What's a soul?

[archbishopjabber]

The entire concept of a "soul" is more or less feedback within the human nervous system.

[Hollus]

Personally, I don't believe in a soul as a supernatural "something" that bestows intelligence and morality in human beings. I can admire the immense complexity and beauty of the human mind without believing in something that is obviously a human fabrication.

[Lone--Wanderer]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

The entire concept of a "soul" is more or less feedback within the human nervous system.

Pretty much ya.

I mean, REALLY, people. We don't have souls. Just accept that when you die, YOU'RE GONE FOREVER and get over it.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by Lone--Wanderer

Pretty much ya.

I mean, REALLY, people. We don't have souls. Just accept that when you die, YOU'RE GONE FOREVER and get over it.

Well that's just jumping to conclusions. If you strongly believe so, where is the evidence? Don't tell me that your evidence is the inaccuracy to prove something totally different.

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Well that's just jumping to conclusions. If you strongly believe so, where is the evidence? Don't tell me that your evidence is the inaccuracy to prove something totally different.

That's not the way it works. If you tell me that souls exist, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence to support your statements, not on me to disprove you. (Not that the inability to disprove something is evidence to the contrary.)

Also, the existence of souls is a unfalsifiable theory, just like Creationism. There's not really a verifiable way to prove or disprove it, its only based on personal belief. Untestable belief doesn't make a good scientific hypothesis.

[archbishopjabber]

Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster

Well that's just jumping to conclusions. If you strongly believe so, where is the evidence? Don't tell me that your evidence is the inaccuracy to prove something totally different.

If we can agree that an amoeba doesn't have a soul, then we can agree that a human doesn't have a soul since a human being is simply a very complex evolved form of the amoeba having undergone several billion years of changes. At no point under the processes of evolution did any magical soul creation take place.

Stating that a soul exists is basically going against the principals of the teapot theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Also, someone dies and they are brought back a few minutes later. There is "transfer" that occurs during that time.


Another bit of evidence. After 3 days of development, cells are undifferentiated. That means if you seperated them into 200 pieces, it would form 200 identical individuals. The possibility that this could occur completely invalidates the possibility of a soul existing.

No soul, you aren't special, get over it.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Originally Posted by Hollus

That's not the way it works. If you tell me that souls exist, the responsibility is on you to provide evidence to support your statements, not on me to disprove you. (Not that the inability to disprove something is evidence to the contrary.)

I didn't say that a soul exists. Simply that it might be a possibility that one exists.

Originally Posted by Hollus

Also, the existence of souls is a unfalsifiable theory, just like Creationism. There's not really a verifiable way to prove or disprove it, its only based on personal belief. Untestable belief doesn't make a good scientific hypothesis.

I would have to agree on that part which is why I take a neutral stance of just keeping everything as a possibility instead of going for one side to bigot unreasonably against others without convincing evidence. I would say that it is more favorable for people to not have souls (just a personal thought), but I'm still going to have a neutral stance unless the word soul is clearly defined and proven right/wrong completely (which I doubt would ever happen). However, I would be in favor of opposing souls if it was used for any other intent of the word soul such as manipulating others to think a certain way in society. For example, a person would make a statement that only heterosexual people have souls.

Edit: Just like how ledwix claimed that everyone has their own reality, I choose to give patience to the reality that everyone lives in instead of making up my own.

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

If we can agree that an amoeba doesn't have a soul, then we can agree that a human doesn't have a soul since a human being is simply a very complex evolved form of the amoeba having undergone several billion years of changes. At no point under the processes of evolution did any magical soul creation take place.

Given that an amoeba doesn't have a soul, and given that humans evolved from an amoeba, who is to say that several BILLION years cannot produce a soul? An amoeba has no eyes, heart, lungs, nervous system, digestive system, bladder, sexual organs, brain, ears, nose, legs, toes, arms, or fingers. why is a soul any different? Why is it an impossibility? Is it simply because it has to do with religion, so it is INSTANTLY proven wrong right there? To an amoeba, ANY of those things in the list above would seem magical in comparison to it. That is truth.

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

No soul, you aren't special, get over it.

If there's no point in living, lifeforms should all just commit suicide then, because life is not special, just a miraculous accident. That is not special at all. We are just contradicting and disturbing the entropy of the universe by spontaneously forming massively complex structures without reason or desire to. Would you like to say that?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by ledwix

If there's no point in living, lifeforms should all just commit suicide then, because life is not special, just a miraculous accident. That is not special at all.

This doesn't make any sense. No one said there was no point in living, and in the sense you seem to consider "point", the absence of this point doesn't necessitate any action.

We are just contradicting and disturbing the entropy of the universe by spontaneously forming massively complex structures without reason or desire to. Would you like to say that?

Given the size of the universe entropy doesn't occur at a fast enough rate to contradict the formation of life. Earth is not a closed system, it receives massive amounts of energy from the sun and elsewhere, as well as retaining energy itself. Some argue that the universe isn't even a closed system.

[Coca Cola]

I'm Sorry

That Is The Right Question

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Coca Cola

I'm Sorry

That Is The Right Question

Three threads in a row where you have both the last post, and a post of total non-contributing nonsense...Perhaps you should reread the rules of posting in these threads.

Originally Posted by Ledwix

If there's no point in living, lifeforms should all just commit suicide then, because life is not special, just a miraculous accident. That is not special at all.

And to further what Kilroy said...who says that having no soul means there is no point to living? There are plenty of pleasures and positive emotive responses to be gained right here in our limited, mortal lifespan. You can do things here that will have consequences for others after you have died, and just because you lack some magical "soul" that is rewarded or punished in itself for how it acted in life, doesn't mean there is no "point" to wanting to do good things, bad things, or whatever things you like while you are alive.

[Coca Cola]

Originally Posted by devonin

Three threads in a row where you have both the last post, and a post of total non-contributing nonsense...Perhaps you should reread the rules of posting in these threads.

...or so it may seem from your point of view.

[devonin]

Well, posts that are not reasonable responses to other posts, and posts that do not even attempt to raise new points for discussion and response are, by the definitions stated in the forum rules, non-contributing nonsense that ought not to be present so...yes, from my point of view, and from any rational interpretation of the forum rules.

[Coca Cola]

You are right. That post is nothing but an inside post.

[NarutoFoxDemon]

There is a song about the soul, called Somebody - Prezioso, look it up

[Lone--Wanderer]

Personally, I think the whole "soul" thing came up when people decided that they were afraid of dying and had to make themselves happy again by saying that you never really "died", just left your mortal body.

And, there is a point in living. This planet has a delicate balance of flora and fauna, and it needs to be kept in balance by everything else. Like a living cell, Earth needs care from the inside out, and the life-forms on her exist to keep every other life-form in check.

Humans are an illness in this cell; we're everywhere and rapidly killing / destroying everything. Sad thing is, nothing can really kill us all but something that would screw the entire planet over as well. We're like AIDS or something.

[x6tence]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

If we can agree that an amoeba doesn't have a soul, then we can agree that a human doesn't have a soul since a human being is simply a very complex evolved form of the amoeba having undergone several billion years of changes. At no point under the processes of evolution did any magical soul creation take place.

Stating that a soul exists is basically going against the principals of the teapot theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Also, someone dies and they are brought back a few minutes later. There is "transfer" that occurs during that time.


Another bit of evidence. After 3 days of development, cells are undifferentiated. That means if you seperated them into 200 pieces, it would form 200 identical individuals. The possibility that this could occur completely invalidates the possibility of a soul existing.

No soul, you aren't special, get over it.

that all depends what perspective your coming from either religious or scientific.

[Kilroy_x]

Conveniently enough, one of those perspectives happens to be wrong.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

I would like to say that even though science (as shown on devonin's chart) doesn't contain any end. Religion on the other hand does contain an end. The problem is that religion jumps straight to the end with ignoring contradicting evidence. That doesn't make religion wrong (unless proven wrong). It simply means that there is a chance that religion is wrong. Science on the other hand, doesn't have any chances of being wrong because every idea is proven and even if the idea doesn't seem to be provable, science would have the intent of proving an idea 100% and honoring the fact that there might be contradicting evidence to an idea. Science is clearly the better perspective because when something is proven, it is 100% right, but when religion deals with and issue, there is a chance that something might be wrong. Why take a chance and go with religion's perspective when you can clearly be guaranteed a 100% chance of ideas being proven in science (or atleast the intent of proving it 100% without skipping straight to the end)?

[devonin]

Why take a chance and go with religion's perspective when you can clearly be guaranteed a 100% chance of ideas being proven in science (or atleast the intent of proving it 100% without skipping straight to the end)?

I wonder what Pascal would say to this....*ponder*