The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Dabbler has a thread about the theory of soul stealing. But it got me thinking...how can we prove that we even possess a soul? We got this idea from religion, yes?

Does every culture claim we have a soul? How do we prove it? What purpose does it serve? Where is it? Is it like our Jimney Cricket? Does it have mass? Does it weigh 21 grams as they say?


In Dabbler's thread, bunk56 said,

"I truly believe the soul is our essence, in one way or another it continues on. The body is just the container..."

I believe that. When I feel soulful, I feel full of light and universal love.

In Buddhism they talk of non-soul or non-self. But it goes beyond what you might think by reading those terms. The Buddhist answer is "non-self" or anatman. It is a slap in the face to you if you go around thinking you are essentially a spirit that has an irreducible identity not subject to conditions or impermanence. It is liberating to you if you really can search in this way and find that since there is no essential "you" then you can in fact change even the most ingrained and hardcore habits. Non-self is basically the key to the whole Buddhist project of enlightenment and compassion. It is the beginning of understanding what karma, reincarnation, and freedom which you will hear Buddhists talking about.

Does believing in souls merely keep you feeling safe in the idea that your inner self will live on?

Is the soul basically "consciousness"?

What do you all think about the soul?

I'm sure I'll be of the minority opinion here but I really see no valid reason for anyone to assume they have a soul, (and it is an assumption, at best).

In the long history of man there are indications of belief in a soul, spirit or some form of the person that is supposed to live on past death so there is little argument that this other than a primitive belief. But there is no credible evidence to support any of these variations of the soul. It seems to me to be little more than wishful thinking. And because it's such a popular idea, many people appeal to the concept whenever they have a highly emotional experience. Suddenly it's a "spiritual" experience.

Our consciousness is highly linked to the physical brain. Provide appropriate manipulation to the brain, via chemicals, trauma, medical anomalies or what have you, and a person's entire consciousness can be turned on or off at will. And there is no loss of the fabled 21-grams as depicted in stories and movies. If there were, it would be easy to test and to document and would be widely accepted throughout science and medicine.

People tend to want to believe that they are more than the sum total of the handful of chemical compounds that make up their bodies but every piece of credible, verifiable evidence we have suggests just the opposite. People tend to be pacified and comforted in the belief that they will continue to survive beyond death, and there seems to be a fairly consistent belief that the afterlife will be either pure paradise or pure torment, though most beliefs do allow for some level of middle-ground. And yet, people take vitamins, wear seat belts, stop at traffic lights and generally do everything reasonable to avoid death.

I have to conclude that the whole spirit/soul/afterlife story is simply something we tell ourselves rather than to come to grips with the reality of our deaths. And because the idea enjoys such popularity, it's easy for people to accept. And yet most will not want to talk openly about their beliefs as though they perhaps harbor some realization that it holds no value in logic or reason and is therefore, highly vulnerable.

Okay, so we see the assertion that the body is the container and the soul is the contents. Now what?

Assertions are easy and just as easily wrong. Remember the assertion that the Earth was flat? What about the assertion that the sun orbited the Earth? They're easy assertions to make, but they're also wrong.

One can make the assertion that the whole of the universe expanded from a point of incredible density and intense heat, likely smaller than an atom. That's fine but it's just an assertion. When one starts to demonstrate that such an event would leave lingering cosmic background radiation, then records that radiation as a radio signal and further, finds a way to photograph that cosmic background radiation and show that it fits a map generated via calculations which was made before the photograph was possible, then we have more than an assertion. We have a proclamation of substance -- strong evidence.

I've seen the assertion that the Earth resides in the high branches of a large tree and when the wind blows, it rocks the branches resulting in an earthquake. I pay little attention to such an assertion because there is little in the way of supporting evidence and conclusive evidence to the contrary. So what evidence is there that the body is the container for the soul? What evidence is there that the soul actually exists?

Yep, that is the kicker isn't it? Does anyone have any proof that the soul exists? Or is it like love...you feel it but can't touch it. Or can we even feel it? We can feel "soulful", or feel ourselves full of love and assume that is touching our soul.

I look at the question, why do we have a soul ? and I recall the same feeling when I asked the question, does God exist ?

When you think about it, both questions are really the same, can't have one without the other.

I have not always believed God existed. So, being the direct and simple person I am I asked : I said out loud something like > God are you real ? What followed was a series of events personal to me which lasted several months.

One simple question, that's as complicated as it was for me.

Well, to allay any reproductions of lengthy responses about assertions based on the earth in conjunction with its place in the universe -- which is so fantastically off topic...
By stating that the soul is the contents and the body the container, consider this: Do you eat ice-cream? Do you prefer one flavor to another? How do you feel when you see another person struggling with something? Are you capable of making your own choices? Or are you an automaton?
Any and all of these are proof of your individuality, your soul, what makes you YOU! Otherwise, it would be life the Stepford Wives. No individuality, no thought, no choice, no care nor concern -- an empty vessel. Hopefully that expands on CD's comment.

I believe that we have souls. Without a soul there wouldn't be anything there to make us different from one another. The soul is what defines us. Call it energy if you want. Humans are full of energy and it is proven that energy doesn't die only changes form. this is my belief and I do not wish to argue about it. That directed to one specific person.

i think the subject of whether we have a soul or not is subject to each individual's own faith-based response. i personally would like to believe we have one, i'd hate to think that when i die that's it, just a wood box-ful of bones underground.

So we now see the assertion that the soul is what gives us individuality and dictates our personality. And yet, we have numerous examples of subjects being involved in traumatic events and suffering head injuries. The result is sometimes a complete alteration of their personality. They literally become a different person. So does the soul reside in the head? Is it physical and therefore subject to physical damage just like the brain? Or is the damage to the brain itself a more plausible and well-evidenced explanation?

Again there is no evidence to support the idea of the soul. Some people believe it exists, others do not. As such things are studied, there is a strong suggestion that there is a statistical correlation to intellect. Those of higher intellect tend to be less prone to belief in things like souls, spirits and gods. I tend to think it goes well past intellect. Some are simply prone to accepting popular ideas while others pride themselves on critical thought.

As far as the comments suggesting off-topic comments, please try to recognize that it's never off-topic to provide examples and evidence to support one's assertions.

As to comments about not wanting to "argue", I think the reality is simply the suggestion that it's proper for one side to present their beliefs and then to expect those of a differing belief to remain silent.

Posting is an exchange. How boring would it be for everyone to simply type, "Yeah, me too"?

I think the assertion that the soul is what gives us our personality is a complete failure. Injuries and even chemicals can alter one's personality. If personality is dictated by the soul, then it follows that the soul is directly affected by chemicals and physical injury. That makes the soul a physical thing. So where is it located in the body? Why haven't surgeons found this physical soul? How does it escape at death?

Or maybe, the brain/mind is responsible for our personality which aptly and completely fits the evidence and the soul is but a lingering concept from primitive man who lacked sufficient information to recognize himself as the result of consciousness produced in his physical body.

i really like how you explained this thread: "have an idea" rightfully replaced "believe"

and thinking about the actual topic itself, i eventually came to the conclusion that there are very few religions that don't involve souls. like Scientology, it has thetans, tiny alien souls making everyone skitzo.

wait that was presumptuous of me. i was assuming that a soul involves immortality. some beleive a soul is immortal in one way or another, some say its a personality, some say it sleeps when you die, many many religions have souls in one form or another.

I'd say that the soul is the contents found inside the body Kind of like taking a turtle out of it's shell.. our body's are just containers for our souls that live on after the body can't take anymore of this worlds abuse

the soul on many aspects may be a debatable thing, yet we are what our lives have lead us too, and the soul is like the container of your life like a battery to a flashlight, for it is there to help and guide yet when the power is gone we are no longer. soul to me is the form of life and all things we have done. and our battery pack.

The soul resides in the entire body. When a head injury occurs as such, it isn't the spirit that is damaged, just the body. To very seperate things.

I personally belief that I have a soul. I know others who believe that if you are evil, commit heinous crimes, that person is soul-less. (Really, they just don't have morals.)

Then again, perhaps it is all interconnected:
The soul, our Jiminy Cricket, our morals/righteous views on lie. If none of this existed, we ourselves as humans might as well not exist.

Not one to usually be on the side of spiritualism, but can anyone prove they have a mind, consciousness. We know we have a brain. that is easily proven. But our mind, our conciousness. We say that we are self aware so that proves it. But does it. How do we know that we are any different from any other animal on this planet. Just going out our lives, the way our dna has set up for us to do. Just like ants, worker drone ants, soldier ants, queen ants. Maybe we are not doing anything more with our lives, than the lowliest animal. We just think we are special. Maybe that ant down on the ground thinks it's special to.

But I am inclined to beleive that we have a mind, a conciousness, and that ladies and gentlemen, is indeed our very soul.

I look at this in two parts, If the soul exist? Then if so what interaction is their between the concsious and the soul? With some people it is not enough that a soul likely exist. It is then we can interact with that soul, a very egotistical extrapulation.

Dabbler is is possible then that maybe the sould and conscious (sp) is the same thing?

I don't know why we have a soul and yes this is a very debatable subject but on the same token look at it this way, the soul is who we are and what we see within our selves. Personally I would have to say that the belief of soul's truly depends on the belief of that person.

Soul has turned into a catch-all phrase to define our psyche: "what makes us unique," as if that will explain and/or justify our existence. It has also been imbued with an existence separate from our corporeal being, and one which continues after we die. I agree with Beastt in terms of there being no basis for belief in a human soul. Yet, here we are again discussing soul.

Perhaps the question should be Why do we want a soul?

I think you've nailed it, bloodmother. People want to have a soul because it is an imagined construct which allows the delusion to persist that we needn't die and cease to exist.

If I may be allowed a metaphor, our consciousness is both who and what we are as well as our window to the world. From our perspective looking out of the window to the rest of the world, we like to think the window can be closed and we can continue to exist to simply gaze out another window... one to another realm. But in reality, the evidence all suggests that since our consciousness is the window itself, when the window closes, we cease to exist.

People see themselves as the center to their view of the world. So in that respect it makes sense for them to believe that the world cannot go on without them. But that is simply an individual's perspective. From the perspective beyond the individual, we are but one more unit of consciousness and that consciousness is finite. We like to think we are more significant in the overall scheme of things than the universe (which is finite), and yet we are but an infinitesimal speck and a part of that universe.

As you pointed out, Jamie, the idea of soul is highly based on clutural principles.

Collectivist cultures (such as those influenced by Buddhism) are less likely to believe in an individual soul and like to practive the idea of non-self. They focus on the group as a whole rather than individual people.

Individualist cultures on the other hand favor individuality over unity of persons. Most Western/Christian influenced cultures follow this pattern and are more likely to believe in the soul of an individual.

Personally, I belive that if there are varing opinions across cultures that there is no right answer. If there were it would be a universally observed around the world. I believe that there is spiritual energy at work in the universe, and that we are a part of it. But exactly what part we are is highly debatable.

Saying that a person is defined by their body is like saying that a man's masculinity is defined by the size of his penis and a woman by the size of her bossom. Doesn't work that way. I believe a soul is what gives us our ritchly unique flavor. makes us different. A spirit if you will. Whatever you wanna call it. You can't see air but you know it's there. The soul is there, I know I have one. And as I said before I WILL NOT ARGUE OVER IT so please do not respond to this post. If anyone insist on arguing or debating message me instead ;)

I admit I was brought up catholic and for a long time I believed all of the your soul is trapped in your body and will be set free to go to heaven.

Lately, as I have matured and seen many griefs and disappointments and tragedies throughout my life, I can honestly say that I don't know.

This thread has only made me ponder other questions. Such as: does the soul exist? If so, does it only exist in your body? Upon release will it simply disolve or be non-existant?

I can only hope that the body is only a vessel that holds my soul and that upon release will be in a better place...

Thank you! I admit I have seriously been thinking of this lately and thank Jaime for posting this subject as I am curious and happy to read what others think or know. :)

Do i think that we are a body and a body only? No! i don't think that. What makes us unique then? And where do we go after death? Christian faith may be completely off but i tell you there is something. And there is a spirit inside me if that's wehat you wanna call it. It's mine and you can beat me push me call me what you want but I know what I have and who I am. =)
Nothing will ever change that.

I believe in the same thing. But I'm scared to think that there may be no soul when I pass. What if there is nothing?!

I couldn't sleep for the life of me just wondering and pondering.

I truly believe there is a soul but does it move on once we die is the tough question for me. I don't want to be just nothing.

Well energy doesn't die it just changes form. Quoting Drew Barrymore there, lol. And I believe that. Science has even proven that. And I think that a spirit is energy.

The idea that the soul is energy is often repeated here.

And while it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can change form. The secondary form for energy is matter. Matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter (E=MC^2). Neither can be created or destroyed. (Which refutes the idea of creating anything.)

But energy (being a second state of matter), is a purely physical thing and is purely detectable. Your car radio is detecting energy along a given range of the electromagnetic spectrum. An X-ray shows the presence of energy along a different range of the electromagnetic spectrum. When you cook food in your microwave oven you're demonstrating the presence of energy in yet another range of the electromagnetic spectrum. Your eyes detect energy within the "visible" range of the electromagnetic spectrum and some non-human animals can detect these energies beyond the range detected by the human eye (infrared and ultraviolet).

Gamma rays, X-Rays, Ultraviolet, Visible light, Infrared Microwaves and Radio waves are simply names utilized to refer to different frequencies of energy within the electromagnetic spectrum. These are all highly detectable. So if the soul is energy, it would be purely physical and highly detectable. Yet the presence of a soul has never been confirmed through detection or any other means.

That is really childish beast. "I posted first." This is a public site and i should have the freedom of posting my own personal oppinions without being attacked for it. As I said before if you wanna argue. message me. I'm not going to do it here. Grow up!!!

darkXwhisper,

This is not a matter of childishness as you try to make it sound. It is a purely logical construct. If I post A, I am not arguing. If you then post B, in direct opposition to A, you are arguing. To then say, "I will not argue this", is to say that you won't defend your position. Yet you have attempted to defend it with nothing but continued blind (unsupported), assertions. And that's exactly what has happened here. If you wish to go unchallenged, then assure that your assertions are supportable and demonstrably correct, rather than openly and demonstrably false.

You are free to post your opinions here and so am I. It simply is not your place to attempt to tell people that once you have offered your assertions, that no one is allowed to assert or demonstrate to the contrary.

You're wrong and I have shown that to be the case. It's no more an "attack" than if you had stated that this site was called "Vampire Ravings" and I had demonstrated that the actual name is "Vampire Rave". It's a simple matter of fact - a correction, not an attack. One of us was right and the other was wrong. I'm afraid you'll simply have to deal with that.

And now if you will allow us, may we return to the topic of the thread, (each of us in accordance with our beliefs and evidences)?

So it seems that the question, why do we have a soul is one that inspires people to fall into two distinct camps.

One who believes for whatever reason ( as I do ) that a soul exists and one that does not.

Evidence for one may mean nothing whatsoever to the other.

One searches with scientific leanings, one with personal life experiences.

If I had any hard scientific evidence to give you I would, the truth is I dont.

Personally that's fine by me, I am willing and happy to read answers from all quarters, and if at any time somebody elses truth about pretty well anything makes a big enough impact on me then I am not so set in my ways as to refute it.

Suffice it to say....my soul and I are in full agreement on this.

This is not a matter of childishness as you try to make it sound. It is a purely logical construct. If I post A, I am not arguing. If you then post B, in direct opposition to A, you are arguing. To then say, "I will not argue this", is to say that you won't defend your position. Yet you have attempted to defend it with nothing but continued blind (unsupported), assertions. And that's exactly what has happened here. If you wish to go unchallenged, then assure that your assertions are supportable and demonstrably correct, rather than openly and demonstrably false.


Wrong. I posted my oppinion as did everyone else here and for you to say we are wrong just because you don't agree with us is rather close minded. You aren't always right. And just because I won't follow you when you shoot right up your own ass hole doesn't make me stupid. Rememer the quote..."I know one thing in this life and that's the fact I know nothing."? Learn it, live it, love it. I post my own oppinions and as I said a million times before in this thread I do NOT wish to argue about them HERE. If you really wanna take me on then message me beast. Simple as that. Just because i disagreed with you you wish to start drama over it. GET OVER IT! not everone is going to feel and think the same way as you. Big deal!


You are free to post your opinions here and so am I. It simply is not your place to attempt to tell people that once you have offered your assertions, that no one is allowed to assert or demonstrate to the contrary.



No Beast. I was refering to you and you alone. because for some reason no matter what I post you seem to always try and undermine me. I don't agree with you. Big deal. When i see a post of yours that I don't agree with I leave it alone and post my own oppinion. Many of other people in this thread have agreed with me, and do you attack them and argue with them? No you argue with me. And quite frankly you are not worth my time. Grow up, get a life. It's just a site. You don't need to write novels everywhere you go.


You're wrong and I have shown that to be the case. It's no more an "attack" than if you had stated that this site was called "Vampire Ravings" and I had demonstrated that the actual name is "Vampire Rave". It's a simple matter of fact - a correction, not an attack. One of us was right and the other was wrong. I'm afraid you'll simply have to deal with that.

So I am wrong eh? proove it! When these scientific studies that you live by were being performed, wre you there? Did you see it? NO! you are a cop! So unless you see something with your own eyes don't ever take it for being true. People can lie about the proof of scientific research just as easily as they can about religion or anything else. So if I am wrong, proove me wrong right now. You can't. I will believe whatever I want to believe and it it your business how that affects you. But I really don't care. I believe we all have souls. you don't. How can there be proof of the contrary? You didn't prove sh*t so back of.

And now if you will allow us, may we return to the topic of the thread, (each of us in accordance with our beliefs and evidences)?

That is entirely up to you beast. I posted my beliefs on the subject and obviously it was too much for you to handle. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong. Instead of worrying about eho is wrong and right why don't you grow up and learn to ignore people and just go with the flow. Sound good? See ya doll!

Your own words; "I don't agree with you. Big deal."

Of course I can demonstrate my points to be correct and you can't. Are we done?

Back to the topic at hand. And don't worry, if we all agreed, there would be no point in discussion. :)

There is no question among those who work with or live with people who have undergone traumatic brain injury; a person's personality -- that which makes them who we know them to be -- manifests as a result of the processes and working order of the physical brain.

People certainly have different personalities and often react in a predictable manner when greeted with a particular situation. One person might be introduced to new information and be grateful for the opportunity to learn while another might stead-fastly hold to contradictory and demonstrably wrong principles and only become angry and abusive when greeted with new, demonstrably correct, information.

What's more, many instances of TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), result in dramatic changes in one's personality -- who they were known to be. They can become completely different people. So clearly, the personality does not reside in the soul, but in the physical workings of the brain.

http://www.braininjury.com/symptoms.html
"For example, the frontal lobes play an essential role in drive, mood, personality, judgment, interpersonal behavior, attention, foresight, and inhibition of inappropriate behavior."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
"TBI [Tramatic Brain Injury] may cause emotional or behavioral problems and changes in personality."

http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/48/1/67
"Affective Disorder and Personality Change in a Patient With Traumatic Brain Injury "

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/21
"Personality change occurred in 13% of participants between 6 and 12 months after injury and 12% in the second year after injury."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17259352
"The aims of this study were to develop models of personality change after traumatic brain injury (TBI) based on information provided by the TBI survivor and a significant other (SO), and to compare the models generated from the two different sources of information."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb179/is_/ai_n15045678
"Predictors of personality change due to traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents in the first six months after injury."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080912094754AA9vsVA
"Ever since he left the hospital, his whole personality is different. He used to a kind-hearted & loving person, now he has a tendency to be mean and hateful."

http://www.bryantpaincenter.com/injury35.html
"Traumatic brain injury can result in depression, changes in personality, anxiety, paranoia, or apathy. One of the most frustrating and challenging symptoms is aggression."

So why do we have a soul? When seeking answers, it's always best to ask the proper questions in the proper order. And the question which must precede this is; Do we have a soul?

The answer is that there is no credible evidence to support the concept of a soul, human or otherwise, and there never has been throughout the tens of thousands of years of blind assertion suggesting souls to exist.

And though some seem to think that scientists all over the world have left their laboratories and research classrooms to gather behind closed curtains in darkened rooms to join into one giant world-wide conspiracy to mislead the public, the reality is that science is what leads our technology through an understanding of reality. We're sitting at computers at the moment which are all linked together via a vast array of electronic equipment, hardware and software. And it didn't come about through the spreading of a conspiracy to convince people that they could communicate via their computers. It came about through real science, real research and people who were willing to let go of old traditions and superstitions in favor of the reality of demonstration.

The soul serves no purpose we can find, nor can we find any credible indication of a soul.

i believe every culture does believe in the existance,that every creature has a soul,to me i believe a soul is much like a record where it records things we have done in our current as well as in our past lives.

There seems to be a very common misconception regarding credible evidence as far as science is concerned (or not concerned). Evidence is either credible or not without regard to science. That which is only proclaimed from an individual's devout belief isn't credible for a very simple and very logical reason -- such beliefs have a long, long history of being patently wrong.

When studies of placebo-effect demonstrate people's subjective claims that the placebo they've been given is helping, it demonstrates the lack of credibility behind the individual's subjective claims, beliefs and assertions. It's best to remember that man has a continuous history of beliefs in that which is supported only by subjective assessment. One very pertinent example are the hundreds and hundreds of, now mythological gods. In their day they enjoyed great and loyal followings, the members of which all looked to their personal subjective "evidence" as conclusive proof that the god of their beliefs was real.

It's a very long list; Agdistis or Angdistis, Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Alberich, Amaterasu, An, Anat, Andvari, Anshar, Anu, Aphrodite, Apollo, Apsu, Ares, Artemis, Asclepius, Athena, Athirat, Athtart, Atlas, Baal, Ba Xian, Bacchus, Balder, Bast, Bellona, Bergelmir, Bes, Bixia Yuanjin, Bragi, Brahma, Camaxtli, Ceres, Ceridwen, Cernunnos, Chac, Chalchiuhtlicue, Charun, Cheng-huang, Cybele, Dagon, Damkina (Dumkina), Davlin, Dawn, Demeter, Diana, Di Cang, Dionysus, Ea, El, Enki, Enlil, Eos, Epona, Ereskigal, Farbauti, Fenrir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigg, Gaia, Ganesha, Ganga, Garuda, Gauri, Geb, Geong Si, Hades, Hanuman... you get the idea. (I've attempted to eliminate those from the list which might still have a following.)

Each and every one and hundreds more were held to be real based on the "subjective evidence" of the followers. And yet, unless I have mistakenly included the name of a god which is still asserted to be real (my apologies to any who believe in any of the ones listed), the personal subjective "evidence" has failed to produce any indication that the beliefs were other than false. These gods and hundreds more (to the best of my knowledge), are now considered to be purely mythical.

When you look at the tens of thousands of years of failed beliefs based on "subjective evidence" and the hundreds of studies on placebo-effect which demonstrate the failure of "subjective evidence" to produce truth, it should be fairly clear why subjective evidence isn't considered to be credible by any but those who subscribe to it as their only means to hold their desired beliefs.

Let's examine this on a slightly different plane. If you were in the market to purchase a home and noted that a particular financial institution could not be demonstrate to ever provide anything but foreclosure on every home loan they ever made, how anxious would you be to run to them to obtain the money you need to purchase your new dream-home? Would you consider their claims to be on the side of the home-owner, to be credible? How about a state that ran a lottery but could never be shown to have ever paid a single winner? Are the claims of offering a real lottery-win credible? Are they any more credible if someone purchases a ticket and swears they feel it in their heart that they're going to win? And if you chose to avoid doing business with the aforementioned fictitious financial institution or made it a point never to engage in the state's lottery, would that be due to a lack of "scientifically credible evidence" or simply a lack of credible evidence that anyone ever received what they'd been promised?

No one has ever seen a soul or even offered credible evidence that they exist. So why are people so anxious to accept claims that have never once been shown to hold any credibility across tens of thousands of years, unless it's due to the promise of continued existence beyond death?

Personally I think that credible evidence hinges on the understanding, not only belief of the individual.

As for nobody ever having seen a soul...I beg to differ in as much as spirit maybe soul.

Personally, i think that we dont have one at all.
I think it's a scare tactic religions use, with the God complex.
"You do wrong, 'God' will send your soul to firey pits" etc .

We do not have proof that the soul exists. This is a belief that is druiilled in out head from the time we are little. This si a debate that can go on forever because there is no answer to this question. The only answer is in our own belief

I think that one of the main reasons there has never been any concrete evidence for the existence of a souls is that there is no operant definition to base it off of. Many faiths and cultures have differeing opinions as to what exactly the soul IS. If people could agree on an operant definintion of the word soul, then it could be studied and researched. But truth be told, there is no single definition and therefore no evidence to support it.

As said above, the question is one with no answer… only you can….
Personally I believe in the soul as I have experienced the time stopping all consuming exhilarating wonder of finding my soul mate and the damnation and debauchery of losing her. My only salvation is the knowledge I will meet her again in another life where I shall not let my environment take her from me!!!

I too found my soul mate... more than once. And every time, it turns out they were not what they appeared to be. That's because it's all subjective and subjectivity is the great liar. In fact, it was the loss of a soul-mate that lead me to a very deep and very sincere re-examination of whether souls and all the rest really exist.

It took maybe a year to realize that the answer had been right there before me all the time. Take away the confirmation-bias, the excuses, the phrases and catchy sayings we tend to use, to avoid seeing reality, and suddenly it becomes quite clear. There is no soul, no spirit, no after-life and none of the rest. We have what we have, what's physical is what's real. The saddest part for me is when there is any indication that two people go separate ways because one has elected to take the objective path while the other chooses to remain buried inextricably in the biases, the excuses and the personal servitude of subjective belief.

Sometimes it's easy to feel cursed; like anyone we meet that seems to fill that need for a "soul-mate" will ultimately change, walk away and appear confused that we are despondent and broken over their actions.

Look at all the people who marry with the firm belief that they have found their "intended", their "soul-mate", their "companion for life and beyond". Yet they display not the least of immunity from the divorce rate and many (if not most), divorces end in hatred and disdain.

When things don't exist, they leave no evidence of their existence. Before any postulated entity can leave evidence of its existence, it first has to exist. Take the neutrino for example. It was noted that the decay of a neutron into a proton seemed to violate the principle of Conservation of Energy. (Please. Don't lose interest if the terms are unfamiliar). But rather than abandon a law which seemed firmly rooted, other possibilities were considered. This lead to the theoretical concept of a particle which came to be called a "neutrino". This particle has a very, very tiny mass, travels at nearly the speed of light and actually changes properties while it travels. They were first postulated to exist in 1930.

Keep in mind that these supposed particles are so tiny that every second you have at least ten billion solar neutrinos passing through every thumb-nail sized spot on your body. The vast majority whiz right through and touch not even a piece of an atom anywhere in your body. They do the same thing with the whole of the planet -- pass right through having touched nothing. There are relatively huge spaces between the components of an atom and neutrinos are so small they slip right through those spaces even when the bundle of atoms is the size of a planet. Yet still, they leave objective evidence of their existence.

So for many years, the objective evidence was noted to exist, yet confirmation of the particles themselves remained elusive. Anti-neutrinos were first confirmed to exist in 1956. Muon neutrinos were confirmed in 1962 along with the realization that neutrinos came in more than one "flavor" (nuon, tau and electron). Tau neutrinos were confirmed to exist in 1975 at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (for those who think accelerators/colliders aren't important).

In 1961 a man by the name of Ray Davis built what he claimed would be a neutrino detector. It was simply a tank containing 378,000 liters of perchloroethylene (ordinary dry-cleaning fluid). It wasn't until 1975 that the detector was finally successful in counting solar neutrinos - a period of 14-years.

The point of all of this is that it took about 26-years from the first evidence to the confirmation and then another 20-years or so to actually be able to count neutrinos passing through a detector. And souls, spirits, angels, demons and all the rest have been claimed to exist not for just decades, not for just centuries, not for just a thousand years, but for tens of thousands of years. And yet today we lie no closer to any objective confirmation for one very obvious reason -- there isn't any objective evidence that they exist. They leave the same evidence as do the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and the Jersey Devil -- a lot of claims, zero objective evidence.

After a few tens of thousands of years, I think it's time to recognize that the check isn't in the mail. There is no check. The more science uncovers about reality, the less support there seems to be for claims of the supernatural and paranormal. And while we haven't confirmed everything there is to confirm and perhaps never will, there still remains zero objective evidence to support these ancient primitive claims which can honestly and accurately be termed "superstitions".

Why do we have a soul? We don't.

Why won't we allow ourselves to recognize that tens of thousands of years have continued to confirm that the soul doesn't exist? Because we don't wish to die and cease to exist. Our existence is the only real experience we have. Without it, everything ceases from within our reference frame. And yet time, subjective beliefs, emotions and objective confirmations will march on in our absence, just as they always have. The Earth could vanish in a massive collision tomorrow (though it's doubtful the threat wouldn't have already been detected), and the rest of the universe goes right on ticking, even if the whole of man vanished completely -- no sentience, no consciousness and no lingering souls.

There is nothing but subjective desire to proclaim to the contrary. Tens of thousands of years have brought us farther away from a confirmation of souls rather than closer to one. The unfortunate result is that some choose to ignore or reject the results, rather than to recognize that they are merely one of billions and billions of people to have fallen to their subjective assessments. It's nothing of which to be ashamed. It happens to most everyone at some point. The only shame should be that some are so rooted in their personal subjectivity that when it's shown to be wrong by the objective analysis, they ignore or berate the objective -- the same kind of analysis they use to lock or unlock their door, to start their car, to know whether to stop or continue at an intersection, to avoid cutting themselves with a knife or to know when to change a light bulb. And it never fails them -- ever. The only thing it fails is one's desires.

People might "feel in their heart" that the lottery ticket they just bought is a winner, or that the person for whom they feel affection returns that feeling of affection, despite a lack of objective confirmation. But the reality is that most of these subjective feelings are confirmed to be wrong. But by focusing only on the very few that by coincidence, turn out to be right and discounting the vast number that are wrong, they confirm through their bias that there is some value to subjective beliefs. The process is known as confirmation-bias; confirming what one wants to believe, rather than what's real.

Once someone has turned to confirmation-bias to support their belief in subjective assessment, the only thing they have claimed for themselves is shelter from the truth. When people reach the point that the only truth they will accept is what they have already subjectively decided to be true, they can never know the truth simply because they reject everything that doesn't fit their desired belief.

I do believe that we have souls... there is an energy that holds your body together and makes it possible for you to move your body. I do believe the soul does get tired after a period of time and needs a break thus the body dies, and the energy leaves the body, thus in my belief you leave the body. Energy doesn't becomes non-existent it just never stays in the same place for long.

i think we do have a soul,i mean if we don't i am curious to the lost souls that don't move on and their activity in this earthly realm and why is it people can have encounters with souls that passed on if in fact we do not have souls?
-anything is possible to an open mind-

I accept the soul as a metaphor, I am personally offended by people that insist I should somehow interact with my soul, or feel it. I would not trust anything based on senses regarding my conscious or my accepted definition of a soul.

MichaelxArc,

I'm not sure I understood exactly what you were saying but I think you were suggesting that the soul is an energy that holds the body together and fuels the movement of the muscles. If that's the case, it might be worth some consideration to remember that energy is physical, not non-physical. In fact, energy is the second state of matter (E=MC^2).

And in the case of the body, energy is extracted from the carbon-carbon bonds in food when they're replaced with carbon-oxygen bonds. That's why we need to eat (take in carbon), and need to breathe (take in oxygen), and why when we exhale, our breath shows that we have combined carbon and oxygen to produce carbon-dioxide. Since it requires more energy to maintain a carbon-carbon bond than a carbon-oxygen bond, in exchanging the carbon-carbon bond with a carbon-oxygen bond, energy is released.

There is nothing for the soul to do and no evidence that it exists.

CountThanatos,

Re: "if we don't [have souls] i am curious to the lost souls that don't move on and their activity in this earthly realm "

If we don't have souls then there aren't any lost souls. Does that not solve the problem?
---

Re: "why is it people can have encounters with souls that passed on if in fact we do not have souls?

Well, the simple answer is; we can't. And that's most likely why we don't. Some people claim to have encounters with souls but no one has ever offered credible evidence to support the claim. Imagine that; tens of thousands of years of claims and not a single confirmed instance. What are the odds?

If you think about the neutrinos I mentioned earlier, and the fact that they move at nearly the speed of light and are so incredibly small that even an atom is huge in comparison, how is it that in just three decades from the first suggestion that they exist, their existence was confirmed? And yet, in the tens of thousands of years people have claimed spirits can be seen (suggesting that they cause photons to bounce off of them), move physical objects (suggesting they can manipulate the physical), and that they are a form of energy field (again providing a strong suggestion of detectability), there remains not even one confirmed instance to support any of these claims.

I understand that you believe they exist. I even hold some level of understanding why you believe they exist -- it's something you've simply accepted your whole life. But objectivity doesn't lie, only subjectivity does. And your subjectivity offers no greater chance of being correct than the billions of people who honestly and devoutly believed in hordes of gods most people today recognize as nothing but myths. So why would anyone consider their subjective beliefs to be any more suggestive of reality than in the billions and billions of times such beliefs have shown themselves to be absolutely wrong?

Odd that so many attend Spiritualist churches when no proof of survival is given....one would think if it were not so they would'nt bother going....nowt as queer as folk as the saying goes.

Cases of TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury), demonstrate that who we are -- our personality, demeanor, attitude and character reside in the physical human brain. Since TBI can result in a complete change of personality, the determination of who we are can't exist within anything non-physical. And since it is known that the frontal lobes play an essential role in drive, mood, personality, judgment, interpersonal behavior, attention, foresight, and inhibition of inappropriate behavior, it's obvious that this is all a function of the physical brain and not, as suggested, within anything known as the "soul".

CountThantos wrote "i think we do have a soul,i mean if we don't i am curious to the lost souls that don't move on and their activity in this earthly realm and why is it people can have encounters with souls that passed on if in fact we do not have souls?
-anything is possible to an open mind-"

I feel that you are right here with what you have said. How could it be possible then to have this happen if we do not have a soul. How would it be possible to carry on a life that is made up of several lives intertwined into one life, without the soul?

Don't get me wrong here I am not saying that anyone is wrong in their beliefs system but I am saying to look at the open mind and what you feel is true to yourself.

It's interesting how often people suggest keeping an "open mind", especially when attempting to present beliefs which are devoid of credible evidence. Should I keep an open mind that my television will change into my own personal Boeing 747-400, or is it more appropriate to keep a rational mind and recognize that the chances of that happening are so infinitesimally small as to not really be considered a possibility?

Ever notice that when people ask you to keep an open mind, they're almost always attempting to convince you to believe what they believe, despite their lack of evidence? When people have credible evidence, that's what they present as their argument. When they don't, they want you to "keep an open mind"; meaning "simply believe what I believe because I asked you to".

Can you think of a single time when anything has ever been confirmed to exist, for which there existed no credible evidence? It just doesn't happen. Can you think of a single instance where people's subjective beliefs contradicted objective observation and it was eventually confirmed that the subjective beliefs were right and the objective observations were wrong?

The truth is, one shouldn't have an open mind anymore than they should leave their front door open at all times. Instead, when you want to let fresh air (ideas) in, you should probably keep the screen door closed. It lets the rational air in, without letting the junk (mosquitoes, the neighbor's cat, grasshoppers, mice and rats & superstitions) into the house. An open mind is no better than a completely closed mind. And when you look at it objectively, most people who tell others to keep an open mind, are themselves demonstrating a closed mind. They have closed their mind to the realities they'd prefer to disbelieve and are urging others to do the same.

One should keep a rational mind. Be open to new ideas unless they demonstrate themselves to be other than rational and logical. If someone attempts to sell you 400-acres of residential property in Florida at $20 per acre, keep a rational mind, not an open mind. If a man in a city park, dressed only in a raincoat on a sunny summer afternoon, offers to watch your child for you while you run to the restroom, keep a rational mind. Don't simply be open to the idea that the man might have strange taste in clothing and a genuinely caring heart.

The same holds true when people tell you that you won't ever "really" die, even though we all know that we'll all die. If they tell you that you're going to continue to exist in a conscious state beyond death, ask them when they died. Certainly, if they know what's going to happen when you die, they must have first-hand knowledge, right? Of course we all know that people do die and once they're biologically dead, they don't come back. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that one continues in any conscious manner beyond death.

We can induce unconsciousness in people and when we do, it's through a physical process -- something done to the physical body. They can show nothing of any soul that continues their conscious self while the body is unconscious. And when you hear people asserting to the contrary, remember that they have no first-hand knowledge and are simply guessing in direct contradiction to the evidence. People like the idea that they'll never really die. It makes them feel secure. And the more people who believe the same thing, the more secure they feel. But just as with the flat Earth, the geocentric solar system and the rituals to rid the diseased body of "evil spirits", the belief is completely contrary to the evidence and therefore, not based in reason or logic. And the belief in a flat Earth, a geocentric universe or the "evil spirits" causing disease, did nothing to change the reality of any of those circumstances.
---

I'm also curious about phrases that people seem to like to latch onto despite the fact that they present no reasonable level of truth such as "anything is possible to an open mind".

No it isn't.

If it were, then either no one anywhere in the world has an open mind or there would have been an end to war, to disease, to starvation and to global warming. Many things aren't possible no matter how open one is to the suggestion. The reality is that to an open mind, it's possible to believe that anything is possible. But reality has spent the lifetime of the universe demonstrating that it has no concern whatsoever what people believe. Reality is only concerned with what is.

Think about it. The universe is dated at about 13.7 billion years. The Earth tests out at 4.6 billion years. Man has only been around for perhaps 1.3 million years. So for more than 13.6 billion years, there wasn't any human belief for reality to be worried about. And yet reality kept right on being real. And it remains real today, no matter what anyone thinks. And since so many people believe so many different and contradictive things, it simply wouldn't be possible for reality to be at all affected by what people believe.

The rule is simple and it's this; if you believe that which isn't real, your beliefs are wrong. That's really all there is to it. And man's history shows a long, continuous record of wrong beliefs. Man used to believe the Earth was flat. Man used to think the Earth was the center of the universe, orbited by the sun. Man used to believe that volcanoes were controlled by gods rather than hot magma rising to the surface. Man used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits. Man used to believe that lightning was caused by one god and thunder by another. Man used to believe that life arose spontaneously. Man used to believe it would be impossible for man to fly.

All of those beliefs were wrong no matter how strongly people believed them. They were always wrong. Reality isn't shaped by the beliefs of rather insignificant bits of protoplasm stumbling around on the surface of the planet and bumping into each other in our little metal boxes we use to move from one place to another. Reality shows no concern whatsoever about any belief which might arise from any organism on this tiny speck of matter, floating about in a tiny solar system, circling one of around 200-billion to 400-billion stars in our galaxy alone. There is nothing to suggest that the entire galaxy couldn't be swallowed up by the rather pathetic little super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, with absolutely no significant effect upon reality -- except, that reality would then include the absence of the Milky Way galaxy.

What matters is that we align our beliefs with reality because reality has never, and will never, align itself with our beliefs. If we fail to align our beliefs with reality, those beliefs are simply wrong, no matter how open we remain to possibilities.

Don't get me wrong here I am not saying that anyone is wrong in their beliefs system but I am saying to look at the open mind and what you feel is true to yourself.

I have opened my mind actually, I opened my mind
I found a whole bunch of space
I started using that space to image
and for creativity
I then realized, that beliefs
took up a lot of space
and constipated my mind
I found that critical thinking ]
is a good way to exercise the mind
since then I have cleaned out
the compressed clutter
of irrational beliefs

So is the open mind you have actually open to the possibility that people are claiming more things then they are providing demonstrations for? It has passed through my open mind. I here more people state, I have seen this.. I have seen that.. yet is it a performance? Is your mind open to that, those that claim mystic abilities sure are elusive. John Lennon Said "Imagine All the People" Not Believe all the People" hint Hint.

Beastt17, just because you haven't seen any evidence of the souls existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just as I have not seen any proof of its non-existence doesn't mean it exists. But its my personal belief so you might think I am wrong but it doesn't mean just because you think that I am wrong that I am in fact wrong.

Beastt - I'll address reality vs. belief first.

Each individual person's reality is a product of their senses. So there are two realities for each person. The reality that is entirely within the person's own mind, described to them by their senses, is one.

The other is what may or may not actually be there. This one is a little more difficult to explain but it's based on the concept of expectations. For instance, perhaps in another room than the one you are now sitting in has a bed. You "know" that this bed is there because you've observed it on numerous occassions, and you expect it to be there when you go to that room; but how can you "know" that it is there now when you are not observing it? In your belief, the existence of that bed without your existence is real. In order to prove to me that it is there, however, we would have to both go to that room and observe it.

A rational thinking person would probably say, "Yes the bed is still there because I've seen it before, and so you don't need to prove it to me". But an empiricist would still place the burden of proof on the claimant and require something more.

In your request for evidence of a soul, you implore others to use a rational mind, but you yourself require empirical evidence to satisfy.


As for what I believe the soul to be:

I don't believe it to be consciousness, conscience, or any tangible thing. The soul is not conceited or a slave to any one person or animal, but rather it is in all things, flowing through all things. We have a soul because we can not exist otherwise. (I use the term "we" very, very, very loosely)

Believing in the soul as an individual consciousness is a security blanket. It helps those afraid of death cope with this natural process of life.

MichaelxArc,

Just because you haven't seen evidence of the existence of Leprechauns doesn't mean they don't exist. Just as the fact that I have not seen evidence of their non-existence doesn't mean they exist.

Do you seen the problem with that kind of argument?

Things that don't exist don't leave evidence of their non-existence. Things that don't exist don't leave evidence that they do exist. Things which don't exist leave no evidence of anything regarding their existence simply because they don't exist. Things have to exist to leave any kind of evidence at all regarding their existence. That which doesn't exist, isn't going to leave evidence because it doesn't exist. And everything ever confirmed to exist, does provide evidence that it exists. It's one of life's few constants.

And this is good enough for you and fully acceptable in almost every instance anyone might mention. Do you believe in 6-foot, pink, feathered grasshoppers? Do you believe in 1-inch high furry elephants? Do you believe in flying turtles? Do you believe in people 500-feet tall? Do you believe in blind, burrowing, underground giraffes?

I'm willing to bet you don't believe in any of those things and the reason for your disbelief is simple -- there is no evidence that any of those things exist. You probably don't believe in sentient purple pickles either. Why not? Because there isn't any evidence to suggest that they exist.

But when it comes to souls, we find two additional factors coming into play. Firstly, many people do believe in them and peer agreement is unfortunately, a strong motivator for belief for many people. Secondly and more important, you have something to gain if you believe and happen to be right. You don't have to die and that offers great comfort and security. I know several people who have openly admitted to me that they "choose to believe" what makes them most comfortable. Not because it's rational, logical or evidenced, but simply because the belief provides comfort.

To name 15 things for which there is no evidence, then to reject 14 of them because their is no evidence, and accept the remaining one despite the fact that there is no evidence, simply because it provides comfort and peer agreement, is a double-standard and will never lead to truth.

So one has to decide if they're interested in truth, or interested in security, even at the cost of believing false-hoods. Until I reached a point where I actually needed to know the truth, I believed in spirits, souls, etc. But once my circumstances lead me to a need to know the truth, I had to be purely honest with myself about what I accepted as true and why.

The existence of souls is no more likely than the existence of 6-foot, pink, feathered grasshoppers, 1-inch high furry elephants, flying turtles, 500-foot tall people, blind, burrowing, underground giraffes or sentient purple pickles.

Yet you pick souls from the list and subscribe to belief because it suggests for you, a way to escape death. And remember from where the idea of spirits arose. It is the invention of ancient, primitive people who offered food to non-existent entities, killed their own people as offerings and tossed their children into volcanoes in an attempt to control vulcanology.

It's not a bad thing to recognize that it's time to begin to examine such beliefs from a more rational, evidence-driven perspective, even if we don't like the truth that emerges.

Jesuis,

If you set a person at a table and tape their eyes closed, does the table cease to exist? How do we know the table is still there? We can use our sense of touch, but as you noted, that's simply reliance upon a different sense to confirm the existence of the table. But there are ways to avoid such reliance only upon the senses.

Suppose we set up a laser and a photosensitive semi-conductor in a circuit attached to a buzzer. Now move the laser to what we believe to be a spot above the table and the photosensitive semiconductor to a spot below the table. If the buzzer doesn't sound, something must be blocking the laser from reaching the photosensitive semiconductor. True, we still need to be able to sense the buzzer, but we can set up a number of different mechanical tests, each of which will continue to function in a rational, reasonable, logical manner. And we can rig different mechanical signals to be "observed" via different senses. We can further bring in other people who have no idea what we are attempting to determine and simply ask them about their experiences.

As you've attempted to suggest, we can never be absolutely certain about anything. Taken to such extremes, we could suggest a reality comparable to that in the movie "The Matrix". And if that is our reality, we'll likely never know. But if we want to peer more rationally at what we can know, we must note the importance of the origin, the lack of evidence, and the profit-based motivation when speaking of souls.

Take 10 people who have never even seen a picture of an elephant and show them one, one at a time, in a place of seclusion. Later, ask each of them to describe what they saw and there will be a very significant level of similarity between one observer's description and the next. But as you've demonstrated here, the same concept is not applicable to souls. Some people claim to see them and claim they look like people. Some claim to feel them. Some call them "energy". Each of those descriptions suggests a physical entity, despite the standard belief that souls aren't physical. It's simply an attempt (and not always a conscious attempt), to provide evidence where no evidence exists.

In the absents of opposition to beliefs, it is a common occurence that those that subscribe to a shared faith/path/philosophy will argue finer points of those beliefs.

Beastt17 - I have found the forum a lively discussion with many valid points raised. Please undulge me a point. My Reiki Instructor who is also a Hospice Miniser for over twenty years - had a Christian Scientist for one Grandmother and a devote Catholic on the other.
The Christian Scientist would sit her in a chair and sit another next to her. She would tell her to have her soul sit in the other chair as it was attached to ego.
Then have her start her meditation and seek for her "spirit" to seek its' "highest good"... She felt that "soul" was attacthed to ego and outcome. Spirit is simply that "Spirit".. Higher self..
Just some thoughts - thank you for letting me share my humble information.

This is a interesting topic, i see the soul as our actual imortal being. Meaning, that when our physical bodies die and whither away, our soul goes on to live wherever it goes. To me, i believe in reincarnation, so thus i live forever. If you look at people who believe that the soul goes to a heaven or hell, there souls are not immortal, their souls leave when the body dies.

yes i think we do but are we ever gowing to knoew i dont think so

Beastt -

On Mechanical Observations

Certainly lasers and mechanical apparatus can demonstrate to an observer from afar that an anomaly (perhaps a bed) is in a room (that I'm assuming exists), however one must still observe these demonstrations with their senses - and even after these demonstrations, the empiricist must be able to satisfy themselves that it is indeed indicative of a bed. But if that's the case, then they proceed to the slippery slope of rationalism and not empiricism.



On The Elephant

Your example demonstrates here that you are looking more for a universal definition of what a soul is. In your example, however, you are taking something that is concrete and asking for a name. In this thread, we are taking a name and asking for something concrete. It is not necessarily the same logic.

Take a picture of an elephant to a country where no one speaks English. Show it to someone who has never seen an elephant before and tell them that the English word for this thing is "teacup". Then in conversation, after the person has learned the English language, the foreigner will refer to the teacup and begin describing something wholly different than what we would consider to be a teacup. But the person's reality is shaped as a result of that particular label.

If you're looking for a quantifiable thing that can be seperated from life, I agree with Beastt. You are on a fool's errand. If you are looking for proof of your ego beyond death, once again Beastt is right, you will not find it. But if you consider the soul as an encompassing concept - the Jedi Force, if you will - you are much more likely to be able to define what the soul is and thus find evidence of it.

Ok, i doubt anyone's going to post a picture of an actual soul anytime soon >.>
Obviously, it isnt a physical thing.
Maybe your soul is the amount of faith you have in things that cannot be seen or touched. Therefore, it would be a personal connection to whatever we beleive and cannot prove?
For example, Those that beleive in heaven - You cannot prove it exists but yet you continue to have faith and you feel that faith via your "soul"
OR, to step away from the holy crap, Those that beleive in the power of "magic" - You also cannot prove it exists but yet you continue to beleive or have faith that it does, via your soul.

...I like my theory >.>

Well, I believe the soul is the way universal consciousness is expressing it self here in and through this material manifestation.

With out soul there is no recognition of the environment and self.

With out that awareness there is no universe.

As a metaphorist I offer the following to those that subscribe belief to a soul existing.

I personally accept a soul as a metaphor for personality, I ask you this is it important to you what you invest your soul in? Investing or devoting ones soul to so many things. What effect does this have on your soul? Especially when the return for ones devotion wavers, or is mishandled.

Has anyone here ever seen a picture of a quark, a proton, a neutrino or an electron? What about the wind? Does anyone here doubt that any of those things exist?

I'm not asking for a photograph. I'm just asking for any credible evidence. And all I mean by "credible evidence" is something other than "I feel it". Again, I ask that people remember that for tens of thousands of years people have held belief in all kinds of things, just as strongly as people now believe in souls. I could post the names of hundreds and hundreds of gods that are now considered by nearly everyone to be nothing but myth. Yet there have been billions and billions of people over man's history who were devoted to these gods based on nothing but "I feel it".

The "I feel it" claim, while being perfectly sincere, is still nothing but subjective assertion. Where a very strong belief is concerned, people often want to link things that don't exist to that feeling of strong devotion or absolute lack of doubt. If we're completely honest with ourselves, I'm sure some of us can remember saying, "He (or she), would never cheat on me. I just know it!" And probably half of those people later had to swallow the hard pill of finding out that they were wrong.

People are inducted into research all of the time and asked to provide their best and most sincere subjective assessment regarding a new medication, treatment or procedure. Many times the research is exactly as it is presented to be. But dozens and dozens of times the research is misrepresented as a necessity to the validity of the outcome. In cases of research on placebo-effect, it's important that the test subjects not know that what is being tested is the validity of their personal subjective "experience".

I've read the abstracts for many of these tests and in every single one, the outcome is the same. People offer their best, most sincere, personal interpretation of their experience and every single time, they're wrong. They react purely to the suggestion.

One such study was claimed to be researching new treatments for chronic arm pain. Two-hundred sixty-six subjects were involved. They were split into two separate groups; one to test a new method of acupuncture and one to test a new medication. Overall they subjectively determined that the acupuncture was more effective than the medication. But twenty-five percent of those receiving the acupuncture suffered from various side-effects they had been cautioned might occur. Thirty-one percent of those receiving the medication suffered from side-effects they'd been warned might accompany use of the new drug. Three of the subjects actually had to abandon the study because even a reduced dosage failed to relieve the acute suffering caused by the side-effects.

The reality is that the "new drug" was simply cornstarch pressed into a pill with a bit of inert blue dye. The acupuncture needles were specially designed to retract rather than penetrate the skin. So the results of the study are as follows.

Subjective Assessment: Both treatments were effective but the acupuncture was the most effective and caused fewer and less acute side effects but both treatments did cause side effects in one-forth to one-third of test subjects.

Objective Assessment: No one receive any kind of treatment. Their subjective assessments were purely wrong and based only on their acceptance of assertions made to them through the study.

The very first surgical treatment for angina pectoris was initially accepted due to the subjective assessment offered by patients receiving the experimental procedure. The subjective assessment was so positive that the surgery was quickly adopted as the standard treatment. Some years later, a double-blind study was designed. Neither the patients nor those gathering the subjective assessments by the patients knew what was actually happening. But the surgeons provided the full procedure to half of the patients and a sham surgery to the other half. Half received nothing more than an incision, the splitting of the sternum, and sutures. The rest received a ligation of the mammary artery which was the mechanism hoped to provide relief of the angina.

Subjective Assessment: Patients proclaimed a great deal of relief from the chest pain associated with angina pectoris.

Objective Assessment: The patients receiving the faked surgery reported the same level of success as those receiving the real surgery.

The same thing happened with the next attempt in which the mammary artery was severed from the inside of the chest wall and sutured to the myocardium. It took years before surgeons found out that the surgeries were all dismal failures because the patient's subjective assessments suggested it to be an overwhelming success. Autopsies eventually provided the objective results which showed that the arteries had not branched or grown as was the hope and intent of the surgical procedure. It didn't work at all. But the subjective assessments of the patients suggested it to be a dramatic success.

Subjective Assessment: Absolute success.

Objective Assessment: Dismal failure.

Just one more to get the point across; The members of the Wisconsin La Crosse team were enlisted to help test superoxygenated water. Half of the team received the new performance enhancing water and the other half received ordinary bottled water. The half consuming superoxygenated water turned in faster times in a 5K run. Then the groups switched the kind of water they were drinking and again, those consuming the superoxygenated water (those who had consumed regular bottled water before), turned in faster times in a 5K run.

Subjective Assessment: Athletes consuming superoxygenated water turned in times in a 5k run ranging from 82 to 143 seconds faster than those consuming bottled water.

Objective Assessment: The "superoxygenated water" was just tap water. None of the results were therefore attributable to anything but the power of suggestion -- the belief among the runners that they had been provided with a performance advantage.

And this is the case over, and over, and over, and over. When people offer their subjective assessment, they're providing their sincere assessment but it tends to be based only on suggestion. When an objective analysis is offered for the very same circumstances, it tells us the truth and nearly always shows the opposite of that proclaimed via subjective assessment.

All of the belief, claims and assertions in regard to souls is purely subjective. The objective analysis shows it to be nothing but the power of suggestion, manifesting as doubtless belief.

The power of suggestion is indeed something to be considered.

However I fail to understand how that power can acurately describe someone I have never met in this life.

Having a soul is exactly the same as is there a god. We have not proven one way or another if either are real. Yet we keep believing in both as we have come to believe in both strongly.

I would love to believe we all have souls. We die, a magical light draws us into a world where all our loved ones who have passed are there to greet us. They embrace us and guide us into the eternal everafter.

I just don't buy it. As much as I wish to believe it, I often will myself to believe it, I cannot grasp the concept of something after we die.

I hope there is more, but I'm not convinced.

Beastt17

Or somethings do exist and we just haven't found proof on it yet... As I said believe what ever it is you want to believe and I will continue to believe that I have a soul. You are not going to convert my views to yours because you make sense to yourself.

MichaelxArc,

Re: "Or somethings do exist and we just haven't found proof on it yet..."

Of course some things exist, Michael. No one said that things didn't exist or that we've discovered all there is to discover. But you have to take into account the amount of time that has been devoted to attempting to discover that first tiny sliver of credible evidence that might point to a soul. It still hasn't been found. I can't think of anything that has been asserted for longer, that hasn't either been completely demonstrated to be fallacy, or been objectively shown to be correct.

And I think if one attempts to view the concept of souls from a logical and rational perspective rather than an emotional perspective, it becomes clear that they've been just as honestly and fully ruled out as has been the concept of a flat Earth, geocentrism or gremlins. The problem is, that just as with those who still believe the Earth is flat, (See: "Flat Earth Society"), they simply refuse to accept the rational, demonstrable conclusions because it doesn't serve their emotional desires to do so.

If people choose to disregard reason, logic and evidence, they can justify belief in absolutely anything. How many people have been recorded by history because they seemed to honestly believe they were a god? How many of them didn't have at least a few followers? How many of them ever demonstrated that they were what they believed themselves to be?

When it comes to what I have offered, it's not just about picking a belief and maintaining it. It's about viewing the evidence, looking to the proposed concepts with fresh eyes and recognizing that this is a concept that should have died with the idea that death from a blood-transfusion meant the donor was inherently evil. The idea has survived only because of its emotional appeal. It has no logical or reasonable appeal. And when a concept has no emotional appeal, no logical appeal and no reasonable appeal, we call that concept "false".

Let's look at some rather implausible ideas. What about the idea that six-tenths of a gram of matter could be converted directly into energy and level a large city. Isn't that pretty wild? How about the idea that your body has billions and billions of tiny particles flying right through it every second, and most of those particles continue through you and then go right through the planet? Some of them came through the planet before going through you and yet touched nothing. What's more bizarre than that? Just as incredible; how about the idea that you could control a collection of sub-atomic particles (do you have any idea how small an atom actually is?), and form them into a stream which you then direct across a space of several inches, to strike a tiny patch of a chemical. Then you can move to another tiny patch of chemical and then another and another. Once you reach the end of he line of chemical dots, you drop down to the next line of chemical dots and hit each one of them in turn. And while you're exercising such precise control over these infinitesimally minute bits, you're also varying how many of them are being directed, on a dot-by-dot basis. That's just totally insane isn't it? Let's take an even smaller particle and direct it from point-A to point-B, confirm that it reached its destination, and then show that it did so by following two different paths simultaneously. Sound like gibberish?

And yet, there existed evidence that each of these things were a possibility. And in just a few years from concept to successful completion, each of these things has been shown to be purely possible. It only took converting six-tenths of a gram of matter to completely level down-town Hiroshima with a 12.5 kiloton blast. Billions and billions of neutrinos fly through your body and trillions and trillions slip right through the Earth every second without touching anything. Your television works because it is possible to direct and control a stream of sub-atomic particles and aim them very precisely at little dots of chemicals. And it "paints" the entire screen, one dot at a time, about 60-times every second. Fire a single photon from a photon generator, to an interferometer (a semi-mirrored piece of high-precision glass), so that it will either move through the glass and go straight down to a photon detector, or be reflected to a mirror which reflects it to a separate photon detector. Now fire one photon. Both detectors go off because the single photon traveled both paths simultaneously.

None of these things took more than a few decades to demonstrate. And yet people still believe that after tens of thousands of years of assertion, there still exists no credible evidence of souls, simply because we haven't found that evidence "yet"? Think about what the soul is claimed to be. Why would that be nearly as elusive as tracking down and counting something as small and fast as a neutrino? A neutrino can slip right through an atom without colliding with any of the atom's mass far more easily than a fly can cross a parking lot without hitting a light pole. They travel at nearly the speed of light. How do you find credible evidence for the existence of such a thing? And yet they do exist and it took only 26 years from the time they were first suggested to exist, to the time when they were fully confirmed. Another 20-years and we were accurately counting these insanely tiny bits.

Compare that to a supposed human essence that some claim they can see, others claim they can sense and still others claim can manipulate the physical? And yet we still have zero evidence? It's simply beyond any form of logic to suggest such a thing. And yet, because the belief is popular, and because it appeals to those driven by emotionalism, the concept persists no matter how absurdly implausible.

It's about abandoning logic, avoiding reason, ignoring the lack of evidence and simply believing what you wish to believe, simply because you want to. If not for the popularity, most people would have abandoned such beliefs centuries ago. But people maintain them in avoidance of all semblance of reason, simply because they see it as a way to hope to escape death.

I would say that, as with all ideas that stand without concrete proof, it boils down to faith and where you place yours.

If you believe that a diety will take your soul to heaven or hell then you place your faith in the notion that a soul exists and that it's purpose is to guide your body through it's courses to accomplish a final goal.


If you choose to put your faith in science then you would be more likely to believe that what some consider the "soul" is really millions of chemical reactions of the body.


Either way, you can argue until proverbial hell freezes over and it will always come down to where you choose to place your faith, regardless of whether your soul determined it or it was the chemical reactions in your dome.

One should never put their "faith" in anything. Believing on faith is never a good thing. One should believe (or disbelieve), on evidence. Believing or doubting on faith simply means choosing what appeals to one's emotions.

If we can finally come to understand that science has nothing to do with faith and that the methodology we call "science" is all about ruling out all faith, ignoring the subjective, and accepting only the objective, we can start to make progress and come to a more common understanding.

As long as people continue to choose their beliefs based only on their desires (faith), common understanding, the human race, and human advancement will continue to suffer. Objective observation yields truth. It is responsible for the considerable success of the scientific method. When people adhere instead to subjectivity, the result is superstition, fallacy, myth and all the damage that rises from such false ideas. Subjectivity is the big liar -- it tells you just what you want to hear. Objectivity is less compassionate to one's emotional desires because it's always brutally honest.

So what do you want when assessing claims, honesty or compassionate lies?

Ah, but I did not say "let us all blindly follow whatever retarded notion is placed at our feet."

Blind faith is for sheep and alcoholics.


However, when there is no proof of either option which way do you choose to believe?


Call it faith. Call it educated guess or theory.

It still boils down to which you choose to believe..since proof is at this time unavailable.


I call it "faith" in this instance because the idea of a human being having a soul is a very basic part of most every religion. In religion...believing in something that cannot be proven is considered faith.

Since the topic of the thread is, "Why do we have a soul?" that would lend to usage of the term, would it not?

The soul is what gives every living thing it's energy. It is undying.

The body is but just a vassal for the soul. When we die, our soul moves on, bringing life elsewhere.

Semantics.

Debating the usage of words, the depth of which are very much determined by the individual who is using them, seems a bit pointless in this instance.

It is especially pointless in that I have given you my reasoning for using them as I did.

The point is that all we can do is determine whether we will side with the spiritual or the scientific in this matter. Neither one is proven at this point in time.


Attempting to bore the opposing viewpoint into submission with an 8-12 paragraph post that merely twists their words around for sake of argument doesn't really seem to preserve the nature of debate or lend to the topic one way or another. It simply successfully turns the desire to express a viewpoint into the question, "Is it worth it to continue to post here knowing that I will have a college essay submission on the various potential uses for any given word waiting for me when I open the thread next?"

Good call. ;)

Based on the description given, it sounds like a book of very selective and contextually distorted, quote-mining. First it claims to be based in science, then it claims that no understanding of physics, chemistry, or mathematics is necessary. Huh? How does one understand science if they can't understand physics, chemistry or mathematics?

Even Flat-Earthers claim to have "scientific evidence" to show that the Earth is flat and not really orbiting the sun. What they really have is an inappropriate application of accepted principles.

For instance; they claim that if the Earth were really on a trajectory around the sun, the centrifugal force would throw everything not physically attached to Earth, off of the planet. It sounds credible if one ignores the fact that there is less than a single degree of angle through the movement of an entire day.

In short, such things are simply not science. Science is the tracking and analysis of evidence to a conclusion. What we often find when people proclaim they're using science to support concepts of the supernatural, paranormal or things like the flat-Earth claim, is an avoidance of science. They're not willing to try to trace the evidence to the conclusion because it doesn't lead where they wish to go. So they attempt to invert the process, by starting with their conclusion, and then applying only select bits of evidence and assumptions with which they can attempt to demonstrate a link from their conclusion, to those bits of evidence. It's simply not science. It's selective avoidance of evidence and science principles and the inversion of the scientific method.

Einstein didn't believe in souls. He stated so quite clearly; "Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms." -- [Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955]"
(Note he uses "souls" as a euphemism for people of limited ability to accept reality, not as a metaphysical entity.)

And yet, who do we see listed in supposed support of the idea of souls? It's yet another attempt to do exactly what Einstein noted and attempted to correct; ""It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -- [Albert Einstein, 1954, from "Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]"

Such a book has already destroyed any hope of credibility through obvious dishonesty and misapplication of science and the quotations of scientists. And I note that the advertisement gives not a single example of scientific backing for the idea of souls. It claims scientific backing, but never provides any.

I think our souls are what we become, a combination of our thoughts, emotions and life experiences. Therefore, I think it's more than mere consciousness but it is something that inhabits our physical bodies.

I believe that the soul may have started with religon but as time went by it turned into a way of explainging your deepest self. Your deepest thoughts, desires, loves, and hates. It is the most pure version of youself and i think that only you can know your soul.

Even if a person is considered damaged in life a soul still must remain in my opinion, for it is our lifes energy, yet I still ponder people on life support would the soul just cease to exist and a shell would remain?

Speculations or interpretations on the soul, quit a lot of good posts here.

some people suggest that a soul is what separates us from animals. Humans and animals both have brains, but animals are scientifically considered to act on genetic instinct while humans act on what basically amounts to random free will.

It is based on Faith in promise of Immortal life after death. If it were provable, Faith would not be acquired, and all religions would collapse. Faith being of Free will and Free choice. Would you really wish to be wrong in the end? You won't get a second chance!

I would say because humanity was given a gift to possess one. There are those that can remember past lives. I am not going to step on our ancient cultures toes here and say they do not exist. We have bodies but we're not robots and something is steering our directions in life. Perhaps it's our soul?

S0RVENA well said....

Something inside each of us steer or guide us in a direction, keeps the imagies of the past and helps with emotions. Our true innerself...aka The Soul. Our battery pack to say that stores and gives us our individuality.

The soul itself makes you..you. the body is just a container. why do u like the things u do.. i believe its ur past likes and dislikes that build ur soul and help it to grow. i believe in reincarnation i for some reason have a habbit with medeval times and i think i was something very great then. i think in our souls lay the answers to our greatest questions.

well as for sickness affecting our soul . No way can that be your soul is only touched by things of this world as long as we are in it. As soon as we pass on our soul is free and we know all. But to know all is not always good may be good for some for others may be hell.
We are not our own like we would like to think.
We do take something with us tho into the other place and that is love , peace, and kindships .

The soul, it exist in your mind or in your heart? If it exist in your heart, after a heart attack, what happen to the soul? If in the mind, during Alzheimer, what happen to the soul? Dear reader, can you answer my question.

I dont even know if we do have a soul.. I do feel in my heart and in my head or i wan tto believe we are more then just our bodies.

the question is do we have souls, if some one belives we do not poses them then this question has no mass. the way i look at it is that yes the idea did come from religion, But every day I look around and see the evil that men do. I also stop to see the good that men do. what drives men to do these things are sence of right and wrong, what gives us that commen sence. why do I live my life as a good man. teaching my virtues to my children, well with all the evil in the world I hope thier is a soul and that when my time comes I go to where my belifes take me. after all to acheve peace we need to make peace with are oun souls.

I don't know how to answer the question why do we have a soul... because I believe we ARE soul. Actually I guess the answer would be - to exist.

Just like my clothes are not me, but simply something I cover my body with - I believe my body is not me, but simply something I use to move around earth in.

I also believe we are all connected, ultimately, to each other and to the ultimate source. I believe in reincarnation; to learn all there is to know. I believe we keep coming back to earth (or elsewhere) in different forms to learn new lessons.

I believe once we 'graduate' our reincarnating we will go on to be come co-creators in the universe, joining with the ultimate source to create life elsewhere.

Weird, yes... out there, yes.... but it sits nicely with me.



Also, Beastt, I'm curious as to what would qualify as a "credible source" for you. If someone said they had actual proof of soul, what would it have to be for you to believe it? Forgive me if I'm wrong; I can't help but wonder if you would simply debunk everything that came to you. What is proof to one, is hogwash to another.

My opinion about this... well i think soul is different from every matters and no matters. Soul (Atma) is even different from spirit (Prana) Soul is covered by cell of spirit and conscious is the tool of spirit, spirit can not be there wh body unless the soul is there and hence without conscious nerve tree just not moving brain not working and body not commanded by intellact which is in command of conscious and not in command of mind. mind goes either way makes prana nuts and conscious keep mind in control and keep prana balanced. in core soul is safeguarded by spirit with the power of conscious.

I don't think we do have a soul. In my opinion, all we have is consciousness to decide what is right and what is wrong. No soul that guides our decisions. Especially not a little floating ball of ethereal matter.

i personally think a part of us goes on after death. that part we call "soul" for convenience sake.

that is what becomes a ghost in some cases, or reincarnates in other cases.
just my thought ofcoarse
~Wolf~

My thoughts on what a soul is is what makes us think and feel..our inner selves, is it our soul or just our minds..I am not really sure but do believe that is why we are all different and are free thinkers. I believe without our inner selves we would just be mindless and heartless beings.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.