Souls: what are they supposed to be now?

Souls are one of these concept central to many faiths and have been used to describe and explain a plethora of things. Souls were the resting place of emotions, of conscience, of virtues and vices and even of reason. Basically, souls were the stuff that made us "us". With the advancement of our knowledge of biology, medecine, neurology as well as the advancement of psychology and of the philosophy of the mind, pretty much every single thing that the soul was supposed to do was found to be a function of the brain that could be altered and manipulated, relegating the soul to more and more abtract or clearly redundant and undemonstrable functions.

As an atheist, I believe of all the ridiculous things religions have designed and kept over time, the concept of souls as an actual thing (as opposed to some poetic metaphore to refer to a person's mind and personnality) is probably one of the most preposterous and filled with wishfull thinking. I view it only as some sort of plot device to "explain" life after death and preserve someone's belief and dream in immortality (or at least longer life then what they have).

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now? How would you describe them? What makes you say they are real instead of the product of your imagination and desire (or just metaphores to refer to a person's mind)? To those who don't believe in the existence of souls, why don't you believe in them considering the cultural importance of the belief?

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

You will probably get a different answer from anyone who choose to answer because we understand differently according to what wisdom levels we have reached in the chosen spiritual path we are on.

Amanaki said:

You will probably get a different answer from anyone who choose to answer because we understand differently according to what wisdom levels we have reached in the chosen spiritual path we are on.

Click to expand...

I indeed expect a variety of answers with a few points in common between all of them. It would be odd, that suddenly, every single theist would totally agree on something.

I tend to take souls as metaphorical. I think people attached to it because it's a representation of 'I' to which people don't want to let go. It's an ego thing actually.

When you really think about it , we never really came and we never really left so such an identity is irrelevant.

epronovost said:

Basically, souls were the stuff that made us "us". With the advancement of our knowledge of biology, medecine, neurology as well as the advancement of psychology and of the philosophy of the mind, pretty much every single thing that the soul was supposed to do was found to be a function of the brain that could be altered and manipulated

Click to expand...

It's the part of you that wears a body and gives it animation, perhaps the brain is its throne, which presents it with this image or that. It's a judge of the mural of actions, memories, and ideas that the brain shows it. It is the choice device that allows you to have a will. It works with the body it wears. Hence it is probably transferable, as its degeneration or limits are defined by the biological matter that wrap around it. It has no center, it defines rather then allows itself to be defined. The ancients say that life is but a small part of a long journey that the soul is on. Where is it going ? That's the question that haunts us all as we carry it forth from one door to the other

epronovost said:

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

Click to expand...

I believe I've read that some of the Jewish faith only believe there is sheol, perhaps they might explain that.

To me the soul is an emanation from God.

There is nothing to make me sure of its existence, I may only believe in it because it is a cultural inheritance.

But I think it has as much of a leg to stand on as competing cultural concepts such as the physical resurrection of humans. So I’m ok with it.

Solomon of the Bible was a theist who didn’t believe in either soul or resurrection. But it seems to be a rarer take on theism.

epronovost said:

Souls are one of these concept central to many faiths and have been used to describe and explain a plethora of things. Souls were the resting place of emotions, of conscience, of virtues and vices and even of reason. Basically, souls were the stuff that made us "us". With the advancement of our knowledge of biology, medecine, neurology as well as the advancement of psychology and of the philosophy of the mind, pretty much every single thing that the soul was supposed to do was found to be a function of the brain that could be altered and manipulated, relegating the soul to more and more abtract or clearly redundant and undemonstrable functions.

As an atheist, I believe of all the ridiculous things religions have designed and kept over time, the concept of souls as an actual thing (as opposed to some poetic metaphore to refer to a person's mind and personnality) is probably one of the most preposterous and filled with wishfull thinking. I view it only as some sort of plot device to "explain" life after death and preserve someone's belief and dream in immortality (or at least longer life then what they have).

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now? How would you describe them? What makes you say they are real instead of the product of your imagination and desire (or just metaphores to refer to a person's mind)? To those who don't believe in the existence of souls, why don't you believe in them considering the cultural importance of the belief?

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

Click to expand...

I don't agree that the idea of souls needs is part of one's imagination. The connection with souls and religion is popular; but, if you take away religion (since many have different concepts of souls so you can't ask for one definition) you'd fine it's a English language thing not a religious one.

1. Soul:
There are two definitions of the word soul. This is the one less popular in religious context: emotional or intellectual energy or intensity, especially as revealed in a work of art or an artistic performance. (Oxford)

It's a heart feeling, an emotion, an "sense" of awe. Your identity and sense of self. Here is another way to describe it: Ol' Soul

Someone who has a greater appreciation and understanding of things that might be dismissed by others their age (urban dictionary) or A reincarnated person. (Our dictionary) This one is interesting. Maybe because each time we are reincarnated, we learn something new or wisdom towards the divine.

Soul in religious terms is just a religious way of saying feeling/essence/something "experienced" from the heart. One's identity. One's sense of self.

Not all religions have this but in a secular sense, that's all it is.

epronovost said:

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now?

Click to expand...

I believe souls to be subtle bodies in dimensions beyond our familiar three. They are then not directly detectable by physical senses and instruments.

Souls go beyond mere self awareness. The individual possesses qualities of identity, character, desires, and cares. Heart, mind, and will of a constant, single living entity.

The entity is real and not an illusion.

epronovost said:

To those who don't believe in the existence of souls, why don't you believe in them considering the cultural importance of the belief?

Click to expand...

That is not a sufficient reason to believe in soul and the associated beliefs of God/Gods/Goddesses, heaven, hell, judgment, rebirth. I am a strong atheist. I do not even believe in creation, birth and death. But all kinds of beliefs can exist under the umbrella of my religion, i.e., Hinduism. So, if someone believes, it is OK, it is amusing. They can't accept death and dissolution.

epronovost said:

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

Click to expand...

this item is a question self contrary

believe in a Greater Spirit...but not the opportunity to live with It....????

Thief said:

believe in a Greater Spirit...but not the opportunity to live with It....????

Click to expand...

There are plenty of planets in hte universe, yet you will never see any other than this one. It's not because a thing exist that you get to have it or are capable of enjoying it.

epronovost said:

Souls are one of these concept central to many faiths and have been used to describe and explain a plethora of things. Souls were the resting place of emotions, of conscience, of virtues and vices and even of reason. Basically, souls were the stuff that made us "us". With the advancement of our knowledge of biology, medecine, neurology as well as the advancement of psychology and of the philosophy of the mind, pretty much every single thing that the soul was supposed to do was found to be a function of the brain that could be altered and manipulated, relegating the soul to more and more abtract or clearly redundant and undemonstrable functions.

As an atheist, I believe of all the ridiculous things religions have designed and kept over time, the concept of souls as an actual thing (as opposed to some poetic metaphore to refer to a person's mind and personnality) is probably one of the most preposterous and filled with wishfull thinking. I view it only as some sort of plot device to "explain" life after death and preserve someone's belief and dream in immortality (or at least longer life then what they have).

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now? How would you describe them? What makes you say they are real instead of the product of your imagination and desire (or just metaphores to refer to a person's mind)? To those who don't believe in the existence of souls, why don't you believe in them considering the cultural importance of the belief?

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

Click to expand...

The ancient definitive of soul is analogous to the modern definition of memory. All our personal memories, which form over a lifetime, define the unique person that we are; our soul. These will also form habits and quirks that others see as us; unconscious memories.

When neural memory is created, aspects of the limbic system in the core region of the brain, will attach emotional tags as the sensory input is written to the cerebral matter. Our memory has both sensory content and emotional tagging. This is the connection between soul and emotions; memory and emotions. The ancients sensed how the brain worked, but explained their internal observational data in a different way.

As far as the eternal soul, there are other memories besides neural memory. For example, the DNA is a type of memory that perpetuates after death, through biological offspring. Both Reincarnation and Evolution work under the assumption of a type of base memory; DNA=soul, that perpetuates over time, with modifications each cycle, based on laws of selection; divine or natural.

The animal soul is connected to memories within the operating system of the human brain which we call natural instinct. These are inherent in the DNA memories, and have a primal and classic flavor that transcends time, while also collecting temporal personal memories for each person and generation.

The Divine soul is an aspect of the DNA operating system that is more modern and unique to humans. Jung called these aspects of perpetual genetic memory, the inner self and the archetypes of the collective unconscious.

The ancients concepts were developed using introspective based sciences; where you observed internal feedback from the brain. Based on the feedback, they were able to map out things that external science is only starting to explore. For example, it is hard to deal with the operating system of the brain unless you have direct terminal access to the code. You can't see code properly by tinkering externally with the hard drive or other hardware.

epronovost said:

a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation,

Click to expand...

reincarnation is real.

epronovost said:

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now?

Click to expand...

a connection among everything. for example, me and a rock. what connects me and a rock? the souls.

epronovost said:

Souls are one of these concept central to many faiths and have been used to describe and explain a plethora of things. Souls were the resting place of emotions, of conscience, of virtues and vices and even of reason. Basically, souls were the stuff that made us "us". With the advancement of our knowledge of biology, medecine, neurology as well as the advancement of psychology and of the philosophy of the mind, pretty much every single thing that the soul was supposed to do was found to be a function of the brain that could be altered and manipulated, relegating the soul to more and more abtract or clearly redundant and undemonstrable functions.

As an atheist, I believe of all the ridiculous things religions have designed and kept over time, the concept of souls as an actual thing (as opposed to some poetic metaphore to refer to a person's mind and personnality) is probably one of the most preposterous and filled with wishfull thinking. I view it only as some sort of plot device to "explain" life after death and preserve someone's belief and dream in immortality (or at least longer life then what they have).

To those who believe in souls, what are they supposed to be now? How would you describe them? What makes you say they are real instead of the product of your imagination and desire (or just metaphores to refer to a person's mind)? To those who don't believe in the existence of souls, why don't you believe in them considering the cultural importance of the belief?

Finally, is there anybody on this forum who would qualify as a theist who doesn't believe in any form of "life after death" (reincarnation, heaven, hell, limbo, ghostly life of some sort, etc)?

Click to expand...

The soul is the mind/consciousness. The continual stream of your thoughts/consciousness. What makes you; you. You got it. That's why "I think therefore I am" is so famous.

God breathed on man, and man became a living soul. - Genesis

The breath of God (who is the original soul) is able to ignite new flames of consciousness. Simple as that. So like lighting a candle with another candle.

Your soul is like a flame and it needs fuel to keep going. This is why you need your physical brain. It acts as the fuel for the flame and it generates thoughts for you and so your soul can live in it. The soul is basically being continually generated by the brain. But you also have a spirit-body. Everyone does. And this is where the soul would be if your physical body dies.

If you receive the holy Spirit then the soul can receive generation from the holy Spirit. This is called having the "mind of Christ". So you can share the thoughts of God.