Do people have souls???

Recommended Videos

nuba km

New member
Jun 7, 2010
5,052
0
0
no and don't follow your heart because it just pumps blood through your body follow your mind. does that mean that our decision should be cold logic HELL no every emotion you feel is the same as before the fact is the stupid things people do is due to their brain any chose you have taken due to emotions is due to your brain when you cry due to lose that is due to your brain. your brain isn't cold logic it is everything you are complex, every emotion you will ever feel or have field, every memory you have and understanding it will find out the point of live not searching for some imaginary soul.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
I'm an atheist and I'm in no way spiritual so no, I don't believe there is a soul. I've got nothing against people who do believe that as long as they don't push their belief onto others.
 

Racecar1994

New member
Nov 21, 2009
107
0
0
Dags90 said:
Racecar1994 said:
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.
It's not an argument for our existence outside of our bodies and minds, just that our minds are not driven by physical events. It's a really flawed argument that can't answer important problems like how the supernatural aspects interact and affect the natural aspects/why physical altercation of the brain affects nonphysical mental states, and how non physical minds became associated with physical genetic lineages and at which point that occurred (or occurs). Do we get souls during conception? Birth?

Personally, I'm a non-dualist.
Hmm...surely if it's not driven by physical events, then then it IS an argument for our existence outside our bodies (given the language, however, it does not actually relate independance from the mind... in fact Descartes was even stated to have located the soul in...[stay on target])

I did state there were flaws with it, but nonetheless the fact that it is an a priori statement makes it really hard to ignore. I would like to hear some of these flaws you mentioned (or hinted at) fleshed out in more detail however.

Supernatural apects affecting natural aspects sounds interesting enough, but I believe that is more of a generalisation that (to some extent) includes the argument I mentioned (if you regard supernatural as something outside of our 'world') and the idea of non-physical activities affecting physical ones is just a development of theories founded on the idea of a soul, and of course that relates to Descartes' argument.

In conclusion, It seems to me that Descartes' argument IS indeed relevant to this topic (which is why I posted it in the first place), but I will admit that I took it fairly out of context when I said that the 'thinking thing' in the simplest form being the soul, although I believe that's how Descartes would have put it anyway, considering he is a theist.
 

thespis721

New member
Oct 18, 2010
41
0
0
Kind of reminds me of when I was reading about Albert Einstein. Apologies if this is in the thread but 100+ posting threads tend to cause my eyes to blur. He said that he believed that there were souls, but in a different context then religion. He said that energy cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore the energy in our bodies that starts us up is the soul and that when we die, that energy goes out into the universe, whether it be into plants or animals or whatever.

Not the most eloquent way for me to put out the point, but I'm sure you all get it.
 

Piction Froject

New member
Nov 11, 2010
122
0
0
No they dont they are hollow husks that are controlled by the radiation of the universe which then is isolated with in the husk and then molded to form an intelligent life form all very simple really.
 

MoeTheMonk

New member
Apr 26, 2010
136
0
0
You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
C. S. Lewis

I believe we all have souls, that's part of what makes humans unique.

And some things will never be proven by science. Having a soul is one of those things. I think it's pretty useless to even bring science up in these sorts of questions, because it's just an easy way out. "Well, we've never actually seen any souls, so... I guess they don't exist!" or "Well, you can't prove God exists, so... I guess he's out the picture too."
 

EldritchCarrot

New member
Nov 10, 2010
8
0
0
Really depends on how your defining soul, but I would say no as the burden of proof for some sorta "me-ness" that departs on death has not been met.
 

Kris015

Some kind of Monster
Feb 21, 2009
1,810
0
0
AceAngel said:
The question should be 'What is a soul?"....
Indeed.

I heard somewhere, or actually several places, that we lose 21 grams when we die. Dunno if it's true, but i could be the souls.
 
Jul 13, 2010
504
0
0
I would like to think so, but I'm not sure either way. For me it is connected to the issue of whether we can genuinely feel emotion for others, or whether we simply feel for them based on their influence on us, i.e. when a friend dies you feel sad because you will not be able to enjoy their friendship in the future rather then you fill sad for them directly. After a lot of thought and reasoning which, for the sake of not derailing the thread I won't put down here, I came to the conclusion that you are not emotionally limited to how things effect you, but can genuinely feel for others. It is mainly this conclusion that leads me to still harbour a belief that there may be some sort of other factor, such as a soul, in humanity. Also, I am an atheist, if it matters.
 

ArcWinter

New member
May 9, 2009
1,013
0
0
Nope.

It's that simple.

Did you know that personality doesn't actually exist? It is just a combination of memories and qenetic tendencies. True story!

althouqh that could be what personality is defined as you know what ill qive it the benefit of the doubt and just chanqe the definition of personality there we qo all set
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
The soul is a human made phenomenon based on nothing, but the belief that we're something mroe than animals.
We can feel love that makes us superior, we can feel joy, that makes us superior, we are humans therefor we have souls.

It's all a big load of bullshit if you ask me though. We believe in soul because of religion. Religion is created to explain things they lacked technology and knowledge to explain. The soul was created to understand why we weren't animals. The truth is that we are animals. We live based on instincts, but we've evolved more complex minds than any other species on Earth as far as we know. That's why we don't want to admit it. When we fall in love that's our instincts for reproduction kicking in. That makes the brain give us chemical signals on how we should feel.
The magic is dead for me, but I am glad some here can still believe in it. I hope that the cold dark world wont be enough to crush the minds of those who believe.


Irony said:
Edit: Oh and OP its "philosophy" and "philosophical". Don't mean to be a dick and I understand its an easy mistake to make, but I just wanted to let you know as your misspellings kinda bugged me.
He did apologize for the bad English up front.
 

Caliostro

Headhunter
Jan 23, 2008
3,253
0
0
Off course not. The very concept is ridiculous.

People don't honestly believe it either. It's like religions, people just fool themselves into pretending they believe it, because it's far more comfortable than the truth.
 

Kurokami

New member
Feb 23, 2009
2,352
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
1,154
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
3,368
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.