As an atheist , What your thought on soul ? Is science belive the soul ?

Views: 294

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, there is still something you could call the soul in the context of atheism - what a person "really" is when they aren't acting a part, assuming a social face. 

The soul is YOU. The essence of life is within you, and you are a living  soul. To have a living soul it is just as easy to have a dead soul. If we are talking about after death there is nothing to survive. When you are dead you are dead. You are no longer a living soul.

There is absolutely no evidence for some invisible part of you that survives death. Men want to believe there is a soul because of what religions teach them. They have evidence of "soul travel" during sleep, but this is no real evidence. The sleeping person is still alive and only dreaming. No one has ever came back from the dead to bring us evidence of a "soul" as a separate entity or an afterlife. Once a person dies they will cease to exist much like they were before they were ever born. What continues on after you die is in the minds of family, friends, and relatives and all those who knew you.

The soul is the part of you that dies if you have a soul-killing job. "Soul" means individual, and your soul is your individuality or your self. 

Here's my blog post about "our real souls" from 2011.

http://jonathan-tweet.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-real-souls.html

Jonathan, I really liked your blog post!  Especially this:

Our senses and instincts are finely tuned to read each others' souls, making human individuals compellingly real to each other.

I think of someone's soul as an abstract analogue of their body.

When I was 19 I had an extended visionary experience (commonly referred to as "going crazy").  One night I was sitting on a hill, and incredible visions arose, of various people's souls.  They were like paintings of who they were, that I saw in the night sky.

Thanks, Laura. That's quite a vision.

Thanks for taking the trouble to look it up. It's taken me years to get used to using all these traditional terms, like soul, and it's still a little weird. I like the idea that the believers don't have a monopoly on the soul. 

I feel a 'soul' is a religious term and is connected to religious people believing in heaven, hell etc. 'soul' is just a psychological buzz word churches use to scare & guilt gullible people into: attending, giving $$$$$'s, giving free sweat labor and encouraging attendees to go out and bring MORE people to the church.

It's the rubber like material that makes up the bottom of my shoe :-)

I would need to know exactly what you mean to imply by "soul".

If you mean a transcendental, existential, embodiment of memory and personality that is eternal and persists after the destruction of the brain-NO.

If you mean personal identity, sans social restrictions, I could see a good case being made to call it a "soul".

Soul is also an SUV made by KIa -- ironically a soulless little thing.  I like Laura's definition " an abstract analogue of their body."

}}}}

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service