The human soul - it's time to get to the bottom of this

[Kalis]

#1) No. A soul does not necessarily have to have anything to do with a religion.

Surely belief in a soul, by definition, needs some form of religious belief.

[Nos]

Surely belief in a soul, by definition, needs some form of religious belief.

Only in the way that it needs a bit of faith. But alot of science on the cutting edge requires a bit of faith as well.

Believing in a "soul" doesn't have to mean that there's a ghost you inside of you that lives on after you die and goes to eternal judgement.

It could just be a "spark" that exists in living organisms as a form of energy that is not yet measurable by us. it could die when people die.

Does that mean souls exist? no. Does lacking proof mean we can't have a hypothetical conversation about them? if it does, then a whole bunch of scientists are about to be out of a job.

[Sumatran]

#1) No. A soul does not necessarily have to have anything to do with a religion.

#2) Cannot study it if the world cannot agree on it? Does that mean that we can't study evolution because there are religions who do not agree with it?

There has never in the history of man been mention of a soul outside of religious context.

Charles Darwin has proved the existance of evolution 100 years ago.


You are either playing devils advocate or are an idiot. I hope you are the former but fear for the latter.

[GuruMorgor]

There has never in the history of man been mention of a soul outside of religious context

soul music, soul food, and soul train have never been mentioned

[Kalis]

Only in the way that it needs a bit of faith. But alot of science on the cutting edge requires a bit of faith as well.

Believing in a "soul" doesn't have to mean that there's a ghost you inside of you that lives on after you die and goes to eternal judgement.

It could just be a "spark" that exists in living organisms as a form of energy that is not yet measurable by us. it could die when people die.

Does that mean souls exist? no. Does lacking proof mean we can't have a hypothetical conversation about them? if it does, then a whole bunch of scientists are about to be out of a job.

I don't agree that faith is not a form of religion; I also disagree that science requires faith.

Your spark theory doesn't sound like any definition of soul that I have heard, more like a hijacking of a religious term.

[Annapolis]

So many closed minded folks in this thread. Remove your preconceived religious hate for it for 10 minutes.

The soul could very well exist, it could be simply energy we as of yet cannot measure that exists after death for what ever period of time. So many atheists hear "Soul" and to them the only next step MUST be religion. Many beliefs around the world and through time have a concept "soul".

I have a feeling that the reason an atheist might not believe in a soul is because believing in a soul is similar to believing in a religion. You are meant to believe without evidence and without knowing. An atheist has said that it is not sufficient for belief in a supreme being so it is no surprise they'd say the same for a soul.

As far as the soul being an energy we can't measure, we can't measure certain things because they don't interact with matter. If they don't directly interact with matter then they won't interact with a person. I'm unaware of an energy, force, etc. that can act on matter which we have not measured. Anyway if a soul was a type of energy we couldn't measure then it wouldn't affect us anyway.

[IIamaKing]

Surely belief in a soul, by definition, needs some form of religious belief.

Why? In my first post I asked, what if a soul is simply a level of energy we cannot yet measure that exists after our death.
Until we could fly, we couldn't. Until germs existed, they didn't. Until the earth was round, it was flat. Science can be very narrow minded, excluding possibilities.

100 years from now we may discover the "soul" at that time it may be defined as a postmortem energy discharge with unknown purpose.

[IIamaKing]

I have a feeling that the reason an atheist might not believe in a soul is because believing in a soul is similar to believing in a religion. You are meant to believe without evidence and without knowing. An atheist has said that it is not sufficient for belief in a supreme being so it is no surprise they'd say the same for a soul.

As far as the soul being an energy we can't measure, we can't measure certain things because they don't interact with matter. If they don't directly interact with matter then they won't interact with a person. I'm unaware of an energy, force, etc. that can act on matter which we have not measured. Anyway if a soul was a type of energy we couldn't measure then it wouldn't affect us anyway.

Because we cannot measure it now does not mean it cannot be measured.

[Annapolis]

Because we cannot measure it now does not mean it cannot be measured.

This is the same situation where a lack of proof will not be sufficient for many atheists to support your theory.

[galaxiah]

#2 At which point is a soul created ? In example of humans. Does an adult male have a soul ? Does a teenager have a soul ? Does a freshborn baby have a soul ? Does a fetus inside the mother's womb have a soul ? Does an inseminated egg cell have a soul ? Does a sperm have a soul ? What if the sperm is still inside the father's balls but hasn't gone out yet, does it have a soul ?

If souls exist, children would not have them.

[IIamaKing]

There has never in the history of man been mention of a soul outside of religious context.

Charles Darwin has proved the existance of evolution 100 years ago.


You are either playing devils advocate or are an idiot. I hope you are the former but fear for the latter.

Umm I did, in this very thread. I am sure I am not the first to posit the soul could be an as of yet unmeasurable form of energy.

---------- Post added 2012-08-17 at 07:40 PM ----------

This is the same situation where a lack of proof will not be sufficient for many atheists to support your theory.

More power to them, I am not here to change minds. Only to suggest ideas.

[Nos]

There has never in the history of man been mention of a soul outside of religious context.

Charles Darwin has proved the existance of evolution 100 years ago.


You are either playing devils advocate or are an idiot. I hope you are the former but fear for the latter.

I just mentioned it outside of a religious context. So bam.

Exactly. Do you understand how my example worked now? I was comparing his ridiculous statement (we can't study anything that the world can't agree on) to something that most people accept as true and study in science, but that there are still people who don't agree on it. Darwin had to study it some before it was proven, as well. In a time when people /definitely/ didn't agree on it.

I like to play devil's advocate, but I'm sorry, no. The idiot might be the one who can't understand the analogy though.

[Wikiy]

Even if they successful formed into proper combination, it's still meangingless. It need information programmed in order for it to work. It's like making a computer from parts and it still will not work if you haven't input any programs inside it. There is more to it than just put right parts together.

The type of information life uses is called nucleotide sequences. A nucleotide is essentially a modified amino acid. There is nothing intelligent or mystical about the type of information life uses. Information itself isn't an intelligent term, it's also a physical one. Particles themselves can be described as pure information, so i don't see a reason why assuming molecules that accidentally become information carriers have to be something special.

Not only that, "You would have to get the right number of the right kinds of amino acids to link up to create a protein molecule - and that would still be a long way from a living cell. Then you'd need dozens of protein molecules, again in the right sequence, to create a living cell. The odds against this are astonishing. The gap between nonliving chemicals and even the most primitive living organism is absolutely tremendous." - Jonathan Wells, phd.

I assume by "nonliving" chemicals he means inorganic. Except organic molecules are abundant in the universe beyond words. They've been found on asteroids, other planets, etc. Also, just because he's a PhD, doesn't mean he isn't a rotten apple. Here's another PhD for you:

It can pretty much be summary into simple, "it's unlikely and impossible."

It cannot be both unlikely and impossible. If it's extremely unlikely for 21 amino acids to bond the right way, like, 10^-21 (or to make it graphic 0,000 000 000 000 000 000 001 again, this means nothing because there was a huge "pool" of organic molecules at the start of Earth (one cup of water (which is essentially the same as comparing a drop to an ocean) contains 10^25 water molecules). And all you needed was 1 primitive "cell" to have "come to life" and it can start producing. Just 1.

[Kalis]

Why? In my first post I asked, what if a soul is simply a level of energy we cannot yet measure that exists after our death.
Until we could fly, we couldn't. Until germs existed, they didn't. Until the earth was round, it was flat. Science can be very narrow minded, excluding possibilities.

100 years from now we may discover the "soul" at that time it may be defined as a postmortem energy discharge with unknown purpose.

That wouldn't be a soul, that would be an 'energy discharge with unknown purpose'.

Again this seems like hijacking a religious term for no apparent purpose other than to sciencify* some bs superstition.


*this may not be an actual word.

[Shamanberry]

No, it's based on the fact that there is absolutely no proof of anything like a soul, and plenty against it. Swing and a miss, friend.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Nos]

I don't agree that faith is not a form of religion; I also disagree that science requires faith.

Your spark theory doesn't sound like any definition of soul that I have heard, more like a hijacking of a religious term.

Depends on the specific definitions you want to use for things.

You disagree that science requires faith? You don't think faith is needed when positing ideas about Black Holes and anit-matter? You don't think people have to use their imagination and hope a little when trying to fire particles faster than the speed of light? Any time anyone wants to attempt something that has never been done or proven before, they're acting on faith. it's not established as fact yet. They're just saying "I think this is right." And diving in and experimenting. Faith does not have to be tied to religion, man.

Sooo... Since you've never heard of souls hypothesized about in such a way, I must just be making shit up using religious terms? Question: How many times have you attempted to look up information about a soul to know what people are hypothesizing about it?

[Kalis]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

True; but made up crap is made up crap.

[Nos]

That wouldn't be a soul, that would be an 'energy discharge with unknown purpose'.

Again this seems like hijacking a religious term for no apparent purpose other than to sciencify* some bs superstition.


*this may not be an actual word.

Why would discovering a soul-like energy make superstition science? You seem to be paranoid of the religious.

That's like saying that "hijacking" names of deities for space probes (we've done that, right?) is trying to lend credence to said mythologies.

A soul does not have to be the traditional, judeo christian definition. It does not have to be a ghost. It does not have to live on past death. It can just be an energy possessed by living creatures.

[Sumatran]

There has never in the history of man been mention of a soul outside of religious context

soul music, soul food, and soul train have never been mentioned

Based on voodoo, which is a religion.

[Nos]

Based on voodoo, which is a religion.

Soul train was based on Voodoo?

First... Is that racist?

Second... What? Soul train was based on Voodoo?

Just... just /what/?

So every time I eat mustard greens I'm performing a voodoo sacrament? DX