It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Our soul, What is it?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
It looks like an easy question but i doubt it


What is our soul? Do everyone have one? Does animals have souls?
Are ghosts some peoples souls that have become lost?
Do we have souls?

What is it made of? Can we change it? Where is it?

I really haven't heard any good thoughts that could could explain this enigma.
I've do have heard lots about it, but never something that could explain it.

What do you believe?

Input is greatly apreciated.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
i personally believe that the idea of a soul originated, ultimately, to distinguish humans from the rest of the life on Mother Earth. how could we justify our anthropocentric ways if we had to equate ourselves on the same level as the brown bear or buffalo?

it's our advanced way of saying, "hey we just took away your habitat and ate you for dinner, because we are more powerful. our needs come first."

*Edit...more thoughts

that is not saying humans do not have souls...it's just showing the reasoning behind it possibly. i personally think that all life is energy, and all life plays it's part to some degree, minor or major, most likely reoccurring in other forms after death. this includes all life...not just humans. if you want to call it a soul, call it a soul but include animals too
.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by banyan]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Well, our brains are just a chain reaction. We eat, get energy, and then use it in our brains (as well as the rest of our bodies). Just like your computer is constantly using power when it's on, when you remove our power (ie we die), our brains cease to function. Just as our computers cease to function when you unplug them. We don't think the energy in our computer left the computer - we know it was just using the power it could get its hands on, and when that ceased it ceased to work. The only difference is our hard disks, CPUs, and RAM don't turn to goo when they're unplugged for extended periods of time. We do, so we're harder to turn back on once turned off.

So, what we call a "soul" is a cultural construct we use to explain what we think of as "us", though now it's relegated purely to the "spiritual" camp, as there is nothing scientific about such a construct.

That's not to say we're not special, it just means our lives are far more precious than they are if we think we somehow persist after we die. We don't. We go gooey.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Well that is your view, but there are many views out there about this.
Your view belief in this, does not say that we do not have soul, or that our brain is the container for this soul.

There is no way to prove one way or another



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


No, my position is the scientific one. Any others are completely devoid of supporting evidence. It's perfectly possible to determine whether people have souls - the brain isn't that confusing of an organ, though it is very complicated. We can easily tell when it's using energy, where that energy comes from, and what happens when that energy is no longer supplied.

You can try to spin it any way you can, but that's what all the evidence we have so far points to, and nothing has cropped up to suggest anything even slightly different.

So no, my view doesn't say we don't have a soul and the brain isn't the container - every single piece of evidence says that for me. I don't have to do anything - it's up to anyone who says anything different to offer up the evidence that contradicts all the scientific evidence that supports my view.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 




No, my position is the scientific one. Any others are completely devoid of supporting evidence. It's perfectly possible to determine whether people have souls - the brain isn't that confusing of an organ, though it is very complicated. We can easily tell when it's using energy, where that energy comes from, and what happens when that energy is no longer supplied

There are no scientific evidence that speaks for or against a soul.



You can try to spin it any way you can, but that's what all the evidence we have so far points to, and nothing has cropped up to suggest anything even slightly different.

I'm not spinning it any way, there just are no scientific way to determine if we have soul or not.



So no, my view doesn't say we don't have a soul and the brain isn't the container - every single piece of evidence says that for me. I don't have to do anything - it's up to anyone who says anything different to offer up the evidence that contradicts all the scientific evidence that supports my view.

It is entirely your view and opinion, unless you wish to base your statements on lack of scientific evidence and saying that is the scientific evidence?

Scientists dont know what they are supposed to look for, they dont know where the soul is, they dont know what type of energy it consists of.
It's not even certain our soul is placed in the body....



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


So your saying when we are dead that's it, worm food or ashes?
That's the facts Jack, right?
I just don't get that, maybe it's my ego that will not let me believe that there isn't any other purpose but live, eat and die.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
The soul is the person. All things a person consists of is the soul. As for memory, who is to say that memony wont transfer to another next body part which would then consist of the rest of what a person is?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Balez
 


There's staggering amounts of evidence that shows the brain is constantly engaged in an electrochemical chain reaction, burning the fuel we ingest through eating. There is no doubt about that. When the food stops, the brain dies. The energy that was in the brain ceases to be once it's burned up. Then we die.

This is not up for debate - this is what hundreds of years of medical science has taught us. If you can't offer evidence that there is a soul, then your argument that there is a soul is ridiculously flimsy at best, as all you're basing it on is some ancient construct we used to describe a person's accumulated knowledge, personality, ethics, and memory - which we now know are all stored in volatile neural pathways in the brain.

The fact there is no test for the soul means it's not scientific in nature. Just as you can't scientifically test for someone being an Indigo kid - because they simply don't exist.

Clearly you want there to be something after death, otherwise you wouldn't be asking this question, and you definitely wouldn't be debating the evidence that backs up the assertion that we're just organic machines burning fuel until we die.

Saying nonsense like "we don't even know where the soul is" or "what kind of energy the soul is made from" shows you are completely capable of ignoring scientific evidence in order to further some preconception you have about what is human, and where we go when we die (hint: In the ground).

First, demonstrate to me there IS a soul, using scientific evidence. THEN we can start to figure out where the soul is, what it does, and where it goes when we die. Until you've done that, this debate is absolutely pointless, as you're arguing without any supporting evidence, shoe-horning Christian mythology into scientific terms, which just makes us all look silly.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
INteresting thread, but the answer is really well beyond words or concepts. You might start with "pure subjectivity or love" but even that fails.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Read my post again and perhaps you will understand it better.
You are the one stating scientific evidence here, not me.
I'm only stating there are no scientific evidence to prove either way.

Also, there are no way to say where our soul is, who knows it might be outside of our body aswell.....

It's your opinion that we have no soul, millions of other people have another opinion about it.
If that is due to lack of scientific evidence.....



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Silenceisall
 


If you want to get into the philosophical, then yes, we will never get to the bottom. Anyone subscribing to any school of philosophy can throw up any different idea (all devoid of evidence, of course), until this thread gets boring and winds down. If, though, we are trying to approach this scientifically (as the OP seems to indicate), then the discussion is already closed, at least until the "it exists" camp can get some evidence to back up their claims.

Until then, science prevails



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Dave:

Was the earth flat before is was proven to be round?
Did DNA exist in 1952?
Have you ever heard of the particle-wave duality in physics, and if so what does it imply to you?


Science "prevails," but it tends to prevail over itself more than anything else. It is always proving itself wrong or misleading/incomplete. I cannot prove to you that you are more than your physical body. Similarly, the lack of evidence for the soul at this time certainly does not disprove it.




[edit on 25-3-2008 by Silenceisall]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Silenceisall
 


Damn that's a weak argument. I'm talking about evidence. Provide evidence for a soul, and I'll believe it. Just as I need evidence DNA exists before I'm going to take it on board as most likely accurate. As it is, all scientific evidence points squarely at there being no soul.

Clearly if you feel the need to write your second paragraph, you don't understand the scientific method. Our world, or at least the bits that exist outside of new-age fairs, works on the basis of science demonstrating a principle, which we can then use in products to help our daily lives. That computer you're looking at at this very moment is a great example of that. It wasn't invented because someone ignored the scientific method and all scientific findings - indeed it was built upon those very concepts and pools of knowledge. You seem to be proposing a method of dispensing with evidence, and just believing any half-baked notion that comes along, based not on evidence, but on some sort of warm and fuzzy feeling, almost as if you're prepared to believe anything that makes you feel better.

Weird.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


So how exactly does your facts explain out of body experiences, which i've experienced first hand...?

Just curious.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
So lets get things strait... Is there a soul or not? Are we being a little over egoistic or not when we say that life after death exists?What part does science plays in this? O.K, let me start with science... (This is mainly for Dave 420) I know alot of you think that science is the most objective overruling power of all but I am convinced that its not. Science is afraid of anything that cant be explained with physical, biological and mathematical laws and already that is very subjective... To say that because we dont see, feel, hear, touch, or taste something it cant exist is pretty naive to me because for all we now there could be more than five senses and how can we possibly know that all our physical laws and so on are... how can we know that our way of proving something is right... its impossible to prove or am I wrong... the fact is as much as we think we know we know very little because were not even able to use the full procentage of our brain... how can you prove to me than that the soul doesnt exist, you just cant... of course I am not saying the soul does exist either... it all really comes to what you believe... Is science not a religion after all? Someone also said that it could or self egiosm that makes alot of us believe there is life after death... Maybe self egoism plays a role but I believe its more a feeling that people have from when their little, and Im sure that even most athiests have believed in something in their childhood that seems completely ridiculous. The question is why do we have this feeling.. Why is it when were little that we cant understand death and Im sure some people will say that its because were not fully capable of understaniding anything... but what if its because of a knowledge that we had and because weve forgotten, it becomes a feelin, almost as if it were something obvious... I mean where does that come from? what is our subconcious... Alright, heres what I believe, remember people this is just my opinion... but I think that we have a soul and its something that can be molded, something that continues to grow... to me animals have souls as well but they dont have souls that are at the level that our souls are at... yet... and so I can believe in nothing else but in reincarnation where the soul not only exists but grows through different bodies... I dont believe that life is an accident and I dont think we can compared to a computer... I dont believe in any specific religion either, its just something, believe it or not, I came to rationally. I admit at trying to be very rational and objective, but that means I want to be open as well... who knows maybe my view will change but so far its what I seriously believe and theres alot more to it... but Im not going to get into to much right now... but if you dont think thats fine... I think we all believe in our individual construction of beliefs and nobody will agree a hundred percent in almost any matter in the things you or I or anyone else believes.... so feel free to disagree... is not discussion the way we learn and form are own views?



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by starrover
 


I stopped reading when you said "science is scared". How can a methodology, incapable of thought, be scared of anything?

Science is a method for gathering evidence. That's it. It doesn't have a list of things that it's scared of, or things that it's against. If there was any evidence for the soul, science would be the loudest cheerleader. As it is, the brain is relatively well understood. The mechanisms may not be understood in fantastic detail, but the extent of the brain is. What it's made up of, where the energy it uses comes from, and how that energy leaves the brain, are all facets of the brain that are well understood by science. Saying "oh, wait! Hold up - without any evidence, I'm going to postulate that what has been recorded time and time and time again is but mere fantasy, and really some thing that no-one's ever noticed in a lab, that has no basis in reality what-so-ever, is actually running the show. Evidence? No." is pointless, as science simply doesn't work like that. You have to observe something first, otherwise you're simply guessing. And by "observe" I mean be able to take measurements of.

Saying science is scared is a great way of protecting the obvious shortcomings of your argument from logical analysis. Unfortunately, it only works on people who think science is something more than a basic methodology.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Science is also money, culture, direction, suppression etc.

Science isn't a tool that wields itself. If the hand wielding the enlightening lantern of science doesn't want others to see things, he won't shine it's light upon those things.

The only scientific instrument that defeats the uncertainty principle is the mind. That is the true way, and in large, the way ancients discovered scientific fact, islamic motif (energy movement diagrams) etc.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
dave420

What Silenceisall and Balez are probably trying to say is quite simple. They are asking, how can you believe that the soul doesn't exist, when there is no evidence for it.

Most people believe and hope in the "possibility" that the soul exists, there is a difference. They don't need evidence because they are open to both sides of it, it might exist, it might not.

What your saying, by denying that it exists is rather odd, because you have no evidence to back that up, what Balez is trying to say is, why don't you keep an open mind for the possibilty of both sides of the argument. Because how can you deny it if you don't "know" the truth.

So remember you said, provide evidence that the soul exists and I will believe it, just like you have evidence that dna exists and you believe it. SO why does that change when providing evidence that the soul "doesn't" exist. Wouldn't you also need evidence for that too, before you believe it doesn't exist??!

It goes both ways, how can you change the way you need proof in such a one sided way.










[edit on 26-3-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Was the earth flat before is was proven to be round?
Did DNA exist in 1952?


I'll answer that!

Both yes & no!
Because past time collapses into a state once observed just like anything else... but prior to observation, only various possibilities existed. Like Schrodinger's cat, but throw time into the mix.

And I think this is important to understanding what the soul is. For if consciousness is the "observer" affecting it's reality, then consciousness may very well be the basis of reality. And if that's the case, then one might easily describe consciousness as the soul.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join