Souls/spirits do not exist - hence religions are irrelevant.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm bumping this because I have a question for Cris but need to collect some info first.

Thanks.
 
Originally posted by Cris
OK go for it.
Click to expand...

OK I will, I just want to get this book first and I just found out that I might have to order it so I'll be back. Thanks.
 
Cris;
Sorry I wasnt able to reply to this thread earlier, I go through latops faster than i go through socks. Decided to not work for a while. Any way...
For easy of notation I’ll use the term “soul” instead of saying soul/spirit each time.

There has been much discussion about the existence of gods and proof/evidence of such; however, such arguments are irrelevant if souls do not exist.

If a human has no such thing as a soul then who cares if a god exists or not? The worst that can happen to us would be that we would die (cease to exist). And the evidence so far is that everyone dies anyway, whether there is a soul or not.

So rather than try to prove or disprove the existence of a single super entity shouldn’t it be easier to prove the existence of at least one human soul since these are in the billions, and presumably much closer to home, i.e. we are all really souls.

If souls do not exist then ALL religions have no relevant basis.

My understanding is that there is no such thing as a soul since all cognitive functions, memories, emotions, feelings, thoughts, are all stored and generated by the brain. This I believe is confirmed through thousands of clinical studies where patients have suffered some degree of brain damage and the studies show missing function depending on the damage.

If a soul exists and can carry awareness from one state of existence to another then it must be able to hold memories at least. If a brain is damaged and all memory is destroyed then if a soul is present why can’t the person remember anything? This implies that the memory is in the brain and is entirely physical.

We also know that damage to the brain can also result in impairments to abilities to think, to reason, to experience emotions, etc. The same argument applies to these properties as to memory. If these are all physical then what is a soul if it doesn’t have these?

For a soul to have any type of awareness or identity then it must be able to retain some if not all of the properties that we know are controlled by the brain.

So why is a person seriously impaired by brain damage if a soul exists? The obvious answer is that there are no such things as souls.

Does everyone agree?
Click to expand...
I believe that there is three levels, the body (a shell) a soul (which acts through the body) and a spirit (the soul joins back up with it after death.
The soul acts through thye body. Therefore, if the body is damaged, the soul cannot act properly through it. For example, if the brain is damaged, then the soul cannot act through that part of the brain.
 
Saying that a soul does not exist is like saying oxygen does not exist because you cannot see it. But do you not need it? So you say I have no soul. No offence taken. I know I do but I find it ignorant that you deny it.
You don't know what you had until you've lost it. You want to know what you have so you deny it.
There is very little connection between memories and your soul. In fact, when we enter new planes of existance and reality, that is truly when the spirit comes alive because of the loss of memory and the joy of forgetting what has been left behind.
 
Originally posted by Moore
Saying that a soul does not exist is like saying oxygen does not exist because you cannot see it.
We can measure and observe oxygen.

I know I do but I find it ignorant that you deny it.
How do you know?

There is very little connection between memories and your soul. In fact, when we enter new planes of existance and reality, that is truly when the spirit comes alive because of the loss of memory and the joy of forgetting what has been left behind.
I'm afraid to even ask how you know this.
 
Moore,

Hi welcome to sciforums.

Saying that a soul does not exist is like saying oxygen does not exist because you cannot see it.
Click to expand...
Or, saying that a soul does exist is the same as saying that invisible green flying elephants exist because there is no evidence for either.

But we can detect oxygen, how do you detect a soul?

But do you not need it?
Click to expand...
Why do you need a soul? What does a soul offer that your brain doesn’t?

So you say I have no soul. No offence taken. I know I do but I find it ignorant that you deny it.
Click to expand...
To be ignorant is to lack knowledge. I admit I have no knowledge regarding the existence of souls. I agree then that I am ignorant concerning the existence of souls. I assume you make your statement because you are not ignorant, excellent. So would you please be so kind as to enlighten me and show me your proof that souls exist.

You don't know what you had until you've lost it.
Click to expand...
Uh huh! So you don’t know that you have a head until it is chopped off, right? What is the name of the drugs you use?

You want to know what you have so you deny it.
Click to expand...
Was this an inaccurate translation from Chinese? I’m afraid it has come out as gibberish.

There is very little connection between memories and your soul.
Click to expand...
I agree, memories exist, and souls do not.

In fact, when we enter new planes of existance and reality, that is truly when the spirit comes alive because of the loss of memory and the joy of forgetting what has been left behind.
Click to expand...
I agree. Jumbo jets can be very ‘uplifting’ and ‘spirits’ (whiskey, gin etc) flow freely soon after take off. The resultant drunken stupor can certainly result in memory loss; you just have to hope that you had a good time before you passed out.
 
Hey Cris!

What we are arguing about is the existance of nonexistance. There is no right or wrong answer. And if the word soul turns out to be just that, a word, then why do we use it so much?
 
Moore,

What we are arguing about is the existance of nonexistance.
Click to expand...
No I don’t think so. The argument concerns the viability of claims made for something where evidence is absent.

There is no right or wrong answer.
Click to expand...
There are three possible answers; (1) souls can be proved to exist through demonstrative evidence, or (2) all functions claimed to be the role of a soul can be explained through normal brain function, or (3) we lack evidence to reach a conclusion either way.

And if the word soul turns out to be just that, a word, then why do we use it so much?
Click to expand...
Through millennia of ignorance concerning the physiology of the brain resulting in widespread superstitions and wild imaginative guesses.
 
Q25,

Nice article, I hadn't seen that before.

Knowing that the root for the words "soul" and "spirit" came from "breath", explains so much.

I like this snippet -

Lest anyone still think the link between breath and the foundations of Christianity be doubtful, attention is drawn to the tale running through John 20:22. Jesus has come back to visit the Disciples to tell them that he is sending them out to forgive or not forgive the sins of the world. "Then he [Jesus] breathed on them, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit!' " Right from the beginning, Christianity was based upon warm breath — which in time became hot air.
 
Originally posted by Cris
The issue of souls is equally applicable to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, as well as Christianity, and others.
Click to expand...

I haven't read this whole thread yet, so I don't know if someone has addressed this yet.
Sorry if I am parrotting someone.

This is simply not true.

Siddhatta Gtama (the original Buddha) not only taught that there is no such thing as a soul ("Anatta" or soulessness is one of the major tennets of Buddhism), but he was an atheist.

These two factors were among the biggest reasons he stood against the existing Brahmanical religion of his day.

In the Buddhist view of rebirth the only links between two successive lives is the karmic residue carried over and an element of consciousness, called the re-linking consciousness: (paisandhi viññâna), which momentarily links the two lives. In Buddhism there is no conception of a transmigrating soul which inhabits successive material bodies until it unites with God.
 
One_Raven,

But the effect and the resultant concept is the same.

A personal essence of some type survives after physical death. How ever you want to describe this it is fundamentally different to the materialist assertion that death is the cessation of existence. In this respect the Budhist variation is effectively indistinguishable from the other religions.
 
Cris,

I understand your point.
I wasn't really trying to argue against the root of your argument in this.
I just have this almost compulsive need to correct misconceptions that most people have about Buddhism. (there are SO many widely held misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding Buddhism even at its very core levels)

There are some fundamental differences between what the majority of religions regard as the soul and Buddha's view of samsra, but this would be too far off topic and completely non-sequitor, so I will not get into it at this point.
Maybe some time in the future I could enjoy a debate about it with you.
You seem to love debate just about as much as I do (if not even more :)).

The fact that Buddha didn't believe in the soul or even an essence of self wouldn't affect your arguments (unless possibly strengthening it in saying that Buddha did not believe in the soul AND was an atheist too).

I have to go back and read the rest of this thread now.
 
Cris,

It is pretty easy to sit in judgement and disregard everybody else's argument. This is one trend I find in some of the elderly, intelligent and wise people on this board- to use strong & categorical statements, while attempting to appear reasonable and level. My apologies if I have made a wrong conclusion. :(

Anyway, what evidence do you have for the non-existence of the soul, apart from a lack of evidence for its existence?
 
I think since memory, ideas, emotions are all non biological or chemical bodies, that uses biological, physical, and chemical environments to transmit through our bodies, then after death these things are not destroyed and are available somehow in a nonactive mode since the transmittion mode is deteriorated.
 
you missed commenting on this

Originally posted by man_of_jade
Cris;
Sorry I wasnt able to reply to this thread earlier, I go through latops faster than i go through socks. Decided to not work for a while. Any way...

Therefore, if the body is damaged, the soul cannot act properly through it. For example, if the brain is damaged, then the soul cannot act through that part of the brain.
Click to expand...

my question is why do you expect the soul to function as normal if the brain is damaged? for instance if the sight component of the brain is damaged, you expect the individual to see? by what means? you assume the soul has vision?

For a soul to have any type of awareness or identity then it must be able to retain some if not all of the properties that we know are controlled by the brain.

what properties? and why should it? can a soul be a radically different thing?

i had previously given an analogy of mind/body being like that of human and computer. assume a video codec is corrupt (damaged). the human cannot watch vids anymore. you maintain however (if the analogy holds) that we still should be able to view the video

thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top