It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Would a "clone" disprove the eternal soul hypothesis.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 01:35 PM
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

Yes, well, this is why so many people have problems with the idea of fetal stem cell research. If you don't know for sure at what point someone is someone and has a soul ... then the implications get a bit disturbing.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:12 PM
I think the question itself is back to front, for me, it would be a case of proving there is any such thing as an afterlife, not disproving it. For me, it doesn't make sense since I find the whole idea of an afterlife, absolutely ridiculous. I don't know at what point along the evolutionary process the whole idea came about but if it's to attach some deeper meaning to an otherwise, strange and conscious existence, there are many other more sensible and valid ways to do that than coming up with the notion that you will still exist after you cease to exist.

It just needs to be accepted that the whole idea is ridiculous and stupid. I mean c'mon, it's 2015 damn it. You didn't exist before you were born, you will not exist after you die. It's a dead cert ( pardon the pun ) The whole crazy idea is the height of human arrogance.

We are but a minute dot on the vast blanket of the universe, which is probably teeming with life in all weird shapes and forms. If you go along with an afterlife theory, surely you must also succumb to the idea that every other living things, anywhere must also have an afterlife? And if not, why not?

Here are some questions that afterlife believers never answer.

1. At what point along the evolutionary path of the universe were souls 'created'. ( We came along billions and billions of years into the existence of the universe. We were not needed then, if we became extinct tomorrow, we wouldn't be missed then either. Why the 'need' for a soul? )

2. As technology progresses, it will at some point be possible to upload your consciousness to a computer, and download it to another body. If consciousness exists after death and moves on to an 'afterlife', how would this even be possible?

3. It wouldn't make sense to say that a soul is exclusive to the human race. That's even more ridiculous, therefore, if one believes in souls, one must also believe that everything that has lived, lives, will ever live, must also have a soul. Which ponders the question: Are there souls of ants, sabre toothed tigers, T-Rex, cro magnon man, homo erectus, microbial liveforms, fish, birds, alien life??????

It's easy to go on with these questions and they end up sounding crazy but they are valid things to take into account when somebody tried to brainwash you with this nonesence.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 03:25 PM
A clone would a reproduction of the electrical current which is a macrocosm of the pixelated lightning bolt. Which is nothing more then the splitting of atoms caused by heat. Creating a loud sound we know as thunder.

Biologically in nature clones take place all the time it's called mitosis bacteria and even humans have been discovered to complete this natural cloning ability on the cellular level. Thus making it impossible to disprove the eternal soul.

Remember that electrical current you see is just a giant pixel of 1 single pixel within as a nucleus that creates the whole thing.

That 1 single pixel cloned itself eternally.

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:36 PM
a reply to: Develo

I don't know if you are being facetious or not?

I was genuinely curious. Figured you had some reasons to share.

I very much agree there are ethical concerns that need to be addressed. I feel many of the ones you mentioned could potentially be resolved legally and by improving the science behind cloning. My biggest worry is the psychological concern you brought up. The ramifications on ones psyche when they are cognizant of the fact they are clones and being aware others know it as well. Society can be rather brutal to someone who's 'different'. A clone would I'm sure represent someone who was the result of 'playing god' and nothing more to many religious people. Terrible discrimination would ensue.

Watch "Moon" and you will understand why most people

Seen it. Great movie.
edit on 25-2-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 25 2015 @ 04:54 PM
The concepts of an afterlife and a soul really are meant to make us feel better about death. Most won't admit this to themselves, but it doesn't make it less true. Life, intelligent or not, cannot live forever. When a plant dies and a human dies the result is the same. Life itself will always carry on, but "your" life will come to an end. This isn't a romance novel we're living, it just is what it is. Nothing to be sad about. We are all ignorant of pain or suffering after death.

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 04:35 AM
In answer to the OP...No.

A vehicle is a vehicle, however it is made. If no driver inserts itself, it will not move (unless rolling down a hill). 'We' insert ourselves into vehicles that will best afford us a 'contracted' experience learned (experience being the greatest teacher - especially since the maxim 'you can't convince anyone of anything unless they experience it' is the MO of the curious soul)...memory is optional (or more to the point...trigger-related) and experienced in many different ways...
...a process that mirrors biological (normal & natural) processes, before-during and after birth will form the structure necessary to harbour a soul...the simplest reason why crude robots/hybridised/synthetic vehicles cannot be vessels for a soul - the stucture necessary to harbour it (let alone aver its existence) is not present...


posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:21 AM

originally posted by: Battlefresh
The concepts of an afterlife and a soul really are meant to make us feel better about death.

As usual, there are different levels of reading to spiritual texts. More mundane ones, more literal and easy to understand, what transpires from a quick reading of such texts. Then there is a deeper reading, requiring more comparison work and personal involvement.

From an exoteric perspective you are 100% right; the idea of an afterlife and the survivance of an individual soul are really a way for us to be less afraid of death.

But from an esoteric perspective, it all becomes pointless since the spiritual searcher is supposed to free himself from the shackles of his ego, and as such, to also be free from the fear of death since his individuality already died once (what psychonauts call "ego death").

When you read spiritual texts from that new perspective, a different meaning emerges, and it's no longer about feeling better about death, it's something bigger.

According to all these texts (using different words and based on different cultural backgrounds) life is the result of the individuation and incarnation of the Greater Spirit into matter. A facet of the Greater Spirit, as it incarnates, start living its life in the illusion that it is entirely separate from the rest of the universe. It starts building a separate identity, the ego, while its original essence is still a part of the Greater Spirit.

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

Within that frame, a soul/spirit is simply that facet of the Greater Spirit incarnating inside matter. That "soul" is indeed eternal. But the ego isn't. The ego is linked to our body and history. When the body dies, the ego has nothing left to continue to exist. It must disintegrate and let its original nature (facet of Greater Spirit) dissolve back into its source.

It's still purely spiritual stuff, nothing scientific about this, but this is what is really meant beneath the surface of all spiritual texts, and the vision of existence as seen from the eyes of the mystics of all religions.

There is nothing comforting for the ego regarding the concept of "soul". That a part of us keeps living after our death in another form (the consequences of our acts, our descendants, the memory we left, our "life energy", the nutrients of our decaying body, ...) doesn't change the fact that our individuality, our ego, will certainly die.

This is something that the literal reading of spiritual texts has deformed over time, but the personal experience of the spiritual journey leads always to the same conclusion; "something" will survive our death, but our individuality must die.

And some people don't really understand the whole extent of what this individuality represents. It represents the whole life of the majority of people, the illusion we are separated, unique and isolated. And whatever survives after death, most spiritual texts are clear: the individuality dies. Your identity dies.

There is no comfort for the ego in the true meaning of the concept of the eternal soul. If you can't let your ego die at least once in this life, physical death will take care of that for you.

Enlightenment equals ego death [...] the renunciation, rejection and, ultimately, the death of the need to hold on to a separate, self-centered existence.

The Bardo Thodol for example describes this process in great detail. How all the different layers composing our identity and illusion of individuality must evaporate one after the other when we die until only our true essence remains. And that true essence is certainly not what the vast majority of people call "themselves".
edit on 26-2-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2015 by Develo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 06:52 AM
a reply to: Develo

"The Bardo Thodol for example describes this process in great detail. How all the different layers composing our identity and illusion of individuality must evaporate one after the other when we die until only our true essence remains. And that true essence is certainly not what the vast majority of people call "themselves"."

It is clear. That essence (in reverse) then 'clothes' itself willingly in layers to experience individuation, otherwise the process is redundant, and would never have been set in motion for anyone to ponder/read on/study/compare etc in the first place/s...Bardo Thodol is exemplary in this regard.


posted on Feb, 26 2015 @ 08:59 AM

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Entreri06

With genetic engineering in the news lately and on the radio show ground zero tonight. I always hear the religious crowd saying that we shouldn't allow true test tube/created humans, because they wouldn't have a god givin eternal soul.

Well what if when we do, they come out normal. Perfectly human loving, caring individuals. Wouldn't that debunk the thought of a god givin eternal soul?

this topic is very flexible, from what i can tell, and apparently tempered by a very specific part of the world view of the person answering it. for example, in the non-abrahamic category, a certain type of new ager would view it moreso from the perspective of quantum physics and entanglement. whereas a buddhist might view it as a karmic event or just a non-issue entirely.

one such person imparted to me the idea that whenever you have mass, such as a human body / embryo, it creates a gravity well in the space/time fabric, thus attracting to itself, the spirit body. as soon as that gravity well is created, the ability for that lifeform mass to impact history is bound to the timeline, like the butterfly effect and as a result, removing that mass from the space/time continuum may have unforeseen complications, the same as any other lifeform. so, theoretically, adding it to the space/time continuum would have a similar impact (this is assuming dna is quantumly entangled, whether cloned or not)

since we have limited lifetime memory (even if reincarnation were true, many don't seem to remember any potential past lives) that means we may not even realize the impact such actions would have on the timeline and whether they are positive, negative, or neutral (and to what degree).

I disagree about the gravity thought. The minuscule gravitational pull of an embryo couldn't over power the other mass around it. Any way you look at it, we arnt fundamentally different from any other life on the planet. Or even the rocks. In that theory humAnity is speacial. So our gravity over powers the gravity of say Everest.

I know you said it wasn't your pet theory or anything '.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in