Are there souls?

[Longasc]

I am undecided:

1. I would like to believe in a soul to exist, to be more than

2. ... rather complex chemical and electric reactions causing my brain to work more or less rational/emotional


But as newfangle said, up to now the existence of a soul is merely as esoterical explained as non-existing things, namely esoterical rubbish.

As we are trying to convince others if there is a soul or not, the debate is quite old and faces the same problems: You can believe that you have a soul or not, but right now the more hard arguments are on the side that the whole concept of a soul is more of a wish than reality.

Soul = reactions of all sorts in the brain. This would work probably for everyone. But somehow it is disappointing, isn't it?

 

[GerrardCapashen]

Sounds interesting, but I don't buy quantum mechanics either.

Why not? Quantum mechanics is a highly refined well evidenced subset of physics that has been proven in multiple ways (I'd put denial of it at almost the level of evolution denial)

No scientific theory has ever been verified to as many significant digits as the predictions of quantum mechanics have. To not believe in it is to dispute the purest fact.

With regard to souls, I'll believe in them when their existence is demonstrated, though I think that is unlikely to occur either before or after death.

 

[Iggy]

Belief in an afterlife or our consciousness remaining in some form after our bodies cease to function appeals to our egos and survival instincts. Questions like, "What is the point of life if it is not part of a cycle?" are easy for man to make. It is far less appealing to believe reality is that the lights are turned on when you are born and they are turned off when you die. I see no evidence other than the "lights off" theory.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Re: QM, to not believe in its predictions would be crazy. As GerCap says, they've been verified to greater precision than anything else you care name. But it's probably still "wrong" in the sense that Newtonian mechanics is wrong; it will probably break down somewhere (that somewhere, the smart money says, is at the Planck scale).

Of course, there's every reason to suppose that whatever deeper theory that might reduce to QM in the appropriate limit will be even more alien and contradictory to human intuitions.

 

[Narz]

Ummm, who said there is no mind body connection? Who said he was imptotent?

It was a joke.

Show me the studies

I don't have them. I'm not the one who claims they didn't exisit. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I'm not saying that you need to believe Chopra or anyone but if you're going to knock someone (or something) at least read it and analyze it for yourself. You make yourself look bad when you judge something you haven't even experienced. Would you say "that movie sucked" without seeing it just cause Skepdic told you so?

Seems likes skeptics are the most suceptable of us all.

 

[Narz]

Oh yeah, while I'm here, may I suggest, if you are interested in pursuing this subject further check out Raymond Moody's book Life After Life which has interviews of subjects who've died (in the clinical, medical sense) and been resurrected. It contains no presuppositions or "spirtual conclusions" based on the data. It's pretty interesting and compelling.

- Narz

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't have them. I'm not the one who claims they didn't exisit. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Well, no. The burden of proof rests squarely on the guy saying there's studies showing something.

 

[joacqin]

I would say that it is possible that our conscience is something more than what we know of our physical bodies. I voted undecided because I dont believe in any spiritual form of soul but I am open for the possibility of some manifestation of our consciousness which isnt 100% tied to the brain functions we know of today. Even if am deeply anti-religious I am open for the possibility of the existance of lots of things we have yet to explain, that does not mean that they are inexplainable.

 

[Narz]

Well, no. The burden of proof rests squarely on the guy saying there's studies showing something.

The studies are probably referenced in the guy's book. If the website disparaging him wants to be compelling they have to offer proof that the studies are in fact bogus or never happened (neither of which they did in their attack).

If I said, "Conformist does not tell the truth", does that make you a lier until you can prove otherwise simply because I stated something in the negative instead of the positive (as oppsed to "Conformist does tell the truth")?

In other words, there is a burden of proof on any statement not just a positive statement.

If you make a positive statement without proof it's a hoax.

If you make a negative statement without facts it's slander.

Either way you need proof or you are a lier (unless you admit your statement is merely speculation), deceiving and misguiding poor suceptable youth like Perfection.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If so, I'm gonna assert there's studies showing that Japan is made of chocolate. Unless you can demonstrate that not to be the case, you have no valid grounds not to believe me.

 

[Narz]

If so, I'm gonna assert there's studies showing that Japan is made of chocolate. Unless you can demonstrate that not to be the case, you have no valid grounds not to believe me.

Dude, I said there is a burden of proof for both positive and negative statements.

 

[Ayatollah So]

How the belief in such a soul became widespread, and how it got tacked onto Christianity in particular (even though it's not really needed, since Christians believe in the resurrection of the body and therefore can believe in life after death without the metaphysical nonsense that is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul) is another story in itself...

I'd be interested in that story. Another thread, I guess.

I'm with Pirate (and you, I think) - souls, in the sense of animating principle, exist. (The "psyche" of ancient Greeks.) The rest is needless baggage, not worth hefting.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Dude, I said there is a burden of proof for both positive and negative statements.

So, you don't accept anything without proof?

 

[Perfection]

I don't have them. I'm not the one who claims they didn't exisit. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Ummm, I never said they didn't exist, I was just wondering if you could back up your claim that they do exist. The burden of proof of thier existance is on you!

I'm not saying that you need to believe Chopra or anyone but if you're going to knock someone (or something) at least read it and analyze it for yourself. You make yourself look bad when you judge something you haven't even experienced. Would you say "that movie sucked" without seeing it just cause Skepdic told you so?

I base these claims off experience, I've seen numerous new age authors try to smash science and spirituality together to produce pure BS, and so unless I see a significant reason not to I'm dumping Chopra in there.

Seems likes skeptics are the most suceptable of us all.

I wouldn't say that, we certainly are suceptable, however in this case with such radical claims, and only your account of some new age book
as evidence, I feel quite justified at dismissing it. You're welcome to bring more evidence, but until then I'm calling it poppycock.

As for the burden of proof, it goes to the one making the claim against the mainstream body of knowledge.

 

[Perfection]

Oh yeah, while I'm here, may I suggest, if you are interested in pursuing this subject further check out Raymond Moody's book Life After Life which has interviews of subjects who've died (in the clinical, medical sense) and been resurrected. It contains no presuppositions or "spirtual conclusions" based on the data. It's pretty interesting and compelling.

- Narz

I've allready dealt with this

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98900&page=4&pp=20

 

[Birdjaguar]

I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that the something's perception is correct, and that it is the only thing that exists, which would make the universe and its contents only part of the something? In that case, our perception that the something is separated from the universe would be wrong.

It was late , I was hasty and tried to shape my response in a neutral way and was obviously not clear. I should have known that someone like you would take me to task for my sloppy response. So I will try again. I was arguing against this statement that a god that was outside the universe couldn't effect the universe.

Newfangle also had it right. Something that exists outside the universe would have no effects on the universe anyways.

As you said our brains are the source of all of our perceptions. Our brains preceive separation in the universe. We see, hear, feel, discrete objects. There's me and you and all the other people and things all around us. Science tell us that the universe is an "object" in time.

I would say that this separateness that we live in is a product of our brain. Our brains misrepresent Reality in a way that allows us to live in a finite universe of discrete objects. In Reality (capital R) there is only one infinite, eternal, unchanging, permanent existence: God (for lack of a better name). God is not outside the universe. If one can remove the barriers the brain places between our conscious mind and Reality, the universe will disappear and Reality exposed. God is all there is so the point about him/it not being able to have any effect on the universe does not make sense.
The unverse is god and god, if he/it were conscious of creation could certain act on it.

Imagine what you would see if you could wear special glasses that only showed you quarks and leptons. What would the world/universe look like? What would your hand look like? Would it look different from your wife or girlfriend? Your dog? Your dinner? We cannot see what is permanent and unchanging. I believe that it is there.

I hope this is clearer, Plotinus.

 

[Narz]

As for the burden of proof, it goes to the one making the claim against the mainstream body of knowledge.

Ok, that makes sense. Well, I'm not going to go digging up evidence for you. Besides, you'll probably find flaws in it and I'm not really in the mood to continue this debate. Your skeptical energy is stronger than my desire to prove anything. I'll just say one more thing, if you are always waiting for proof before you act you are always dependent on external circumstances for validation. If you act without proof then you will be the first to experience the proof if your hypothesis is correct.

I've allready dealt with this

So, what do you think happens when we die?

 

[Iggy]

So, what do you think happens when we die?

Our souls are in the same state as what they were before we were born - nothing. (Not the most uplifting theory admittedly.)

 

[Seanirl]

I hope so. Otherwise this whole life thing is a complete waste of time.

My thoughts exactly... it's of course, an interesting hard to understand subject.

If I found out for sure that there was no God and no afterlife and when you died you just magically disappeared... I'd probably get depressed, then go on a rampage killing people I hate before shooting myself dead... probably.

I'd go all Taxi Driver, you know... except I'd kill myself too, or just die in a shoot out.

The thing is... someone mentioned consiousness... and computers... which is something to think about.

I mean... I don't feel like a computer and... I'm viewing everything 1st person and stuff...

so, if there are no souls then... computers must feel the same or... something.

Feck, I probably don't even understand what I'm trying to say myself

 

[Mungaf]

Birdjaguar:

Reality with a captial R, etc.

Maybe I'm just dense, but I really don't see where you're going. It's all fine until you're talking about "Reality". Like we agreed, everything we know about the universe, whether through scientific experiments, rational thought, whatever, goes through our brain. Because our brains validate these experiences and thoughts, we have reason to believe in a universe of discrete objects. But why jump to conclude that there is a different Reality containing some different kind of existence when it is imperceptible?

On a side note, I don't understand why one would go Taxi Driver if there were no soul or afterlife (which there isn't). You have forever to be dead or nonexistant, but only 80-90 years tops to see what life has to offer.