Do we have souls?

[Weyfield]

No, I don't believe so. Just an evolutionary accident that worked out pretty well. Any other explanation is very "human" in its conception, in my opinion. Once we die that's it, so we've got to live life to the fullest while we're here I think.

[Enduro]

We have souls, sometimes they're raised differently, and transgenderism rises. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We dont know for sure, but if there is incarnation and being reborn in another body, dreams do offer the possibility of opening up the realm of the afterlife, to us still living, temporarily and experiences that some say is supernatural and bern lived over again. We cant know for sure, as long as we are among the living.

[Virginiá]

No, I don't believe so. Just an evolutionary accident that worked out pretty well. Any other explanation is very "human" in its conception, in my opinion. Once we die that's it, so we've got to live life to the fullest while we're here I think.

This! There is no scientific proof for souls. The only 'proof' is essentially people's opinions and words from a book.

In my opinion, I'm not willing to require verifiable proof for most everything else but not this concept. So no until legitimately proven otherwise for me.

[Frodo]

No.  Soul is a word that describes our sense of self which is a product of our biology.

But, once you're dead or braindead even, it's over.  Whatever it is that was you is 100% gone forever.  That's the only conclusion I can draw.   

Believing in a soul that outlives your brain is just wishful thinking and flattering yourself. 

That has to be the most depressing outlook on death that I have ever read. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We all know your biological journey is over, but Religion teaches theories of incarnation of soul through rebirth or resurrection and that is the supernatural thing, on where we come from before we are born, a Creator or GOD or Father.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

It would really have to depend on how one defines soul before we can get carried away.

[Weyfield]

No.  Soul is a word that describes our sense of self which is a product of our biology.

But, once you're dead or braindead even, it's over.  Whatever it is that was you is 100% gone forever.  That's the only conclusion I can draw.   

Believing in a soul that outlives your brain is just wishful thinking and flattering yourself. 

That has to be the most depressing outlook on death that I have ever read. 

Depressing perhaps, but also realistic and based in fact. Many other explanations it seems are based on our own human fear of death and being forgotten, rather than any scientific or sensible reasoning.

[Swedge]

I personally don't think we have a "soul". Unless of course your definition of a soul is basic morality and free will.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No.  Soul is a word that describes our sense of self which is a product of our biology.

But, once you're dead or braindead even, it's over.  Whatever it is that was you is 100% gone forever.  That's the only conclusion I can draw.   

Believing in a soul that outlives your brain is just wishful thinking and flattering yourself. 

That has to be the most depressing outlook on death that I have ever read. 

I dunno, better than eternal punishment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No.  Soul is a word that describes our sense of self which is a product of our biology.

But, once you're dead or braindead even, it's over.  Whatever it is that was you is 100% gone forever.  That's the only conclusion I can draw.   

Believing in a soul that outlives your brain is just wishful thinking and flattering yourself. 

That has to be the most depressing outlook on death that I have ever read. 

I dunno, better than eternal punishment.

I've heard about a theory that the quantum physics could prove our consciousness can survive in some other dimension after we die. Since my knowledge about the quantum physic is next to nothing, I reserve my judgement. Still, even if it's true, I wouldn't call it a "soul".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In an extension of my previous post, allow me to rant.

According to the SDA church (my denomination), people do not have souls without both body and breath.  They take this from Genesis, in which "man became a living soul" after God formed Adam's body and breathed life into him.  Personally, I think that's a weak argument, because "soul" in our language is frequently used to simply mean a person.  (Then again, if you look at the original languages that the Bible was written in, it could prove me wrong on that point.)  Considering that many traditional SDA doctrines are based on KJV prooftexts and do not account for the original languages, this should come as no surprise.  (The investigative judgment is the same way, being based on the KJV's mistranslation of Daniel 8:14.)

In Matthew 10:28, Jesus says, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Instead, fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell."  This text proves problematic for the traditional SDA mortalist doctrine, as it implies that believers have immortal souls and unbelievers do not (a conditional immortality of sorts).  Another one of the SDA prooftexts for mortalism is Ezekiel 18:20, "The soul that sins, it shall die."  Again, this is based purely on old translations.  More recent ones say, "The one that sins," and the context from the surrounding verses proves that it is NOT teaching the mortality of the soul.  What it is saying it is that a person who does good will not be punished for the sins of their parents or children, but that God will hold people accountable for their own sins.  Simply put, the sinner who does not repent is the one that will be lost, as opposed the person who does repent.  If anything, this verse is actually further evidence of conditional immortality.  Acts 2:34, another SDA prooftext, is also taken out of context.  In the KJV it says, "David is not ascended into the heavens," but most modern translations put the verse in the past tense, such as "David did not ascend into heaven."  The verse is not teaching about death or the state of the dead, but rather that Jesus is the Messiah who descended from David, and that He is the one David prophesied about in Psalm 110.  Again, the surrounding verses provide context that the traditional SDA usage does not.

Not too long ago, I heard a guy preaching on 3ABN who said that the "immortal soul" doctrine came from paganism and was "Christianized" by the Catholic church (taken directly out of The Great Controversy.)  Honestly, I think that argument is pretty weak, too.  There's evidence that pagans practiced a form of baptism before Christians did, yet Jesus commanded that believers be baptized (Matthew 28:19).  Does that make baptism pagan?  It's also been speculated that the Babylonian god Tammuz may have had a cross for a symbol, but does that make the Christian cross pagan?  (It's for this reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and other argue that Jesus was crucified on a stake rather than a cross.)  Typically, these allegations of "Christianized pagan traditions" are usually lobbed by atheists and other skeptics trying to disprove the Christian faith, but they spread like wildfire in conservative churches and denominations.  And The Two Babylons, the anti-Catholic hit piece that shares many similarities with The Great Controversy and is cited as fact by many SDA preachers (to prove the prophetic interpretation of Catholicism as the "whore of Babylon"), is a complete sham.

In short, I would call my views on death and the soul to be somewhat agnostic, although I lean towards a conditional immortality in which believers have immortal souls and unbelievers do not.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'll grant that the KJV translates Daniel 8:14 differently than most other translations, but I don't see where as far as the investigative judgment doctrine is concerned that affects it. Both cleansing the temple and making right the temple have the same degree of applicability to it. Plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of the investigative judgment doctrine, but I don't see how that verse has been translated as one of them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I'll grant that the KJV translates Daniel 8:14 differently than most other translations, but I don't see where as far as the investigative judgment doctrine is concerned that affects it. Both cleansing the temple and making right the temple have the same degree of applicability to it. Plenty of other reasons to be skeptical of the investigative judgment doctrine, but I don't see how that verse has been translated as one of them.

Most modern translations use "restored" or another similar word.  If anything, I believe that this is more accurate when compared to the original language.  Desmond Ford, the Australian theologian who was defrocked by the church for pointing out the errors of the IJ, has discussed this point.  Another error that hasn't been discussed is this: SDAs have traditionally interpreted the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 as beginning with the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC.  But the chapter makes it clear that the prophecy begins with the defiling of the sanctuary.  How did Artaxerxes' decree constitute a defiling of the sanctuary in heaven?  If you can't answer that, then there is no biblical basis for 1844 or the IJ.  And many traditional Adventist scholars have agreed that without the IJ, the rest of the church's doctrine will collapse like a house of cards.

[CatoMinor]

No of course not. We are souls, what he have are bodies.

[Virginiá]

I've heard about a theory that the quantum physics could prove our consciousness can survive in some other dimension after we die. Since my knowledge about the quantum physic is next to nothing, I reserve my judgement. Still, even if it's true, I wouldn't call it a "soul".

Doesn't sound right. We couldn't even really verify that theory, either. Our brain is nothing more than a very complex biological computer.

I don't think there is any soul at all. Once we die, that's it. There is nothing more. Your memories, thoughts and being cease to exist. A hallmark of our sapience seems to be the thought that there is more, that somehow we are special and not just a bag of meat with a computer in our heads giving us the reality we perceive.

Sounds sad and/or lackluster, but all scientific evidence points to it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I've heard about a theory that the quantum physics could prove our consciousness can survive in some other dimension after we die. Since my knowledge about the quantum physic is next to nothing, I reserve my judgement. Still, even if it's true, I wouldn't call it a "soul".

Doesn't sound right. We couldn't even really verify that theory, either. Our brain is nothing more than a very complex biological computer.

I don't think there is any soul at all. Once we die, that's it. There is nothing more. Your memories, thoughts and being cease to exist. A hallmark of our sapience seems to be the thought that there is more, that somehow we are special and not just a bag of meat with a computer in our heads giving us the reality we perceive.

Sounds sad and/or lackluster, but all scientific evidence points to it.

That's why I'm sceptical of this whole theory.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I actually think the idea of a soul that's easily separable from the body is a distasteful holdover from Neoplatonism that's something of an embarrassment to Christianity. I don't really think this Because Science, I think it because the manner in which Christianity acknowledges and deals with the body has radical implications and would have even more radical ones if psychosomatic unity were more completely accepted. The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the Church that Cartesian dualism makes sense.

[dax00]

Preface: I am an atheist.

I take the term 'soul' to mean an actively decisive entity. Considering that all things can be brought down (in the scientific realm) to the reaction of atoms with one another; that past, present, and future are one in the same, thus proving a sense of determinism; considering quantum mechanics implies bonds not implied by the mere physical reactions of atoms; there must unequivocally be some decisive force that kickstarted something. My personal hypothesis regards the (super-slow) radiation of black holes sends energies into alternate universes, binding matter - what scientists may term 'dark matter'.

This comes with a degree of chance.

The question is: do things exist? The honest answer is 'no, things do not exist'. The followup question should be: if things do not exist, how can things be perceived to happen? This is where Einstein famously spoke on how spooky he thought quantum mechanics was, stating that he'd like to believe our Moon exists when he doesn't look at it. Fact is: nothing exists in any sense unless it is perceived. In other words, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, it does not make a sound. Until things are perceived, everything, according to quantum mechanics, boils down to a range of probabilities. One entity can only be sure of its own existence, if that. In other words, you cannot know if other people think.

In that all things in the universe are essentially linked, and that this principle of perception is all-inclusive, I am led to the the conclusion that all things, living and non-living, are a part of one single conglomeration - a sole decisive entity. Once a part of 'soul' is removed, it is recycled, keeping the balance of 'soul' in the universe equal. If one dies, his 'soul' transforms into another energetic state, based on chance.

That nothing truly exists suggests that the universe has a net of zero 'soul', which in turn suggests that there must be (what I term) 'anti-soul'. Whatever 'anti-soul' is, it remains to be seen.

So, to answer the question succinctly, I do not believe we individually have 'souls', rather are part of a single collective 'soul', singular along with everything else in the universe.