Consequences of no soul?

For those posters who believe in such things, what would be the effect of not having one? I believe the majority opinion is that animals don’t possess one, so the fact of life is not inconsistent with its absence. How would you tell a living human body without one from the ones presuambly so equipped?

It would help if you defined your terms. What do you mean by “soul”?

I believe that you can’t “not have one” Living without a soul is like thinking without a brain.

For one thing, it’s hard to dance…

The answer to your question would have to be based more or less on personal belief. My humble opinion is that all humans and animals have a soul. I’m not religious, but I think of a soul as your consciousness, in a way (sorry; I can’t think of a better way to say that). I think that the soul and brain are entirely independent of each other also; that is, a person’s soul is neither good nor evil, but completely neutral, and the brain controls everything else. Therefore, if a person or animal had no soul, they could still function normally, but there would be no one inside the body experiencing it. YMMV. Does any of this make any sense?

But like I said, it’s whatever you believe. I can’t think of any way to prove whether or not a soul actually exists.

flowbark I was referring to whatever it is that [most] western religions believe continues on beyond death. The immortal kind.

Asmodean So by that criterion, even asparagus has a soul. I don’t think that’s what they’re preaching at the local Christian churches. It’s their idea of a soul I wanted to debate. Of course Moslems, Jews and anybody else are more than welcome to weigh in. Nay, encouraged.

even sven LOL :smiley: Then if I’ve got one, it’s crippled!

Zero Hero If a soul is completely independent of a brain [nervous system], why don’t plants have one?

The automatic door at the Kwik-E-Mart wouldn’t work for you anymore.

(At least, that’s what happens in “The Simpsons”, the most theological of all television shows.)

I never said plants didn’t have a soul. I have no way of knowing whether they do or not. I guess a soul [by my definition] could survive without a nervous system, but it would be an utterly pointless and dull existance for the plant. Which kind of makes you wonder why some living things would have a soul and others would not. I’m to tired to think right now :stuck_out_tongue: so I’ll just leave it at “I don’t know” and leave you to your thread.

[sub]…and to spell correctly, apparently[/sub]


If something has attributes which can be detected, verified or measured by independent and impartial observers, then its existence can be proved or disproved - or, as is fairer to say in some cases - very strong evidence can be offered in favour of its existence or non-existence.

Religious people are willing to accept the existence of some things on ‘faith’. Such things, of necessity, belong to a separate class of items - those having attributes which cannot be detected, verified or measured by independent and impartial observers.

The ‘soul’ is one such item, as is ‘God’. Many people have faith in such things, whereas I consider them to be ideas with no greater substance than, say, the Easter Bunny. More formally, I regard them as ‘mental constructs’ in the minds of those who have been infected by their particular reigious virus and who serve the virus’s commands to propagate it to other minds.

Hence, to answer your question, the absence of the soul would have no consequences since it has no discernible attributes to begin with. If it did have discernible attributes, its existence would cease to be a matter of faith.

I was considering starting up a similar thread, but taking the subject from the reverse. In other words, if there is a soul, what does it do?

Some of the comments in other threads from those who believe in the existence of souls have been rather interesting. Some have said that souls are neccessary for free will, and indicated that it is the soul that is responsible for the decisions they make. Which is odd, since specific behaviours can be traced to specific regions of the brain. Damage that part of the brain, and the behaviour is no longer possible. The same applies to personality.

This is very interesting. Are you then admitting that thinking cannot be done without a brain? How about memory and emotion, which are also handled by the brain?

The brain is a material object. The soul is not, and has not a brain. If thinking cannot be done without a brain, then the soul can neither think, feel, nor remember. So what good is it?

Taking this a different route: What are the origins of the term soul? I know it meant something else to the Ancient greeks than what modern religion makes it. And AFAIK it was never mentioned in the Old Testament. In fact, the the Old Testiments view on life after death tended towards the Material rather than the Spiritual. I.E God would destroy this earth and make another one, Raising the dead (which the context seemed to me to suggest bodies comming out of the grave…but its been awhile since ive been to church or read the bible). Not much was mentioned (again AFAIK, i could be wrong) about spirits or soul. So its possible the Greek term soul got introduced around Jesus’ supposed time, and was corrupted into what it is now.
Just a thought, anybody have any thoughts, evidence or otherwise?

It enables you to have Free Will.

People in essense are souls. That is what you are when everything else is stripped away, regardless of whether you think souls are eternal or not.

Let alone jump.
Silliness aside, I agree with others who say that’s it’s debatable if anyone has a soul, as defined by the religious folks among us.
But I agree that if anyone does, everyone does.
This question cannot be answered. :confused:
One little glass of wine with my Spam sandwitch and …

Forgot something.
Sheesh! :slight_smile:

Since there is no proof that there is such a thing as a “soul” - you can’t measure it, study it, slice it or dice it - I’d have to say the answer scientifically speaking is: Trick Question.

And since you then get into a purely philosophical debate, I’ll leave that to the philosophers, because the only answer that makes any sense to me is: Michael Bolton.

Yer pal,