Do you believe in a soul?
- Thread starter AUM
- Start date
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
To me, it really does.
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
Spiritual concepts are of extreme importance for me.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 4w5
- MBTI
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 4w5
They are the core center of my life. I believe they give life purpose. They are just so many things that us humans can't explain to deny the existence of super natural forces and can therefore be explained through spiritual matters. They guide my life, they give me strength.
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
The things that happen to me, the things I see, feel, interact with. Everything. It would all loose meaning. The world would be dry, dull, flat, everything would just be cold. The intrinsic assumptions I make that lead me forward would no longer be there, I would have no reassurance. All the delicate connections that tie everything into one meaningful whole, would be broken.
- MBTI
- iNfj
- Enneagram
- 9w1
seeing as I would also say yes, I'll answer as well. Just as I seek to understand the typical mundane world, I also seek to understand the spiritual world. Basically, I don't really make a huge difference between the two, other than seeing one is what we're trained to do, and the other takes some work. Also, having knowledge of the spiritual realm allows you to make various changes that would be impossible any other way. I would never be able to prove it in a laboratory setting (because whatever entities I deal with when casting magic are VERY cynical), but I am rather good at bring on rain. If the potential's already there (as in over cast, but dry) I can make it rain within a minute of when I want it to.
ETA: if you meant why it matters what someone else believes, it doesn't.
Last edited:
- MBTI
- infj
- Enneagram
- ....
Thats why I do my best to try and think things through the physical realm, of course I go on tangents
Teaist
Newbie
- MBTI
- INTJ
Yes to 'believe in a soul', no to 'leaves your body.' I've recently undergone a change of mind, and below I'll describe the position I've ended up with. It's still rather tentative, and will probably remain that way until I find the time to do enough research to fill in enough details.
I view the human soul as a physical thing. I'm a Christian, so I believe that immaterial souls are possible and do exist (God, for instance). However, I currently view the case for physicalism (as opposed to mind-body dualism) as a philosophy of mind as far more compelling both Biblically and philosophically. I consider a human soul to be comprised of a human body. Obviously, the brain is the rather important bit.
My position is very unusual among fellow evangelical Christians though. Mind-body dualism (as a philosophy of mind for humans) has been the dominant position in the church for so long that any disavowal of it is seen as an attack on Christianity as a whole. I just don't see why physicalism threatens Christianity. Plus, there is a (deeply troubling and in my opinion highly counter-Biblical) idea among Christians that the physical world is something to be escaped from and is somehow less worthy of consideration than the 'immaterial' world.
So, unlike most of my fellow Christians, once my body dies, I expect my soul to be dead with it until the final resurrection. This doesn't bother me in the slightest. Nor am I bothered by not being composed of some 'special' immaterial substance. My physical body might be a little wonky, but I like it. Some people seem to be deeply offended by the idea that they might be entirely composed of meat, fat, and other physical stuff and think that it would automatically rob them of free will, personhood, etc. This sort of thinking seems awfully hasty to me.
The strongest arguments against physicalism I've encountered in mainstream philosophy so far are Frank Jackson's Knowledge Argument and John Searle's Chinese Room. (I can briefly describe these for anyone who's interested, but I'm a very amateur philosopher so it may be hard to follow!)
invisible
On Holiday
- MBTI
- none
i don't believe in a soul. i think my mind is the home of everything that i consider to be unified as "me" and that it consists of organic components in a balance that will turn to soil and feed the flowers when i die. science hasn't explained us but i'm not very attached to the idea of humanity as the highest possible form of existence in this plane and it seems likely to me that artificial intelligence will develop somehow beyond us in the distant future, or that we'll integrate ourselves with robotics to become something that is more than what we can currently consider ourselves to be. i believe that i will go on existing in a sense after i die through the impacts i have on other people and my world (a sort of legacy that i want to be positive, however limited it may be), and i'm happy being part of something bigger. i'm very at peace with what i believe to be my finite nature and i greatly appreciate my opportunity to experience thoughts and emotions, and brief mortal connections with other creatures. the idea of persisting as any kind of centralised consciousness or immaterial force for eternity deeply shudders me, i don't think i can really imagine anything worse.
- MBTI
- Meh
- Enneagram
- Meh
I don't believe in a "soul" in the way that implies I continue to be "someone" after I die. It's my belief that we all become "something", possibly reintegrated as a part of the greater whole, when we die, but existence after death is hardly what we know it to be now. I wouldn't doubt if it were an unconscious existence. I think the fear of death, the unknown, and this existence being the only thing we know, leads people to fantasize about having a soul that continues on in existence after death. I don't remember being unhappy before I was born, so I doubt I'll be unhappy when I stop existing (because that would sort of be impossible) However, I have no way to prove my beliefs, and to each their own. Should I be wrong someday, awesome! What ever happens really doesn't depend on my belief in it.
magister343
Permanent Fixture
- MBTI
- INTP
- Enneagram
- stupid system (5w4)
Do I believe in a soul?
That depends on how the word is defined. I prefer not to think of the soul as some immaterial substance which may make up the most important part of the self, even though its effect on the parts of the self that control consciousness appear negligible. Instead, I prefer to think of the soul as the form of the whole self, as information describing who we are including but not limited to how our physical brains work. Our souls are not fundamentally different from that of other animals, only more complex and more beloved by their Creator.
Do I believe in continuous consciousness after death?
No, but I do believe that when we die we are not gone forever. I find Conditional Immortality (also called Christian Mortalism, and closely related to but not synonymous with Soul Sleep) to fit scripture best, as well as making far more scientific sense. In this view, the human soul is not and never was immortal. As explicitly stated in the bible, only God is immortal. Immortality is described as a gift and something worth seeking, not an intrinsic quality of the soul as Greek Philosophers and Pagans believed. The soul is as mortal as the body, and does cannot exist (or at the very least is not conscious) without some sort of body to bear it. In the last days everyone who ever lived will be resurrected (or rather recreated from God's memory) and face judgment. Those who are in Christ will be translated to new incorruptible bodies which the Lord will sustain forever on the New Earth, whereas those who reject Him will be separated from his presence. As God is omnipresent, there is is place where one can be separated from God, only the state of non existence. God is the only objective existence, apart from whom there is nothing. God loves us all and wants to preserve us all, but will not force himself on those who refuse his love even if it means watching them destroy themselves. This doctrine strikes me as more accurate and portraying a far more benevolent God than in Annihilationism (where God actively kills what may have been a naturally immortal souls for disobedience), Eternal Damnation (where He forever tortures those he supposedly loves, long after depriving them of any chance to ever repent), or Universalism (where He forces Himself on all with no respect for their free will, even if his blessings are percieved as torment by those who hate him).
That depends on how the word is defined. I prefer not to think of the soul as some immaterial substance which may make up the most important part of the self, even though its effect on the parts of the self that control consciousness appear negligible. Instead, I prefer to think of the soul as the form of the whole self, as information describing who we are including but not limited to how our physical brains work. Our souls are not fundamentally different from that of other animals, only more complex and more beloved by their Creator.
Do I believe in continuous consciousness after death?
No, but I do believe that when we die we are not gone forever. I find Conditional Immortality (also called Christian Mortalism, and closely related to but not synonymous with Soul Sleep) to fit scripture best, as well as making far more scientific sense. In this view, the human soul is not and never was immortal. As explicitly stated in the bible, only God is immortal. Immortality is described as a gift and something worth seeking, not an intrinsic quality of the soul as Greek Philosophers and Pagans believed. The soul is as mortal as the body, and does cannot exist (or at the very least is not conscious) without some sort of body to bear it. In the last days everyone who ever lived will be resurrected (or rather recreated from God's memory) and face judgment. Those who are in Christ will be translated to new incorruptible bodies which the Lord will sustain forever on the New Earth, whereas those who reject Him will be separated from his presence. As God is omnipresent, there is is place where one can be separated from God, only the state of non existence. God is the only objective existence, apart from whom there is nothing. God loves us all and wants to preserve us all, but will not force himself on those who refuse his love even if it means watching them destroy themselves. This doctrine strikes me as more accurate and portraying a far more benevolent God than in Annihilationism (where God actively kills what may have been a naturally immortal souls for disobedience), Eternal Damnation (where He forever tortures those he supposedly loves, long after depriving them of any chance to ever repent), or Universalism (where He forces Himself on all with no respect for their free will, even if his blessings are percieved as torment by those who hate him).
Last edited:
- MBTI
- enfp
- Enneagram
- -
No.
These fairy tales were used to explain death and justify extreme social superiority. Even while we are alive, we are constantly changing, so it's hard to argue about a fixed entity which spans with us throughout our whole existence. They invented personal names to try to simulate this, but it's not working very well. Looks more like superstition, which relies on repeated enforcement. Eg: you take a kid, you call them "genius" and keep re-doing this, or call them "retard" and keep re-doing it, and you create pygmalion effect.
These fairy tales were used to explain death and justify extreme social superiority. Even while we are alive, we are constantly changing, so it's hard to argue about a fixed entity which spans with us throughout our whole existence. They invented personal names to try to simulate this, but it's not working very well. Looks more like superstition, which relies on repeated enforcement. Eg: you take a kid, you call them "genius" and keep re-doing this, or call them "retard" and keep re-doing it, and you create pygmalion effect.
Last edited:
