If we didn't then who made us. Who created the beginning of human life. Adam and eve were the first humans but they did not just appear out of the middle of nowhere. They were created by god. Heaven and hell are very real and it is something to take seriously.
I am not asking this question to support religion or Atheism. But I am just curious if you guys think people have souls.
I think people do have souls for a majority of reasons but for one; when people do a bad thing repeatedly they generally become depressed.
For example people that have sex a lot generally appear happy but are usually sad inside. The same applies for people that do drugs. It seems to me that people that resort to these kinds of actions as habits are trying to satisfy themselves with activities that can't satisfy their soul. Therefore they aren't capable of achieving happiness.
Like eliezer yudkowsky you guys on here are pretending that a changed brain changing behavior proves no souls exist. That is at least equal to, if not more insane, than claiming my emotional response to religious stimulus proves god. If the brain is receiving transmissions rather than generating them, brain alteration would alter how the signal was received and interpreted. This is what we should expect to see proven by obama's brain mapping microchip initiative. I'm sad that you atheists have so much disdain for ACTUAL science. An absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Or though there is no proof concerning the existence of a soul, one must look at the world around one self and draw conclusions from it. For example most people will have felt love be it for a girlfriend, wife or even close family members. Now what would make more sense, that this feeling was solely from certain chemical mixes in the brain or from something else also? I guess it is a question we all must ask ourselves at some point in life.
Of course people do contain souls. These souls are what builds their personalities and they are not changeable. You neither destroy nor create them. It's normal that their existence couldn't be proven because they're spiritual entities. Although we can not directly prove the existence of our souls we can prove them indirectly. Take a death man. Open him and insert every needed organ to make him come back to life again (such as brain and heart). Pump blood and electro-shock him in order to make his organs especially heart and brain work again. You'll see that he will have heart rate and he may even respond as a reflection of his nerve system is working but he will not show human functions and this is only because his soul has already left his body.
Nobody will ever isolate a "soul"; but the notion that we are simply meat puppets is based on a fallacy of composition OT1H, and serves an excuse to treat ppl like meat puppets w/o fear of divine retribution on the other. It may be true that consistent changes in the brain produce consistent changes in behaviour, but that does not in any way prove the meat-puppet theory either.
Though the definition of the soul is still debated, most would agree that it is the spiritual, non-material, part of our being. People usually criticise the existence of the soul as having no proof, and when they say proof the mean the empirical kind, but it is not something that we are supposed to understand through the empirical as it is beyond our senses. Yet, people perfectly agree that the mind exists even though there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support its existence; the same goes for dreams and even consciousness. I personally believe that the mind and soul are one, in that they are connected in the same way our brain is to our body. Life is too complex and too unique for it to just end with us simply stopping to exist. There is evidence towards the existence of the soul, the Placebo and Nocebo effects. The first being one where, if we believe and are convinced that the medicine we take will stop our ailments, even though it is simply a sugar pill (a placebo), and our ailments do actually go away, at least for a time. The second is where an individual who is a negative frame of mind actually becomes ill, there have been instances where diagnostics have been incorrect and all attempts to treat the condition of the patient medically have failed. So, how we think (how our mental and spiritual status is) directly affects our physical health. Biological psychologist Seley conducted research into stress (what he called a non-specific response of the body to any demand placed upon it) I won't prolong my argument with his theory but he demonstrated scientifically how our thinking has an effect on our physical health.
I took the green part, but I have too admit that red has a few points. The soul does not exist as most of us think. I think people should question their selves? What is a soul? And were does mine come from?
Let me define that a little
The subconscious mind stores information that the conscious mind may not immediately process with full understanding, but it stores the information for later retrieval when ”recalled” by the conscious mind,
The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense. The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles).
That sub consciousness of us plays in our daily life it's own role near or next to that part that we call our "conscious". Within that that matter we feel, sense, know, recall, fear etc. matters that we don't even know why their, or we cant define were its coming from.
The tricky thing is we can not draw our own stored information out our subconscious to bring it to the individuals conscious awareness.
But some how our conscious and subconscious do communicate together with out even knowing that.
Now your sub consciousness and your instinct is in my opinion what we call a soul. It lives inside you just as your memories and emotions are.
So back too the following question:
Do people have souls (as in a spiritual part of a person's body)?
There is absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of a "soul". All evidence indicates rather than everything a person is, everything that makes you "you", is a result of the structure and function of your brain.
For example, damage to certain portions of the brain can radically change personality. If there were a "soul" that dictated who a person was, this would not be possible.
If something has no no evidence pointing to its existence, its identical to not existing at all.
In that position, we can comfortably claim it doesn't exist, same as we can claim unicorns don't exist.
We don't require absolute certainty to make the claim, only sufficient reason.
We lack evidence pointing to something beyond the human body. When the brain is altered, the person is altered. When a person is born damaged, they are damaged. There is nothing else except the physical according to any scientific study, experiment, or fact.
We can't rationally even begin to believe something exists beyond the physical, much less believe a soul exists for people that is our "spirit."
In 1848 Phineas Gage, a railroad worker had an accident, in which a tamping iron was launched through his skull by a rod of dynamite that went off at the worst possible time. He miraculously survived, though he sustained significant brain damage. The damage changed his personality over time because it affected the pieces in his brain responsible for his inhibitions. The changes that took place are often debated and argued over, but it it generally agreed that he changed.
At the least, no evidence has been found for a soul to exist within any part of any body. It's true that persons can feel spiritual, but that would occur in the brain. Still, though, people cannot put yes for spiritual part of their brain, because that part does other things as well. It's not devoted to souls, it's devoted to (I would imagine) emotion.
To start, there simply is no actual, hard evidence, of any kind, that there exists any sort of 'spiritual' aspect to humanity that exists separately or externally from our physical selves. This claim is not verifiable in itself, so no evidence *could* reasonably provide proof for this claim. Everything we understand about human psychology has root causes based in neurological factors. That is, to date we have found what is essentially a 1:1 correlation between physical brain states and psychological states; the brain state does not necessarily *cause* the specific psychological state, for example in cases of depression where there is no biological factor at work, but there is still near-perfect to perfect correlation. If our 'soul' actually existed, and was the primary influence on who we are, if not the *actual* us, then change in brain states would not have this 1:1 correlation to our psychology, as the 'soul' would influence our psychology, not our brain.
The concept of a soul is both ridiculous and founded on poor religions. The presence of a non-materialistic entity in everyone doesn't make sense one bit. Morals and the consciousness are meta-physical for sure, but to think that they go into a world of their own is the stupidest I've ever heard. And to use said claim to state that humans are in possession of them over non-human animals is disgusting.
There is no evidence that people have souls. In fact, souls are an imaginary construction that many people believe in, but not anything real. They are no more real than Santa Claus. If this is considered to be something real, it is significantly less real that tangible things that can be measured and touched.
I fully agree with all previous arguments on the 'no'-side: We have absolutely no evidence for the existence of a soul that was any different from the physical brain. Several historical cases, which were mentioned, stand against the concept of some metaphysical soul. So let me tackle one 'argument' of the 'yes'-side, that wasn't addressed yet.
The hypothesis used sometimes to weasel out of the obvious amount of evidence for the brain being identical with the personality - that the brain merely acts as an antenna to 'receive a soul signal', whatever that means - is still flawed. It claims as well that our personalities are only reflections of how this mysterious signal is handled by our brains, thus our complete personalities would still be lost upon death.
Furthermore, why are would we even be able to lose consciousness or sleep without dreaming,
if our personalities wouldn't require an active brain and could jump over to some sort of soul once our brains cease to function?
Sure, having a soul would be nice, but the world generally doesn't follow our wishful thinking.