jul 30, 2010
1,373
0
0
Axeli said:
Greyfox105 said:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
I'm really tired of explaining basic logic to people, so here's the short version:

Pink Invisible Unicorn. Disprove.
Thank you. I was going to write some long, convoluted response to the OP but this serves as quite a good summation.

I generally don't tie "souls" to theism because a deity would be able to impart his/her/it's will and change the course of action, as that is how a deity is generally defined (omnipotent, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-seeing, can manifest in physical form, etc.) A soul, as I understand it, wouldn't be any more animate than, say, your spleen. I can argue against the existence of a deity based on inferred truths about the world, but I can't in regards to a soul. In thousands of years of life and death, humanity has provided no conclusive OR inconclusive evidence for a soul. We can't rule them out, but we can be PRETTY SURE they don't exist.

We can't conclude that Pink Invisible Unicorns don't exist, but I'm PRETTY SURE there aren't any.
 

Dags90

New member
Oct 27, 2009
4,680
0
0
Icarion said:
Coudln't it be said that ones soul is the compalation of all those chemicals, feelings, ones upbringing, etc. mashed together and what comes out is a sum greater than the total of its parts?
Yes, but it could also be said that a soul is a jar of peanut butter.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,897
0
0
to any who want a definition of the word "soul" in this context:

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soul (removed out of context definitions)
soul, noun \ˈsōl\
Definition of SOUL

1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
3: a person's total self

.

glean from that what you will.
 

Jackhorse

New member
Jul 4, 2010
200
0
0
Axeli said:
Greyfox105 said:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
I'm really tired of explaining basic logic to people, so here's the short version:

Pink Invisible Unicorn. Disprove.
If its invisible it can't be pink. Um... BAAYM?

(Didn't read all of the posts after so you might have already had this reply)