Thread: Dangerous?

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Just don't be so quick to dismiss everything you don't understand as superstitious nonsense. No, you don't know there is no such thing as a soul. Just because a belief is old, doesn't mean automatically that it's wrong.

People again say things like they knew what was in our heads and the evidence behind our arguments. There might not be a conclusive proof, since, technically, you can never disproove something. But there are tons of evidence suggesting a soul doesn't exist. All the functionality and outcomes once thought to be provoked by the soul are now explained scientifically as being produced by the brain. People want to believe that their minds are something more, something more meaningful, but that is just wishful thinking. The brain performs all the functions usually associated with the soul.

I don't consider something that's "old" wrong. I consider something that's unscientifical, most probably, wrong (especially something so contradictory as the soul - even if it existed, it wouldn't be like most people believe it).

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Just because a belief is old, doesn't mean automatically that it's wrong.

Did I ever imply that? What I'm saying, is that once upon a time, maybe 100'000 thousand years ago, humans thought to them self "I'm pretty smart, but those animals are not, thus I probably have something, which they do not. What could that be?".

You can probably figure the rest of it out on your own, but it's the essence of it. While I certainly can't disprove it, I can say with confidence, that my explenation of the soul's origins is pretty accurate.

That's exactly what I mean. Are you not doing the exact same thing that you think those cavemen did 100,000 years ago? You're making up some explanation for something you don't understand that makes you feel good and makes sense to you. I find this humorous.

I don't know if the cavemen did it. I do know that you're doing it right now.

All the functionality and outcomes once thought to be provoked by the soul are now explained scientifically as being produced by the brain. People want to believe that their minds are something more, something more meaningful, but that is just wishful thinking. The brain performs all the functions usually associated with the soul.

Is it merely produced by the brain, or are these things that happen in the brain the soul's manifestation in the physical realm? How would you know?

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

That's exactly what I mean. Are you not doing the exact same thing that you think those cavemen did 100,000 years ago? You're making up some explanation for something you don't understand that makes you feel good and makes sense to you. I find this humorous.

I don't know if the cavemen did it. I do know that you're doing it right now.

wombat, lol

Not only is Marvo doing it, but also the whole scientifical community. He is not making up something that goes against all evidence. In fact, he's basing on all the evidence to make up his mind - contrary to you. So you're sayign you're wiser than all the doctors who spend years studying and reviewing evidence based o nthe scientifical method? heh tell me why

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Is it merely produced by the brain, or are these things that happen in the brain the soul's manifestation in the physical realm? How would you know?

Heh, how do you expect me to answer to irrefutable arguments? If you're into logical fallacies, search for "irrefutability" on Wikipedia.

Incorrect. I'm building my explenation on scientific methods and explenations, while the cavemen (or whoever invented the soul concept) based their idea on not knowing better. It is true that I 'do not know better than science', and I really don't pitty the cavemen either for anything, since they really didn't know better.
I pitty the people who today, would rather believe in the caveman thinking, than the modern human thinking.

It's impossible for a dream to be a cause of death. Something else must be wrong with the body in order to die. People who die in their sleep have physical ailments, sometimes things that they didn't know about. The idea that the soul leaving the body will become trapped and kill you is completely ridiculous.

And by the way, you dream every night, don't you? LDing is no different.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not understanding how you can say that believing in spiritual things such as a soul goes against "modern human thinking." Remember, you're in the minority. Not that the popularity of something proves or disproves anything but most "modern" humans do believe this.

Also, I googled for evidence, existence and soul and found only a new york times article that was opposed to the idea. (why am I not surprised) There were however several links to sites supporting the existence. None of them, including the new york times, of course, could in any way be considered scientific. So where is this "scientific" evidence of the absence of a soul? And if it does exist, is it any more valid than the evidence the cosmonauts brought back about the existence of God? Somehow, I doubt it.

Kromoh, I wasn't trying to stick you with an irrefutable argument. The point I was trying to make was that the soul lies outside the realm of being scientifically proven or disproven, and that any "evidence" that suggests it doesn't exist will be inconclusive at the very best. I think any scientist would agree that this is true.

So back to my original point, OP, no one can tell you that this absolutely isn't true, or even that evidence suggests it's not true. They can only tell you their opinion on the matter. I can only do the same.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Incorrect. I'm building my explenation on scientific methods and explenations, while the cavemen (or whoever invented the soul concept) based their idea on not knowing better. It is true that I 'do not know better than science', and I really don't pitty the cavemen either for anything, since they really didn't know better.
I pitty the people who today, would rather believe in the caveman thinking, than the modern human thinking.

This is a simple question, how do you know the cavemen did anything? How do you even know they were able to think abstractly, maybe they only relied on instinct to survive. What are you basing all of this on? Something some body else said? Instead of listening to everyone else's opinions and choosing one you think is right, or want to be right why don't you find out for yourself? Also if you didn't want to get into a big discussion you should have stopped posting don't tell me about cause I don't care[No offense]. Go google OBE, or astral projection and try to do it for yourself, go into it with an open mind because so far everything that you've posted I'm almost sure you can't prove any of it yourself, but this is an experiment you can try.

Originally Posted by Dash

It's impossible for a dream to be a cause of death.

How do you know? That's just your opinion. As meaningless as anyone else's.

Originally Posted by Dash

Something else must be wrong with the body in order to die. People who die in their sleep have physical ailments, sometimes things that they didn't know about.

Heh. You obviously haven't heard of the many cases of physical death with no discernible cause.. google "cot death syndrome" for one example.

Originally Posted by Dash

The idea that the soul leaving the body will become trapped and kill you is completely ridiculous.

Ridiculous to you.. again, just your opinion, right?

Originally Posted by Dash

And by the way, you dream every night, don't you? LDing is no different.

Have you ever lucid dreamt? If you have, you would know that it is a world of difference fron normal dreaming. Sheesh.

This thread gives me an idea for February's "Task Of The Month":

Find your Dream Guide and ask him/her if this theory is correct, just don't end up accidently killing yourself.

Originally Posted by hankwheels

This thread gives me an idea for February's "Task Of The Month":

Find your Dream Guide and ask him/her if this theory is correct, just don't end up accidently killing yourself.

This may be embarrassing on my part, but what is a dream guide? Please explain =3.

i see almost everyone who are cool doing ld many many times somehow enjoys denying this so much.. and in another thread all you start saying, i want to ld so much so much so much...
no one got brains?
of course its your choice to never come back in your body.. because you all are so obsessed with fantasy world, dream fantasy realms...why should you want to go back...
so as soon as such possibility comes..some never return...
and you pretend you are advanced in ld stuff... bah..

skuruza - just look what you want, it requires greater consciousness to understand that you are free from body..only then you will wont return..so you can try this ld stuff..

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not understanding how you can say that believing in spiritual things such as a soul goes against "modern human thinking." Remember, you're in the minority. Not that the popularity of something proves or disproves anything but most "modern" humans do believe this.

Might be only where you live. I'm pretty sure the majority of educated people wouldn't believe you can die in a dream because you soul leaves your body. But as you already said, ad populum is not a valid argument

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Also, I googled for evidence, existence and soul and found only a new york times article that was opposed to the idea. (why am I not surprised) There were however several links to sites supporting the existence. None of them, including the new york times, of course, could in any way be considered scientific. So where is this "scientific" evidence of the absence of a soul? And if it does exist, is it any more valid than the evidence the cosmonauts brought back about the existence of God? Somehow, I doubt it.

Kromoh, I wasn't trying to stick you with an irrefutable argument. The point I was trying to make was that the soul lies outside the realm of being scientifically proven or disproven, and that any "evidence" that suggests it doesn't exist will be inconclusive at the very best. I think any scientist would agree that this is true.

As you said, you cannot disprove something. And there is absolutely no even remotely scientifical backing to the existence of a soul. So, I, together with the majority of the scientific community, go for the skeptical view and regard it as non-existing.

If something cannot be proven by science, it doesn't exist. Science isn't limited to "phyisical" things, as I say and repeat tirelessly. It is, however, limited to was is verifiable and valid.

Yes, evidence against the soul will always be inconclusive, because there's no way to scientifically disprove something. But that doesn't make the soul real, and believing so is ad ignorantiam.

Even if you imagine the soul in hypotetical reasons, it is very contradictory in its very concept. If the soul can influence the outcome of a setting of events, then science would beable to study it. But yet there is no case where a "beyond" was considered a possibility.

Stating that we can never know if the soul exists and using it as backing for one's beliefs in the soul is a fallacy though, and that's the irrefutability I told you about.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

So back to my original point, OP, no one can tell you that this absolutely isn't true, or even that evidence suggests it's not true. They can only tell you their opinion on the matter. I can only do the same.

In my opinion, under empirical observations, and a skeptical point of view, one can say that the concept of soul as most people define it is invalid, when not impossible. Scientifical literature shows zero cases of people who died in sleep and whose cause was associated with the soul leaving the body. And a zero is pretty rare in science. Even the most effective medicine will never have a zero failure rate.

i found out more. i realized that there was a misunderstanding on my side. i thought she emant physical harm. she meant mental harm. that opens up stuff entirely new. what calmed me though is that it's all just a theory.

I'm pretty sure the majority of educated people wouldn't believe you can die in a dream because you soul leaves your body.

Probably so, but that doesn't mean that they fully reject the existence of a soul or of God.

http://www.livescience.com/strangene...tists_god.html

The general population is even more convinced.

http://www.gallup-international.com/...llennium15.asp

In America, fully 94 percent of people believe in God. Whether belief in God translates to belief in a soul, I don't know. I would guess though that it does. I would agree that they probably don't believe that you can die in a dream by becoming separated from your body.

In my opinion, under empirical observations, and a skeptical point of view, one can say that the concept of soul as most people define it is invalid,

That's a statement from you I can respect. I just took offense to everyone saying that they knew there was no such thing, as though it had in fact been disproved.

So OP, under the stone-faced atheism of science, there is no evidence for or against a soul. (Though most scientists personally believe that there is something more to reality than just what is physically observable. If that says anything). If you fit into this category, then there is your answer. If you have any faith in spiritual things, then you need to decide for yourself if such a thing is dangerous, because no one can tell you.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Though most scientists personally believe that there is something more to reality than just what is physically observable.

Evidence? That might be true for a small group of scientists on your area, but that doesn't mean apply to the whole scientifical community (nor most of it), like it or not.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not understanding how you can say that believing in spiritual things such as a soul goes against "modern human thinking." Remember, you're in the minority. Not that the popularity of something proves or disproves anything but most "modern" humans do believe this.

Correct. Now, take a look at these humans. They are mostly people who are religious, and who hardly knows anything about science, or at least is not that much into it. The more you get into science, the more you understand.
If we were to stop teaching our children the arts of religion, and instead give them the free choice, whether they will learn about religion, or science, I would certainly say many more would pick science. The only reason we will have religious people around, is because of the indoctrination. What I'm saying, is that there is a majority, because their brains were "defiled" when they were still infants.
As a second reminder, many "religious" people, are more like confused people, who don't really take cares to believe anything, and when asked, they say religion because they really don't know any alternatives.

Also, I googled for evidence, existence and soul and found only a new york times article that was opposed to the idea. (why am I not surprised) There were however several links to sites supporting the existence. None of them, including the new york times, of course, could in any way be considered scientific. So where is this "scientific" evidence of the absence of a soul? And if it does exist, is it any more valid than the evidence the cosmonauts brought back about the existence of God? Somehow, I doubt it.

We have valid evidence, that a brain can function without a soul (read: sentient robots)

Kromoh, I wasn't trying to stick you with an irrefutable argument. The point I was trying to make was that the soul lies outside the realm of being scientifically proven or disproven, and that any "evidence" that suggests it doesn't exist will be inconclusive at the very best. I think any scientist would agree that this is true.

So you're believing in something that can not be proven in any way? Ignorance impends.

So back to my original point, OP, no one can tell you that this absolutely isn't true, or even that evidence suggests it's not true. They can only tell you their opinion on the matter. I can only do the same.

We can tell him, that nobody can come back from a dream, and repport they died, becuse of projection, since well, they were dead. Thereby we can conclude, that any source to this theory is disproven.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Evidence? That might be true for a small group of scientists on your area, but that doesn't mean apply to the whole scientifical community (nor most of it), like it or not.

look at the link I provided. You'll see it's true.

Lol that doesn't supply any kind of informaiton as to who was interviewed, and where. It could be In United States, in Cambodia, in Alabama, or at the author's beach house.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

So OP, under the stone-faced atheism of science, there is no evidence for or against a soul. (Though most scientists personally believe that there is something more to reality than just what is physically observable. If that says anything). If you fit into this category, then there is your answer. If you have any faith in spiritual things, then you need to decide for yourself if such a thing is dangerous, because no one can tell you.

There is no stone-faced atheism in Science. Only in individuals.
Most of the scientifically minded people I know are actually Agnostic, as am I.
Science is just the study of nature and the quest to understand how it works. Most scientific facts are actually just theories. When evidence crops up that contradicts those theories, they are adjusted to encompass the new evidence.

I like to think of myself as a scientific person (although I have no actual training in any branch of science), and I think that any scientific person needs the ability to alter their views if evidence presents itself, otherwise everything would go to shit. So personally, I can't state as a fact that a soul doesn't exist like a lot of people here are doing, and if any evidence arose to suggest it did, then I would accept that. However, I've used my understanding of science to form my own opinion that a soul doesn't exist. Because science has explained a lot that used to be attributed to a soul, so I think anything left unexplained that a soul would explain will eventually be explained by science. Science explain everything because it is everything, its nature. The concept of a soul to me is just a word to describe those aspects we don't yet understand.

As for God. I can't do the same thing because unlike the soul, nothing in science makes God any less probable. If there were a God, it would have a scientific explanation behind it also. Rather, I think the concept of a God is something that cannot be proven either way, so I don't debate it or even think about it. I don't see a point in it. I do however accept that other people do see a point, and need to believe in God for their own sense of purpose and well being, so I'd never try to take that away from them either.

Originally Posted by skuruza

i found out a little more about it- something about parallel dimensions orsomething, i do not fully understand... i don't know she warns me and believes this. i told her that its proven that dreams are a product of your subconcious, but she says the soul leaves and gets trapped.

i will post later when i read it more.

Pretending for a second a soul does exist, why does it make any sense that it would get trapped inside it's hosts body's mind? It's own mind, essentially? I mean, come on.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

At the risk of being the pariah of Dreamviews, I'm going to disagree with everyone here.

I'm not saying it's absolutely true what your grandma told you. I'm saying that I don't know. For everyone posting in this thread to boldly say "No, there is absolutely NO danger in LD's. The soul DOES NOT even exist," takes a real lot of balls. HTF do you know there is no soul? HTF do you know that people who died in their sleep didn't get lost in a dream?

Well, for the same reason I don't believe in invisible pink unicorns I don't believe in a soul. Zero evidence. If there was even a single shred of evidence I might take the idea seriously, but there isn't.

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

You're all just like the first cosmonauts who came back to earth and brazenly declared, "Wellp, we've been to 'heaven.' Didn't see God there! He doesn't exist!"

With regards to OP's question, I'm going to give you the first honest answer this thread has seen. Here it is: I don't know, and guess what, no one else knows either. Everyone has their opinion. But you know what they say about opinions and a**holes. Everyone has one, and everyone thinks theirs is the only one that doesn't stink. So your grandma may be right, she may be wrong. I would venture to say that the people who wrote that book though have about as much evidence to back up what they say as the people you've asked here, which is none. Yes, I fall into that category too.

Who has a better chance of being right? Us, who have opinions based in science, or his grandma who recently read a bullshit book? I mean, come on. Taking your stance I could tell you that eating any kind of food Monday through Friday is going to kill you. You'd still eat food wouldn't you? Of course! It'd be stupid of you not to considering I said something with absolutely no evidence towards it. Use some common sense. Those people that wrote that book have no evidence. Just because it's printed and published doesn't make it true.

EDIT:

Also:

Originally Posted by unseen wombat

Secondly, in some things you're right. I don't deny that I'm glad that at some point people started saying hey, demons don't cause disease, germs and viruses do, and there's something we can actually do about it. That's great that we have drugs and surgeries instead of rituals. In other things however, scientists scale the cliffs of ignorance, and finally reach the summit and enlightenment, only to find a bunch of religious leaders who have been sitting there for centuries. (I forget where I heard that quote, but it's not mine). For example, a small, and maybe a weak example, granted:

In the beginning... God said, "let there be light," and there was light.

For years people scoffed at this. "How can there be light with no stars to create it?" Yet, from wikipedia's article on the big bang, "A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos)."

Yes, photons. And there was light.

I'm sure there are better examples, but that was the first one that popped into my head.

Just don't be so quick to dismiss everything you don't understand as superstitious nonsense. No, you don't know there is no such thing as a soul. Just because a belief is old, doesn't mean automatically that it's wrong.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard someone say. I mean, are you even serious right now? I'm not even sure how the Bible saying god say "let there be light" even relates or somehow proves a point. So you're saying since the Bible says light was created at one point, that it was right that light was created at one point? I really have no idea where you were going with that. Shed some, ahem, light on that if you will.

There are many people, particularly new agers I think but I might be wrong who beleive we are often out of body when we think we are having ordinary dreams. Certainly that is accepted on astral society and in the beyond dreaming section here, but it doesn't stop arguments. My point is thought that I've been on these forums and most people agree that even though you're out of your body you cannot be harmed, so whichever way you look at dreaming I hope you can see that they're pretty harmless .

Originally Posted by Dash

It's impossible for a dream to be a cause of death. Something else must be wrong with the body in order to die. People who die in their sleep have physical ailments, sometimes things that they didn't know about. The idea that the soul leaving the body will become trapped and kill you is completely ridiculous.

And by the way, you dream every night, don't you? LDing is no different.

thats what the book says- trapped in some other place, cant return.

she says if you do not die, something about being retarded...

she says that retarded people's mind/soul/conciousness is ina nother place and there body is here so they're retarded...

Originally Posted by skuruza

thats what the book says- trapped in some other place, cant return.

she says if you do not die, something about being retarded...

she says that retarded people's mind/soul/conciousness is ina nother place and there body is here so they're retarded...

Your grandma is retarded.