Do people have souls???

[Mr.logic]

What was the saying...?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?
I think that works here. Right now, we have no way of proving we have souls, or we have no souls.
As such, I keep an open mind. Maybe we do, maybe we don't.
Doesn't stop me from using them as a commodity.

makes alought of sense. I beileve we do have souls because simply dying then nothing happens for eternity is the most terryfing thing I have ever heard.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

"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)

It is magical, and therefore the normal reactions of light and color to one's eye do not apply to seeing it.

Disprove!

OT: I really don't know. I don't believe in an afterlife, though a few of them sound rather.. interesting. However, with the absence of evidence for most of any of the concepts, I'll go with the standard "It probably doesn't exist" for the time being.

That is all.

 

[Wintermoot]

just like with deities we dont have prove that a soul/deiti exist nor do we have prove a soul/deiti doesnt exist. In short it could go either ways

 

[Danzaivar]

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.

But people here chemical reactions and think 'theyre controlling us' not 'thats who we are'. With souls though theyre 'thats who we are' rather than 'its controlling us'.

Why the double standard?!

 

[Unesh52]

A Physical body.
A Mind/Soul(also our Self or Personality).
And then a Spirit.

Though im the type of person who doesn't rule things out because of a lack of evidence, especially a lack of evidence both ways.

What is a "spirit" then?

If it's being used simply as a synonym for "personality," then I think that yes, souls do exist. I want to point out, however, that in that case, they are not objects, they are compilations of traits. This seems inconsistent with the conventional usage of "soul," so I don't think it's a responsible definition of the word.

And you're right: it would be improper to say something absolutely doesn't exist because there is no supporting evidence. But are you the type to accept something in spite of a lack of evidence?

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.

See above about the definition of "soul" as a synonym for "personality." A personality is a collection of traits. They can't exist all on their own -- that doesn't make any sense. Trying to imagine someone's personality floating around is like trying to imagine "fast" waltzing in to your living room. It's an adjective, a descriptor. Without physical substance to attribute it to, the word is meaningless.

I believe we have souls and aren't just slaves to chemical reactions in our head. I could bring in the Frankenstein argument, but that's still lacking a bit more evidence on my part along with the fact that someone might just pounce at me and try to tear me a new one with their belief and what not.

To me a Human's personality is more than just a conditioned set of emotions and thoughts that makes us who we are. I dare say spiritual, but once again I'd be enticing the Troll cannons and flaming.

You may fire at me when ready....I got enough of a headache today ¬_¬

Come on dude, you shouldn't have to deal with a bunch of troll bull shit here. That's not what this place is about. That's for 4chan. State yourself without censor and leave the trolls for the mods.

That being said, I disagree. What I hear you saying is that aside from chemical impulses/conditioning, there is another factor that informs our decisions, namely a soul. The big question here for me is what the thing would be. What phenomenon constitutes a "soul?" Is it a big glowy light? Or a ball of mucus? Or some sort of invisible prod extending from the back of your head to the nearest star? How might we observe this "soul?" Here, I'll meet you half way. If you could sufficiently argue that there are facets of human behavior that cannot be explained by modern medicine, psychology, or sociology, then I would be cool with labeling this unknown influence a "soul," with the condition that you accept we know absolutely nothing about it (besides the fact that it is responsible for the anomalous behavior, by definition).

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.

You speak of "chemical reactions" as if they are some foreign thing that bends you to it's will. I think that's off. The idea that physical things make you do what you do just means that actions are predictable; it doesn't mean the decisions are somehow less yours. And the existence of a soul doesn't seem that different from being directed by chemical impulses. Regardless of it's composition or origin, the soul must direct you by some set of rules or precedent, just like chemicals. In fact, the soul sounds infinitely more arbitrary in it's purpose and design, given the common explanations. I'm finding this difficult to explain, do I make myself clear enough?

[HEADING=1]Le'me sum this up a bit:[/HEADING]

The big problem I'm having with accepting the existence of "souls" is that no one seems to be sure what they are in the first place. I might as well be disproving "flurbs" for all the hint the word "soul" gives me. I can certainly say that if it's defined as a collection of personality traits, then it doesn't make sense when used in the sense of a physical object, as in "I saw his soul leave his body," or "His soul went to the great beyond." To claim it's existence by redefining it and then using it however you want is equivocating, a fallacy.

And these I just thought were funny:

I'm pretty sure all the women I've ever had a relationship with don't...

At first I was like

...but then I's sad for you...

I sold mine to Santa, so no.

lol wut? How did you sell something that doesn't exist? And did you mean Santa? Or Satan? (I just realized they were anagrams, woah.)

Yep. You know the idea of "I think, therefore, I am"? It's like that. We all are aware of ourselves, that could be because we have souls.

Also, I'm a Christian, so...

...you're not obligated to give evidence for your assertions?

I'm just kidding, lol. I thought it was odd for you to add that at the end there. It's like going, "Yeah I think that, because... well, I think that."

 

[kouriichi]

My relife isnt religious, nor is it based in science.

I belive a persons soul is his Personality. Your soul is who you are. When your personality changes, your soul dies alittle. Like when you try to change to be with a person. You feel sick with yourself. You give off an "aura" ((really the only way to put it)) that others can feel.

You might have noticed this after someone joined the army, or went to bootcamp. They just arnt the same. The person you knew is really gone. Theyer soul changed to the point its sick, and just not the same.

We can all pick up on peoples souls. Its easy to notice in schools. People who are honest with themselfs tend to have the most friends, becasue theyer souls give off a healthy aura. And then you notice the people who try to change, to fit in with those people. They just dont seem like real people at times.

Its something perceptive people can pick up on, much like how an animal can. Ever notice how a cat will know when its owner is sad, even if he isnt showing signs of it? Or how dogs pick up subconsious cues from its owner?

Theres really no science that supports it, and no religion that dictates it. Its just a personal belife.

 

[kikon9]

Depends entirely on your definition of "soul".

If you mean an actual spirit that contains our thoughts and dreams you're a damn looney, of course we don't.

However, If you're like me and just consider the soul to be the beautiful thing that is a human's mind, thoughts, dreams, hopes, Etc. then I would agree one hundred percent.

 

[Unesh52]

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.

But people here chemical reactions and think 'theyre controlling us' not 'thats who we are'. With souls though theyre 'thats who we are' rather than 'its controlling us'.

Why the double standard?!

Ah! Yes, this is just what I was thinking about in my last post. It's like, why does the corporeality of our decision making process preclude self-identification? And of what significance is our identity exactly? Surely "who we are" must determine what we do; what else would it be good for? Therefore I think Kurokami's premise about the soul being "who we are," as distinct from "what we do" is nonsensical.

It seems to me that "proving" the soul involves giving it increasingly abstract definitions.

 

[Viik]

I think we have "souls" but they are tightly knoted to our body (neurological network) on our birth. Later in life as one raises his consciousness level he becomes more aware of neurological behavior patterns and can abstagate from them. Just in theory, enlightment is the topest level of consciousness where your physical body and neurological network accordingly can be completely observed by one's consciousness. At the same time, one can raise or lower his consciousness level by chemicals.
So, if you die, your "soul" dies with your body as it isn't separated from you body. But at the same time, during life, one could raise his consciousness to such levels as like his body, all it's chemical processes and neurologocal network won't effect his consciousness and perception, unless body dies.
So, no, one is not going to heaven but he can leave in piece and harmony unless his body dies.

By the same concept it can be possible to transfer soul from one body into another, when consciousness level is close to enlightment, as at that point it dosn't matter what body it uses, unless it's dead.

 

[Madara XIII]

I believe we have souls and aren't just slaves to chemical reactions in our head. I could bring in the Frankenstein argument, but that's still lacking a bit more evidence on my part along with the fact that someone might just pounce at me and try to tear me a new one with their belief and what not.

To me a Human's personality is more than just a conditioned set of emotions and thoughts that makes us who we are. I dare say spiritual, but once again I'd be enticing the Troll cannons and flaming.

You may fire at me when ready....I got enough of a headache today ¬_¬

Come on dude, you shouldn't have to deal with a bunch of troll bull shit here. That's not what this place is about. That's for 4chan. State yourself without censor and leave the trolls for the mods.

That being said, I disagree. What I hear you saying is that aside from chemical impulses/conditioning, there is another factor that informs our decisions, namely a soul. The big question here for me is what the thing would be. What phenomenon constitutes a "soul?" Is it a big glowy light? Or a ball of mucus? Or some sort of invisible prod extending from the back of your head to the nearest star? How might we observe this "soul?" Here, I'll meet you half way. If you could sufficiently argue that there are facets of human behavior that cannot be explained by modern medicine, psychology, or sociology, then I would be cool with labeling this unknown influence a "soul," with the condition that you accept we know absolutely nothing about it (besides the fact that it is responsible for the anomalous behavior, by definition).

My argument for that is well the play in on grief and the sorrow we feel for the loss of a fellow human along with love and how it does genuinely extend past mere infatuation and obsession. It brings true happiness, something that no material possession can bring about within us. Emotions such as these in my opinion honestly convince me that there is something more to us than a Physical body and mind. That we are indeed something more on the inside whether it be tangible or not. I might go with a light that lies deep within as a semblance for what a Soul might be, but that's just my interpretation.

 

[Cypher10110]

In short, soul is just a word.

Precisely!

Your post takes my comment a little out of context, this bit is also important.

My view is that the soul is as real as any other concept. Like fate for example, it's just a matter of perspective.

A soul is not "imaginary", it exists, but on a conceptual level. Like fate. If you take the stance that fate does not exist, you could still be within the confines of "fate". So it matters not weather you actually believe in fate it still works the same. Same for souls. (i.e. it doesn't matter whether they exist, because the interpretation of "so what does this mean for us?" is the same no matter what side you choose, in a broad sense - no sense in arguing over the unknowable)

In terms of theology I like to walk the line alot of the time, to be inclusive of parts of both yes and no. Because there's alot of philosophical 'truth' in religion, I feel it's important to see this truth for what it is. I do not dismiss all of religion, just the exclusive parts, like preaching, indoctrination, assumptions about what we know (and asserting them as THE ONE TRUTH, when there are many interpretations). Basically I doubt everything, but some things I accept for their universalism, like "don't be a dick"/"do unto others..."/etc.

I'll shut up now. (If you're reading this and are interested reading something along the same lines but much more skilfully written try a book by Tariq Ramadan - The Quest for Meaning: developing a philosophy of pluralism (2010) )

 

[Madara XIII]

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.

Beautiful Speech indeed.

 

[teh_Canape]

no they don't

they have red, blue and green orbs

 

[Bakuryukun]

There really is no evidence to say that there's a soul. I think that people used the word Soul to explain away the difference between how humans think and animals think, before we learned so much about neural chemistry, and how the mind works.

 

[Gigaguy64]

A Physical body.
A Mind/Soul(also our Self or Personality).
And then a Spirit.

Though im the type of person who doesn't rule things out because of a lack of evidence, especially a lack of evidence both ways.

What is a "spirit" then?

If it's being used simply as a synonym for "personality," then I think that yes, souls do exist. I want to point out, however, that in that case, they are not objects, they are compilations of traits. This seems inconsistent with the conventional usage of "soul," so I don't think it's a responsible definition of the word.

And you're right: it would be improper to say something absolutely doesn't exist because there is no supporting evidence. But are you the type to accept something in spite of a lack of evidence?

In a christian sense i believe the "Spirit" is the part of you that moves on once you die.
Its what lets people tap into and feel the supernatural, and what lets people move through God and the Holy Spirit.
I do believe that it and the "Soul/mind" are linked like the "Body" and "Soul" are linked.
As is Physical trauma can effect the mind, and Mental distress can effect the Spirit.
Though that's just what i was taught, though i do believe it to be true.

And while im skeptical of things lacking Evidence, i can believe in things that lack evidence.

 

[Cypher10110]

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.

I found your post thought provoking. It's similar idea to the Buddhism idea of reincarnation, described metaphorically as waking from a dream; you have no idea where you were, you know only where you are.
I like to run my life on the assumption I only get one shot to do this right. But I often entertain the idea that perhaps there are elements to consciousness that may never be understood.
Thanks for prefixing the post with your assumptions, it helped me read with fresh eyes.

 

[Dfskelleton]

Yes, I do believe we have souls. And here's the thing: I'm not giving any reasons why. I just do. That's all I'll say.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

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.

Is peanut butter intangible?

 

[Ambi]

What is a soul? What does it consist of? On what basis does it make decisions?