# What is the soul/spirit



## Glacial

People of faith often refer to the soul or spirit and usually allude to it living on forever, even after their physical body dies. They seem to view it as some entity that is seperate from their physical body and somehow larger than life and sacred. 

I have been thinking about this subject. I kind of think that the "soul/spirit" is just the human ego, perhaps an evolutionary manifestation and mentality that "this existence will live on and I will not let go of life. It is simply too horrific to think I will not exist!" Our "souls/spirit" is simply the compilaton of all our emotions and tender feelings, which are mere chemical reactions in our brains. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Einangra

I don't believe the soul is a spirit that rises out of the body upon death and floats around or flutters off into an after life.

For me, the soul is imply the culmination of everything that we are. Our bodies, mind and experiences. If something hurts my soul then it hurts everything about me, not just a physical injury, but every aspect of my life and who I am. 

Simply, my soul is me.


----------



## warbore

Glacial said:


> People of faith often refer to the soul or spirit and usually allude to it living on forever, even after their physical body dies. They seem to view it as some entity that is seperate from their physical body and somehow larger than life and sacred.
> 
> I have been thinking about this subject. I kind of think that the "soul/spirit" is just the human ego, perhaps an evolutionary manifestation and mentality that "this existence will live on and I will not let go of life. It is simply too horrific to think I will not exist!" Our "souls/spirit" is simply the compilaton of all our emotions and tender feelings, which are mere chemical reactions in our brains.
> 
> Any thoughts?


We do have a spirit and a soul. We all have 1 brain with 2 halves to that brain each one has an essence which we call (Soul+spirit) and i don't know why this info is ignored or overlooked. I lost my spirit. when i got divorced i wanted to die my emotions in my head seemed to expand and shifted to the right and one fell off i still have one side left but it is in the side that it moved to and the left side is empty.


----------



## Beige

I do believe in the possibility of a soul/spirit that can be seperate from the body. It is whatever remains if a person continues to exist before the birth, during the life, and after the death of the body.


----------



## mfd

Glacial said:


> I have been thinking about this subject. I kind of think that the "soul/spirit" is just the human ego, perhaps an evolutionary manifestation and mentality that "this existence will live on and I will not let go of life. It is simply too horrific to think I will not exist!" Our "souls/spirit" is simply the compilaton of all our emotions and tender feelings, which are mere chemical reactions in our brains.


I agree with you.

If souls/spirits existed in the general religious view, and we're merely incorporeal beings bound to a temporary physical form, than I would wonder why brain damage would affect that. If who we are is our spirit/soul, and our spirit is incorporeal, than physical damage shouldn't have any effect on who we are. Yet it does.

When someone experiences brain damage their personality can change as a result. How they feel about others can change, as can their interests, views toward subjects, and outlook. That implies (at least to me) that the "us" part of us is physical.


----------



## warbore

soul/spirit is like an expression through our flesh and if the flesh is damaged then it can not be expressed through our flesh. and i am not speaking from the modern dogma of religion i'm speaking from experience.


----------



## Ramondo

Scientifically, there is no soul or spirit. Also most philosophers don't use these terms. Those terms belong to religion. So "What is the soul?" is the wrong question, since there's no evidence we have anything that needs to be called a soul. There's also no evidence we have astral bodies or etheric bodies, etc. 

You could partition off part of the mind, various attributes etc. and call that a soul if you wanted.


----------



## warbore

Sorry wrong. Too bad you dont understand the truth when you here it or in this case read it.


----------



## warbore

One thing i haven't mentioned is that about 2 weeks after my soul/spirit shifted to the right and my spirit dropped off. My heart the 'spiritual' part of my heart burst and appeared to be something green drained from it.


----------



## Beige

mfd said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> If souls/spirits existed in the general religious view, and we're merely incorporeal beings bound to a temporary physical form, than I would wonder why brain damage would affect that. If who we are is our spirit/soul, and our spirit is incorporeal, than physical damage shouldn't have any effect on who we are. Yet it does.
> 
> When someone experiences brain damage their personality can change as a result. How they feel about others can change, as can their interests, views toward subjects, and outlook. That implies (at least to me) that the "us" part of us is physical.


The body may only carry out expression of the soul, but not control the contents of it.
Also, I don't think that personality has to be a component of the soul. Again, it is simply your existence, assuming existence is possible without a body, and it manifests itself through the body. Ex. if reincarnation occurs, you may have a different personality in one life than in another. Really puts a whole new perspective on "putting yourself in someone else's shoes". These are all just possibilities.


----------



## PerfectDark

Oh boy I thought this form was for atheists? 

There is no such thing as a soul. If your dead your dead and there is just nothing. You cease to be and this can be measured by the lack of brain activity. 

If you can't live with the thought that when your dead, it's over and you are gone and nothing, just nothing is left behind. it's over. Well then you are in the wrong forum. Because anything else is a stupid believe and falls in the same category as religion.


----------



## bsd3355

fredbloggs02 said:


> Soul is the indomitable quality of life that outlasts all suffering and persists despite all evidence to the contrary. Spirit is conscientiousness, mind, a higher human telos concentrated in the living being. Some are possessed of both.
> 
> Those who attempt to degrade this quality because they are low and envious lacking it in themselves, or have a sadistic predatory streak that won't endure it in others are free to go their way- subsidiary as they are- to those who do.


wha-wha-whaaa


----------



## bpl4268

Einangra said:


> I don't believe the soul is a spirit that rises out of the body upon death and floats around or flutters off into an after life.
> 
> For me, the soul is imply the culmination of everything that we are. Our bodies, mind and experiences. If something hurts my soul then it hurts everything about me, not just a physical injury, but every aspect of my life and who I am.
> 
> Simply, my soul is me.


Couldnt have said it better myself.


----------



## Beige

PerfectDark said:


> Oh boy I thought this form was for atheists?
> 
> There is no such thing as a soul. If your dead your dead and there is just nothing. You cease to be and this can be measured by the lack of brain activity.
> 
> If you can't live with the thought that when your dead, it's over and you are gone and nothing, just nothing is left behind. it's over. Well then you are in the wrong forum. Because anything else is a stupid believe and falls in the same category as religion.


Ahem "AGNOSTIC and Atheist Support". Also, most atheists are also agnostic to a degree ("agnostic-atheism"). There are different types of atheism. If you believe without a doubt that there is no soul or life after death, then you are a "hard atheist" or "strong atheist". There's a difference between believing in something and accepting the possibility of it.


----------



## CheezusCrust

I doubt there is such a thing. They basically think it's what goes on in our brain and that it'll always remain the same -- even after death.


----------



## ugh1979

warbore said:


> We do have a spirit and a soul. We all have 1 brain with 2 halves to that brain each one has an essence which we call (Soul+spirit) and i don't know why this info is ignored or overlooked. I lost my spirit. when i got divorced i wanted to die my emotions in my head seemed to expand and shifted to the right and one fell off i still have one side left but it is in the side that it moved to and the left side is empty.


I've never heard anyone say one side of the brain hosts the soul and the other the spirit.

There is nothing so support what you are saying.


----------



## ugh1979

mfd said:


> I agree with you.
> 
> If souls/spirits existed in the general religious view, and we're merely incorporeal beings bound to a temporary physical form, than I would wonder why brain damage would affect that. If who we are is our spirit/soul, and our spirit is incorporeal, than physical damage shouldn't have any effect on who we are. Yet it does.
> 
> When someone experiences brain damage their personality can change as a result. How they feel about others can change, as can their interests, views toward subjects, and outlook. That implies (at least to me) that the "us" part of us is physical.


Exactly. I can't see how there can be any separation of the physical mind and consciousness.

To me it's like saying software could be run without hardware.


----------



## ugh1979

warbore said:


> soul/spirit is like an expression through our flesh and if the flesh is damaged then it can not be expressed through our flesh. and i am not speaking from the modern dogma of religion i'm speaking from experience.





warbore said:


> Sorry wrong. Too bad you dont understand the truth when you here it or in this case read it.





warbore said:


> One thing i haven't mentioned is that about 2 weeks after my soul/spirit shifted to the right and my spirit dropped off. My heart the 'spiritual' part of my heart burst and appeared to be something green drained from it.


I was going to ask you to provide some evidence but the green drainage and 4 post count surely indicates a troll? :lol


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> The body may only carry out expression of the soul, but not control the contents of it.
> Also, I don't think that personality has to be a component of the soul. Again, it is simply your existence, assuming existence is possible without a body, and it manifests itself through the body. Ex. if reincarnation occurs, you may have a different personality in one life than in another. Really puts a whole new perspective on "putting yourself in someone else's shoes". These are all just possibilities.


If you are a totally different person when you are reincarnated then what of the previous "you" has carried over?

We are our experiences, so no continuation/memory of them surely equals the death of all of "you" when you die and no reincarnation is possible?


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> There are different types of atheism. If you believe without a doubt that there is no soul or life after death, then you are a "hard atheist" or "strong atheist". There's a difference between believing in something and accepting the possibility of it.


Incorrect.

Hard/strong atheism _only _means that the person _knows _there is no god. It says nothing of spirituality. (Even though it's a sure bet that they wouldn't believe in that either, as with most other atheists)

Atheism is only related to the existence of god. Nothing else.


----------



## Beige

ugh1979 said:


> If you are a totally different person when you are reincarnated then what of the previous "you" has carried over?
> 
> We are our experiences, so no continuation/memory of them surely equals the death of all of "you" when you die and no reincarnation is possible?


Yes, you may no longer have the personality you once did. You may be an entirely different person, but it is still you because you would be experiencing that next life (in the case of reincarnation).


----------



## Beige

ugh1979 said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Hard/strong atheism _only _means that the person _knows _there is no god. It says nothing of spirituality. (Even though it's a sure bet that they wouldn't believe in that either, as with most other atheists)
> 
> Atheism is only related to the existence of god. Nothing else.


True, but it is the best way to describe it. I don't believe there is any word like this only referring to spirituality. My point was that being an atheist does not have to involve the rejection of all spiritual beliefs.


----------



## Beige

Beige said:


> Yes, you may no longer have the personality you once did. You may be an entirely different person, but it is still you because you would be experiencing that next life (in the case of reincarnation).


Then of course there's the fact that we do not know the limits of human understanding. We could all be wrong about how the connection between the physical and the metaphysical works.


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> Yes, you may no longer have the personality you once did. You may be an entirely different person, but it is still you because you would be experiencing that next life (in the case of reincarnation).


Which part is the "you" though if it's a totally different person? That makes no sense.

You could say everyone is "you" if that is the case.


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> True, but it is the best way to describe it.


No it's not. It's simply wrong. It's like saying someone who doesn't believe the earth is round _has _to be theist.



> I don't believe there is any word like this only referring to spirituality.


That's because there isn't one, as spirituality is so vague a term it very difficult to define, where as atheism/theism is relatively well defined.

However you can't just choose that the term strong-atheist is the correct word.



> My point was that being an atheist does not have to involve the rejection of all spiritual beliefs.


Indeed, so why use any of the versions of atheist to describe someone who rejects the spiritual?


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> Then of course there's the fact that we do not know the limits of human understanding. We could all be wrong about how the connection between the physical and the metaphysical works.


We could be wrong about fairies not existing as well, but until we find evidence of them there is no reason to believe in them.


----------



## Ramondo

And if there is such a thing as a soul, there's no evidence that we all have one, that we each have one and no more than one, or that we carry the same one for eternity, that souls don't come and go throughout our life, etc. The concept of a soul is only necessary for religious purposes, or if you need something that can never be proven not to die with the body and the mind.


----------



## Beige

ugh1979 said:


> Which part is the "you" though if it's a totally different person? That makes no sense.
> 
> You could say everyone is "you" if that is the case.


By "different person" I mean "different personality". It is "you" in the sense that you are the one experiencing that life. You are the one doing the perceiving and the thinking, even though you may do it differently than you did in a past life due to changes in the personality. 
If you experience severe brain damage that results in a major change in your personality, you are still the same person, correct?


----------



## Beige

ugh1979 said:


> We could be wrong about fairies not existing as well, but until we find evidence of them there is no reason to believe in them.


I agree. I never said anything about believing in the soul. I already stated that I was simply exploring possibilities. There is never harm in that. Glacial asked what the soul was and I stated what I believe the soul could be, if it exists.


----------



## Beige

ugh1979 said:


> No it's not. It's simply wrong. It's like saying someone who doesn't believe the earth is round _has _to be theist.
> 
> That's because there isn't one, as spirituality is so vague a term it very difficult to define, where as atheism/theism is relatively well defined.
> 
> However you can't just choose that the term strong-atheist is the correct word.
> 
> Indeed, so why use any of the versions of atheist to describe someone who rejects the spiritual?


I meant it was the best way to describe it at the time. Can't you accept that maybe I was just tired or in a hurry? I already said that you were right on that point. I think you understand the point I was trying to get across. No further nitpicking is necessary.


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> By "different person" I mean "different personality". It is "you" in the sense that you are the one experiencing that life. You are the one doing the perceiving and the thinking, even though you may do it differently than you did in a past life due to changes in the personality.


So even if they have a different personality and no memory of experiences or knowledge from the previous life, it is still "you"? To me that sounds like a blank slate with all trace of "you" absent.



> If you experience severe brain damage that results in a major change in your personality, you are still the same person, correct?


The friends and families of people who have had severe brain damage do sometimes comment that they are not the same person. When someones personality and memory changes so significantly they can be no different mentally than a stranger to their friends and family. Everything that made them "them" is gone.

Obviously some of who they were before exists on some level in their physical brain, but the ambiguity of the word "you" could in some cases justifiably mean they were in fact someone "else" post brain damage.

Defining what "you" actually means is an ongoing debate in philosophy/psychology, which makes these discussions all the more difficult.

Either way, it indicates there can be no "you" that is transferred between humans IMO.

That's just one issue I have with it. Don't even get me started on the physics, neurological, biological, logic etc issues that exist with spirituality and reincarnation.


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> I agree. I never said anything about believing in the soul. I already stated that I was simply exploring possibilities. There is never harm in that. Glacial asked what the soul was and I stated what I believe the soul could be, if it exists.


Fair enough. 

It's always good to explore every avenue but it's silly when people find nothing that has any evidence but still choose to believe it's true. (I'm not saying you are, i'm just talking about in general)


----------



## ugh1979

Beige said:


> I meant it was the best way to describe it at the time. Can't you accept that maybe I was just tired or in a hurry? I already said that you were right on that point. I think you understand the point I was trying to get across. No further nitpicking is necessary.


Ok i'll let you off this time. :b


----------



## mud

Humans are curious and would have wondered very early on what is the difference between the living and the dead. It is not an easy thing to answer without modern knowledge so they came up with an imaginary thing to explain it.

Now we can explain it. The body is a biological machine that needs various things to keep it running. It is like a car that will keep going as long as it has fuel, oil, water and air. If you cut off the fuel then it dies, but because of the material it is made of it will degrade very slowly so you can bring it back to life again as long as it has not been left for so long that it rusts away. The human body can also be brought back to life within a much shorter time limit because the biological material it is made of starts to degrade fairly quickly.

But just like there is no soul making a car 'live', the body is kept going by food, water and oxygen and a working system. If a valve fails in the engine, it dies, but you could get spare parts and repair it. If a valve fails in the heart, you die, but within more strict limits, you could replace it with a spare and carry on living.


----------



## Xenos

The soul is an idea that religious people invoke so they can avoid dealing with who people actually are. People are messy, lustful, clumsy, brilliant, dynamic and complicated. By emphasizing your "soul," an abstract entity that exists only in some imaginary world of absolutes, they de-emphasize everything that makes you who you are. It's just a way of dehumanizing people.


----------



## ugh1979

Xenos said:


> The soul is an idea that religious people invoke so they can avoid dealing with who people actually are. People are messy, lustful, clumsy, brilliant, dynamic and complicated. By emphasizing your "soul," an abstract entity that exists only in some imaginary world of absolutes, they de-emphasize everything that makes you who you are. It's just a way of dehumanizing people.


That's a good point. Belief in the soul is antihuman.


----------



## inerameia

If there is a soul, a consciousness in which physical life is not required, then I'd think it "resides" in the brain. Or maybe we are souls that reside in the brain. The brain can be damaged, so it could be like a CD player malfunctioning so the CD can't play correctly. That's just my opinion. I'm just curious about it because of out-of-body experiences and NDEs. It's just, the universe is so mysterious, it seems like anything could be possible. I understand that might sound like wishful thinking, but I'm open-minded about it...


----------



## wonderfulmilk

"What is the soul/spirit"?


----------



## D G

It's a human invention to try and describe something humans don't understand (yet)


----------



## michijo

the soul is the dog-mind of the human that can astrally project out of the human head connected to the body by the ectoplasm dog-leash. After you die, the ghost of a dog leaves your body and urinates on a fire-hydrant.


----------



## Recipe For Disaster

Glacial said:


> People of faith often refer to the soul or spirit and usually allude to it living on forever, even after their physical body dies. They seem to view it as some entity that is seperate from their physical body and somehow larger than life and sacred.
> 
> I have been thinking about this subject. I kind of think that the "soul/spirit" is just the human ego, perhaps an evolutionary manifestation and mentality that "this existence will live on and I will not let go of life. It is simply too horrific to think I will not exist!" Our "souls/spirit" is simply the compilaton of all our emotions and tender feelings, which are mere chemical reactions in our brains.
> 
> Any thoughts?


The spirit is atman, which is the same in all beings. The soul is simply the mind or ego. Emotions are not mere chemical reactions, they are perceptions. Oxygen reacting with hydrogen is a mere chemical reaction. An emotion is a chemical reaction, plus a perception. Perception can only happen when atman is involved.

The nature of atman is bliss, which is why it is considered sacred and time and space exist as perceptions within it, why is why we live on after death. Death is merely a perception arising within atman.


----------



## ugh1979

Recipe For Disaster said:


> The spirit is atman, which is the same in all beings. The soul is simply the mind or ego. Emotions are not mere chemical reactions, they are perceptions. Oxygen reacting with hydrogen is a mere chemical reaction. An emotion is a chemical reaction, plus a perception.


Emotion and perception is a result of incoming stimuli and neural activity in your brain. (Chemical and electrical)



> Perception can only happen when atman is involved.


Do all livings things have atman, seeing as we know the vast majority of livings things have perception.



> The nature of atman is bliss, which is why it is considered sacred and time and space exist as perceptions within it, why is why we live on after death. Death is merely a perception arising within atman.


How does atman after death of it's physical host perceive of anything external without the senses/hardware with which to perceive them with? How can there be any sense of self, and therefore consciousness, when it has no physical host?


----------



## VelvetAir

This is a bit off topic, but you should read the Phaedrus for Socrates's chariot metaphor. It's silly nonsense, but I also find it to be a rather beautiful concept of the soul and the quest for enlightenment


----------



## kkanne20

I think of the soul as either one of a few things. 
It could be:
my essence-a conceptual conglomeration of my will to live, my compassion, my desires
or
my memory (in others)-it lives on after I die


----------



## inerameia

I think you're right when you say it's just ego. I think people have death anxiety so they develop or are taught the belief that they are truly immaterial beings temporarily stuck in a physical form. I guess it's one of the self-deceptive coping mechanisms.


----------



## Hornbeam

*Our Souls*

Its all rubbish about your soul as far as Christianity goes. When you go to heaven the parts of your personality which are bad are supposed to be vanquished from you. You have no sexy thoughts, jealousy, lust, hatred or anything else that is evil. Just how much of your personality would survive this transition? Would you in fact be you or would there be so much stripped away that you were a mere shadow of your former self. sexuality for example is part of your core personality, it defines you in so many ways, this is why those who have sexual perversions which society deems inappropriate are so intransigent in being rehabilitated. They are who they are to the core. So is everyone. without the bad inside us all we would be empty. Entering heaven without the nasty parts of ourselves would be like being lobotomized.


----------



## ugh1979

Hornbeam said:


> Its all rubbish about your soul as far as Christianity goes. When you go to heaven the parts of your personality which are bad are supposed to be vanquished from you. You have no sexy thoughts, jealousy, lust, hatred or anything else that is evil. Just how much of your personality would survive this transition? Would you in fact be you or would there be so much stripped away that you were a mere shadow of your former self. sexuality for example is part of your core personality, it defines you in so many ways, this is why those who have sexual perversions which society deems inappropriate are so intransigent in being rehabilitated. They are who they are to the core. So is everyone. without the bad inside us all we would be empty. Entering heaven without the nasty parts of ourselves would be like being lobotomized.


Exactly.

I frequently question afterlife believers on this but it's not a question they like to think about it seems. As you say, it's clear that much of one's personality and what makes them "them" would be stripped away, and all that would be left would be a "*go*l*d* standard" where everyone would surely be the same. There surely can't be any difference in opinions in heaven? Heaven sounds like a place that would be full of mindless clones.

All the versions of heaven i've heard from believers are idealist nonsense that fall apart with more than a moments thought and challenge.

People will dream the impossible if it makes them feel better though, regardless of intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## diamondheart89

I don't know about christianity, but when I think of soul, it means whatever makes me, me.


----------



## fredbloggs02

For diversity I'll give my interpretation of the men of Stoa on the soul.

The Stoics use the word Pneuma to refer to the Divine essence of the universe which preceded the beginning of all things, and permeates all things. Pneuma is the essence of the human self of Divine origin that overreaches alteration as its tension slackens through the body, and, in some cases, outlasts death. 

The ruling part of man, according to the Stoics, is mind. They are divided over how long the individual self persists; if in each individual it outlasts the death of the body, and for how long; or whether it ascends to God at once, and if in unifying with God retains personal identity. I meet the same obscurity in the attempt to understand the Pythagorean theory of Metempsychosis.

The universe, according to the Stoics, will eventually die before regenerating, in an eternal cyclic motion. When this happens all souls will either be restored to bodies, ascend to God, or remain in the state of Pneuma.

.....

Some words of Kirillov from Dostoevky's "The Possessed" I found deeply depressing, then interesting:

Stavrogin: You've started believing in the future eternal life? 

Kirillov: No, not in a future everlasting but in an everlasting life here. There are moments, you reach moments, and time comes to a sudden stop, and it will become eternal.” 

.....

Kirillov: There are seconds, they come only five or six at a time, and you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony, fully achieved. It is nothing earthly; not that it's heavenly, but man cannot endure it in his earthly state. One must change physically or die. The feeling is clear and indisputable. As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes, this is true. God, when he was creating the world, said at the end of each day of creation: 'Yes, this is true, this is good.' This . . . this is not tenderheartedness, but simply joy. You don't forgive anything, because there is no longer anything to forgive. You don't really love — oh, what is here is higher than love! What's most frightening is that it's so terribly clear, and there's such joy. If it were longer than five seconds — the soul couldn't endure it and would vanish. In those five seconds I live my life through, and for them I would give my whole life, because it's worth it. To endure ten seconds one would have to change physically . . . .”

.....

Another passage that interested me:

All was quiet on the earth and in the sky, like the heart of a person during the minute of morning prayer. But, occasionally a cool wind would spring up from the east, lifting the manes of the horses, which were coated in frost. We set off; five skinny nags hauled our carts with difficulty along the winding road up Gud Mountain. We walked on foot behind them, putting rocks behind the wheels when the horses ran out of strength. It looked as though the road led to the sky because as far as the eye could see, it kept ascending, and finally, became lost in the clouds, which had rested on the height of Gud Mountain since the day before, like a kite awaiting its prey. The snow crunched under our feet; the air became so rare that it was painful to breathe; blood flooded into our heads every minute, and with it, some sort of gratifying feeling spread to every vein. I was so delighted to be so high above the world: it was a childlike feeling, I won't deny it, but withdrawing from the demands of society, and withdrawing into nature, we become children without meaning to, and everything that has been acquired falls away from the soul- and it becomes as it once was, and probably will be once again."

I often wonder how close one could get to the tabula rasa in life; how close that consciousness would be to physically changing form or death- even to the knowledge of a dragonfly emerging from its nymph state.


----------

