Do people have souls???

[Guffe]

My thoughts about this is pretty tricky...

I believe there is another dimension which has with "souls/ghosts" to do but that's as far as it goes. I don't think we should interfere with it nor do I hope to know how it works until I eventually get there. Leaving it there might sound strange to many but this is how I think.

I believe we have souls, but not as in floating invisible chain raging phenomenons but I actually have the definition of a soul like this. I had the thought for a long time before but I got the way to phrase it from a Manga I read (that I found by accident) and this is how it goes.
By having a healthy body, you can obtain a healthy mind which together is the soul. (Soul Eater)
Basically my view of the soul is the body and mind together. I have no arguments on how I came to this decision this is just something I think and it works for me.

 

[Hiraeth]

I once heard/read somewhere a description of the soul that basically defined it as meaning or purpose. The example given was that a knife's purpose is to cut, so if it had a soul, it's soul would be to cut. It's an imperfect example, mostly because I can't remember the whole analogy. What I take from that is that a person's soul is the meaning and purpose their life has. If you call someone a soulless bastard, then you're implying that they're horrible precisely because their life is shallow and meaningless, because they have no deeper purpose. If you see depictions of people in fiction who have lost their souls or had them removed, they're barely a reflection of their former selves. Take, for example, the vampires in Buffy - all they have are instinctual emotions, hunger, rage, lust, because when they're turned into vampires they lose their souls and thus their deeper purpose and more complex emotions. I guess by that logic, it's a soul that separates humans from animals, and thus for me it has more to do with understandings of consciousness and self awareness than actually being a tangible thing.

Anyway that's part of what having a soul means to me, and so I believe that yes, humans do have souls. I hope that made some sense, I'm in the middle of an all-nighter, and I'm just about to get another caffeine hit to keep my brain on track...

EDIT: So I hit up google, and apparently the guy with the knife was Aristotle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Aristotle if anyone was wondering.

 

[Twilight_guy]

1. There is no scientific evidence against souls either so science can make no claims either way.
2. Please explain to me how every part of the brain works, I really would like to know seeing as how even the best neurologist doesn't know everything.
3. I'm a Catholic and I believe souls exist, doesn't means its true. This is a bad argument.

You can argue anyway you like but you need something a little more solid and fleshed out then what you have here. I could probably tear theses weak arguments to shreds. Use more specifics in the paper. Also, analysis the consciousness since that will undoubtedly be an interesting topic with regards to the soul.

 

[The Funslinger]

I hope so, or I've been trading people's deepest desires for nothing all these years. Acting talent, anyone?

 

[sgtshock]

I believe our minds and personalities are nothing more than the chemical and electric signals whizzing through our brain. However, I've never seen anyone explain what our consciousness is. Our brains are essentially squishy computers that react based on what they see and do, right?. So what's so special about the electric signals in our head that let's us "experience" life, as opposed to a non-living computer?

Until science has an adequate way of explaining what consciousness physically is, then I think souls are a possibility.

 

[spartan231490]

I like to think we do, because I like to think when we die, we turn into ghosts. And a ghost would be that person's personality but with the body missing. So, basically, their soul.

I don't have any evidence to back this up, it's just nicer thinking this than thinking I hang about for 60 or so more years, kick the bucket and then face eternity in nothingness.

As house says, and I'm paraphrasing, there is no solid evidence either way to prove or disprove that we have souls. therefore, I choose to believe that which is most comforting to me. Personally, i don't think that you can explain free will away by causality of chemical reactions and simple physics. I choose to believe that my choices are my own, and not simply the result of chemical reactions, because I believe that I have the power to make choices, and not be a slave to the chemical reactions that happen to take place in the brain.

 

[Fidelias]

I believe that the answer's a bit more complicated than just yes or no. On the one hand, you're, correct. A lot of the things we feel and do can be explained by chemicals and our environment. But it's hard to believe that all we are is just a bunch of instinct-driven animals. I don't know, and I'll never know, at least for a long time (I hope).

Anyways, this is kinda deppressing, I'm gonna go and shoot some stuff in a video-game now, bye.

 

[omega 616]

Nope, it's just electricity and up bringing. Electricty causes chemicals in your noodle to be released causing you to act, with some involvment from how you were raised.

For example, one person broght up in a strict house will hide there anger, while a person an expressive house might lash out.

 

[Fraught]

So i have to do this essay on souls for my philosofy class, and i just wanted to hear some differtent views on the case.

I dont think we have souls and that were just animals, biological robots, doing what our brains tells us to do with the help of pheromones, hormones etc. I base this on 3 things:
1 There is no scientific proof suggesting we have souls
2 Almost everything we feel can be explained by chemicals in our head (and other parts ). Even things such as love and affection.
3 I'm an atheist therefore i believe the excistance of souls would also open up a possibility for the excistance of deities.

What do you think + arguments for your opinion.
Have Fun!
(remember, this is a philosofical argument. No hating on other people for their believes etc)
Excuse me for my crappy English.

Ha, I did an essay on...well, to be honest it was on artificial intelligence, but I kind of segued into a self-discussion about souls.

In any case, I share your view. Both about souls (or the lack thereof) and your religious views (or, considering you're an atheist, the lack thereof).

 

[Hosker]

No, we have brains.

 

[MassiveGeek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNau_Cdll3w [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNau_Cdll3w] watch this.

...and then this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2Z0Iq29EUA

I'm sorry, I couldn't follow very well what he was saying, I had trouble hearing with his accent. ): What I did hear was interesting though.

But what's your point?

 

[Ampersand]

I think some have souls. But to me a soul is more of a purpose then a spiritual presence. There are people who have a purpose but no soul because their heart has been filled with greed or power. Thats just my thought though.

This is one of the problems that i have with the word soul, everyone seems to have a different meaning for it.
I would refer to what you just described as ones Bushido(or in my case Aikido), but that's just me.

 

[Ampersand]

actually, who cares? And what would it change? After all it all depends on definition.

Now that's a very good point.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well from my current knowledge I would say that souls as is our idea of them do not exist, everything we are is defined by our body, the definition may be beyond our grasp and appear mystical but lack of knowledge should never be viewed as proof of something supernatural.

But let's go completely sci-fi for a moment:
- we are physical/material living thinking machines
- and all matter is also energy(as we are slowly grasping though quantum physics)
- so could a purely energy based machine exist?
- if so, there could also be a energy based "creatures"
- as such these could be considered souls, or creatures of greater power even deities
- but would you call that a god?
Anyway I do not deny the possibility of souls or deities, but right now I have no proof of either, nor does anyone else(no matter how hard they believe).

 

[Zefar]

If we gonna define souls from a Bible perspective it's most likely issued to anything that isn't an animal.

Problem is. We humans are monkeys, we're the only monkey that likes to think we're not monkeys. Monkeys are animals and animals don't have souls(According to bible.).

Problem solved.

Also electricity that the brain uses need substance to travel through the body, there is no way to just have a brain floating in what would look like nothing or going by like a blue form of our older self. It's physically and scientifically impossible.

If we had a soul we would most likely be able to detect it upon death. Matter doesn't just disappear people, it's the basic law of science. Something needs to go somewhere.

There is also this huge thing where religious people have never been able to provide a single piece of evidence that proves their God exist. If they can't prove the biggest and most powerful being in the entire universe we can easily assume souls do not exist because they're a byproduct of his creations.
Now you may ask what they could do. Simple, pray to their God to tell everyone on earth at once that he exist. They've tried to do but he's never done it.

But we evolved and wasn't created so this really isn't up to debate.

Conclusion: We don't have souls. We're just intelligent and have a high ego where we like to think we where made for something more important.
http://www.pown.it/5183
It's awesome.

 

[geldonyetich]

Whether or not people have souls is something I'd not expect to be decided on an Internet forum thread... but I would expect it to be a likely fuse to set off a flamewar.

 

[Racecar1994]

Rene Descartes was roughly thinking about this when he was trying to prove, for certain, that something in this world is undoubtedly real.

This was because alot of what we know about the world comes from our senses, but i'm sure alot of people have experienced a moment in their lives where their senses and sense impressions have deceived them.

Senses are fallible; can anyone prove, with a priori knowledge (information that is true by definition and/or is not dependant on sense impressions ie: all bachelors are unmarried), that what they see, hear, smell, etc is what is most definitely true?

Rene Descartes was fairly distressed during his attempts because as soon as he took everything that is doubtable off his table, he couldn't put a damn thing back on... that is until he thought about something more introspective and, finally, he could prove the existence of something a priori: that HE existed.

Have you ever heard the phrase "I think, therefore I am"? That's the basic summary of his theory. He stated that to be deceived of the truth, there must be something to be deceived, otherwise nothing is being deceived and thus no deceiving is taking place. Therfore, in the smplest form there must be somthing that is deceived; something that exists beyond a shadow of a doubt: he is thinking about being deceived, he is a thinking thing.

Of course, this can be hard to believe, and even the theory itself has flaws, but it is the best a priori argument for our existence outside of our bodies and minds (bodies and parts of it are still fallible)and thus the existence of a soul is best explained by this statement.